Computer Glitches?
Yesterday, all United Airlines flights were grounded. Shortly after that, the New York Stock Exchange suspended all trading. The reason given for both? Computer Glitches.
Once that was announced, U.S. Homeland Security confirmed that terrorism was not involved with either incident. How did they know that after so short a period of time? Did UA or the NYSE tell them? (And how would they know?) Or maybe Homeland Security has developed a piece of software that can tell you in less than an hour, maybe in ten minutes, whether a given act or incident was perpetrated by terrorists. You know, you'd enter the incident and it would flash "red" if terrorists were behind it, "green" if not...or something like that.
So what should we think of all this?
First, is there some logically or empirically compelling reason to accept the explanations of either the airline, the exchange, or Homeland Security? Think about it. If terrorists were behind any of this, would they rush to judgment and blurt it out? Unlikely. And while I don't know the facts behind these "no terrorism" assertions, what exactly does the explanation "computer glitch" mean? Does it mean the cause of the trouble was a computer? But that doesn't tell us what was the cause of the computer glitch. Did it just "happen"? Was it a software error, i.e., bad programming? Was it human error (not a terrorist human, of course)? Was it a virus or some other mal-something in the software (which couldn't have been planted by a terrorist, of course)?
Second, you have to wonder why nothing more forthcoming than "computer glitch" was offered in either case. Shouldn't they have more information than that? And if so, given the inconvenience to literally millions of people - both those planning to fly on Wednesday, and those trading stocks - does such a vague, unsupported comment really suffice for the victims of this, er, inconvenience?
Really, one doesn't need to be a genius, or have any knowledge of computer hardware or software, to be skeptical about these "official" explanations and statements. And, if you're wondering, such a reaction would consist of a healthy skepticism.
Once that was announced, U.S. Homeland Security confirmed that terrorism was not involved with either incident. How did they know that after so short a period of time? Did UA or the NYSE tell them? (And how would they know?) Or maybe Homeland Security has developed a piece of software that can tell you in less than an hour, maybe in ten minutes, whether a given act or incident was perpetrated by terrorists. You know, you'd enter the incident and it would flash "red" if terrorists were behind it, "green" if not...or something like that.
So what should we think of all this?
First, is there some logically or empirically compelling reason to accept the explanations of either the airline, the exchange, or Homeland Security? Think about it. If terrorists were behind any of this, would they rush to judgment and blurt it out? Unlikely. And while I don't know the facts behind these "no terrorism" assertions, what exactly does the explanation "computer glitch" mean? Does it mean the cause of the trouble was a computer? But that doesn't tell us what was the cause of the computer glitch. Did it just "happen"? Was it a software error, i.e., bad programming? Was it human error (not a terrorist human, of course)? Was it a virus or some other mal-something in the software (which couldn't have been planted by a terrorist, of course)?
Second, you have to wonder why nothing more forthcoming than "computer glitch" was offered in either case. Shouldn't they have more information than that? And if so, given the inconvenience to literally millions of people - both those planning to fly on Wednesday, and those trading stocks - does such a vague, unsupported comment really suffice for the victims of this, er, inconvenience?
Really, one doesn't need to be a genius, or have any knowledge of computer hardware or software, to be skeptical about these "official" explanations and statements. And, if you're wondering, such a reaction would consist of a healthy skepticism.
Comments