The virus now is called H1N1 and is no rare occurrence among Harding students. Responses were different when students were asked about the virus. Lang is correct, but the truth is the virus is only dangerous and deadly if it is not properly treated, according to Christa Smith, who had H1N1 several weeks ago.
Junior Brad Grant, a nursing major, said he believes the media have blown the virus out of proportion. Sure enough, he got the virus, and the money.
She said symptoms usually include an aching body, cough, fever of more than degrees and sometimes vomiting, nausea and diarrhea. McCarty urged students to stay home if they were showing symptoms to prevent spreading the virus.
It seems to me, Swine Flu has been exposed for what it is: A big bully, whose talk is worse than its bite. Take off your surgical masks, and feel free to switch back to Dial from Germ-X. Koskinen and others in the know felt a high degree of confidence 20 years ago, but only because they were aware of the steps that had been taken — an awareness that, decades later, can still lend a bit more gravity to the idea of Y2K. Contact us at letters time. The company planned for more than staff to be on duty system-wide on New Year's Eve to be ready for any problems.
By Francine Uenuma. You May Also Like. Already a print subscriber? Go here to link your subscription. Need help? Visit our Help Center. Few of those reporters ever bothered to check on North's background. A better description of North than "computer expert" would be "world-class wing nut.
For example, in , North published None Dare Call It Witchcraft , which asserted that witchcraft was real--the real-live broomstick-flying kind--who were summoning the devil on a daily basis. This is not a joke. North thought witchcraft was as real as science.
But that's not all. North's other writings identify him as a "Christian Reconstructionist. The Reconstructionists and many, many evangelicals went BIG for the idea that "since God created the world in 4, B. North didn't broadcast these whackdoodle beliefs to the reporters who interviewed him, but he successfully folded apocalyptic imagery and concepts into the Y2K discussion through his "clearing house" of Y2K online links.
This intensified of the sense of impending doom was helped along by his commentary, which always put the most dire spin possible everything. So, when you peel away the onion layers of the Y2K disaster scenario, you discover at its core nothing more than that "ol' time religion.
So, then, what are we left with? Not much. A bug that needed to be fixed, but which never posed a world-shaking threat. Which leads us to second complaint about my original post: "There weren't any disasters because we fixed all the bugs. The IT folk claiming this aren't thinking straight. They need to look at every large IT project that they've worked on. How many of those projects have been completed, perfectly on time, running near flawlessly, the moment they're switched on? If there'd been the possibility of huge disasters, at least one, and probably many, would have fallen through the cracks.
Beyond that, the potential severity of unfixed Y2K bugs can be assessed simply by looking at countries that didn't do much or any Y2K bug fixing.
This, from the January 7, edition of Australia's Financial Review :. While some piddling Y2K problems occurred in those countries as in the US there were no disasters, even though their computer systems were more likely to contain obsolete software. Ipso facto, there wasn't a substantial threat of an "end of the world as we know it" disaster due to the Y2K switchover.
Now, as a baby-boomer myself I can empathize with the boomer IT folk who want to tell their grandchildren they did their part to save the world. Very superhero. Yay, us! But, between you and me, it's just not true. I realize it's not nearly as fun to tell your grandchildren that you fixed a bug that kept some of your company's older programs from erroring out.
Why is this important today? Here's why: the failure of any Y2K disaster to occur distorts how some people view climate change. On the one hand, some people compare climate change to Y2K and believe it's a similar hoax. That's dumb because climate change, unlike Y2K which had a deadline, is something that we're experiencing on a daily basis. It's not something where we'll hit a certain date and then we'll find out whether or not the disaster scenario is real.
0コメント