Full story at:

http://www.y2kculture.com/politics/19990215.korea.html

-- Declan McCullagh (declan@y2kculture.com), February 15, 1999

Answers

How long will that URL hold that article?
Copied here in case it disappears as most do.

Korea's Re-Militarized Zone
By Declan McCullagh, February 15, 1999

One phone line. Just one phone line. That's all that links North and South Korea, two countries that legally are still at war. One phone line is the only means military commanders have to communicate across the world's most heavily armed border, a re-militarized zone as ripe as a rotting melon for carnage and mayhem.

Enter Y2K and the likelihood of glitches in military telecommunications systems. Could that sole, lonely link disappear? The US Army, for instance, has encountered problems with its DCASS Base Telephone Switch Program. Hardware and software upgrades are required and are scheduled to be done by September 30, 1999.

There's also the possibility of disruptions in weapons systems. Did we mention that North Korea's allegedly high-tech weapons are Soviet-made, and there's no money available to fix 'em?

Oh-oh.
The United Nations Command last Thursday finally got the Y2K jitters. In an unusual meeting in the border city of Panmunjom, UN, American, North Korean, and South Korean commanders met to talk about ways to thwart Y2K instability.

The outcome: More talks. "UNC addressed the computer system problem, Y2K, and proposed further meetings be held on this subject with the [North] Korean People's Army," Japan Economic Newswire quoted a UNC spokesman as saying. According to Yonhap News Agency, North Korea seemed willing to go along with the expert-level-talks idea.

(In the truth-is-as-strange-as-fiction category, one Y2K novel includes such a Y2K-sparked Asian confrontation.)

Anonymous sources said the real-life Koreas were considering the unprecedented step of -- get this -- installing a second phone line. As if they shouldn't have thought of this before?
----------------------------------------------------------------
xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), February 15, 1999.

Let's stop it with the copyright violations, folks, ok? All URLs on y2kculture.com will last at least through 1-1-00.

-- Declan McCullagh (declan@y2kculture.com), February 15, 1999.

Declan, how do you know? Is it your site that you are in control of? So many times I'll read thru threads and the links & URLs show only "Not Found?"

I've asked this question many times, how these things work, but nobody has answered. So instead of being rude, please take some time to share your expertise and explain how these URLs work. Remember, this is an educational Forum which is archiving Y2K awareness history and many newbies come on daily to learn about the problem. Dead URLs and strings of comments about non-existing news articles are very frustrating. Just this morning ppl are begging newbies to read archives first before posing new questions.

Declan, I've been really nice to you, and here once again gave you the benefit of the doubt, even after that horrible Time magazine atrocity, but your responses and character have been less than admirable. If you had some heart and patience, you'd be more effective.

More and more disappointed in you. Can we trust the reporting of somebody as fickle, traitorous, short-sighted, vinegary, and cold as you?

xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), February 15, 1999.

Hmm. Not sure how I should respond to that. A reporter does not owe loyalty to any one group, so if I write things with which you disagree occasionally -- or even frequently -- heck, that's life.

I don't mean to be rude, but I don't have time to educate everyone about the way web sites work. There are plenty of other resources online about HTML and such that would be a good beginner's guide.

Suffice it to say that I do have control over y2kculture.com and the URLs will persist through 2000. The site is designed that way. wired.com and cnn.com are the same. Other sites, like msnbc.com, change URLs. There are good arguments for both type of design. We opted for the former.

-- Declan McCullagh (declan@y2kculture.com), February 15, 1999.

Declan, maybe you "don't mean to be rude," but you have been rude and obnoxious with many your posts. Should I also toss in arrogant and overbearing?

A simple, "Please, folks, it'll be archieved, so you don't have to paste it all, which is copyright infringement," would have sufficed.

Instead, you ungraciously respond, "I don't have time to educate you...." Oh, gee, we don't get an education from that great man Declan.......Think I'll cry.

Your posts indicate that you have a great deal of undeserved respect for your own opinion and that you feel very free to belittle others, as you did in the post above.

All in all, these are not the attributes of a nice person. Please try to be more humble when you visit us.

-- De (dealtonX@Xconcentric.net), February 15, 1999.

Hey, enough of the internecine bickering. Professional writers are naturally going to get a little touchy if they think you're threatening their livelihood. You would do the same. The point is that there are not too many writers who are willing to turn the y2k stones over and get all that gunk on their hands. It appears that the whole point of y2kculture is to shed light on the subject. Let it thrive. Click on the hotlink and let Declan live to write another day. Let's direct the vitriol against the bad guys. There are enough of them to go around. Has everybody cooled off now?

-- Puddintame (dit@dot.com), February 15, 1999.

Leska, Next time you post something like that just add "For educational purposes only" above the headline. That way it's legal...

Declan then can go run around and scream and be as condesending as he wants to... Won't hold up in court...

Love and peace to all of you....

-- STFrancis (STFrancis@heaven.com), February 15, 1999.

Sorry, never mean to violate copyrights. Don't understand the issue. Isn't it only wrong to copy if one is re-selling it or profiting in some way?

Sharing it with the relatively small # of ppl on this Forum, to try to understand various aspects of Y2K and educate any who think this through so they can prepare and save themselves -- humanitarian education -- wouldn't the writer applaud our efforts and also discuss even more about the topic that maybe he didn't put into his article? Why didn't Declan himself post it here instead of just giving the link? If he wrote it doesn't he own it? This is very confusing. Why would somebody direct others to a different site? If he wrote it and is proud of it and wants to share, why would he object to it being placed here where we can hear from ppl interested in Korean topics? Hard to discuss if the text isn't right on the thread. And, I didn't know that was *his* website, and don't know how to tell which URLs will stick for the future. What if the server goes down? Doesn't everybody know MIT is educational? The whole thing seems very odd.

This Forum would be less believable and thinner, scanter on the fact side, if we couldn't include some of the news articles. People always want facts, with verifiable investigative reporting. We're all searching for some proof of the degree Y2K will impact us. Why would anyone be parsimonious if they uncovered a fact?

Anyway, heard a while ago that Korea is very different from USA in the way they view life, and that there is famine there -- already suffering. So they probably have not invested a lot of $$ into looking at their computer systems. Are they heavily computerized?

xx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), February 15, 1999.

Leska - You have to remember that other websites charge advertisers fees for those banners that you see. That's what keeps them in business. When Declan posts here about a piece he wrote for Y2Kculture, it's because he wants you to see the banner ad to "Win a Furby at Hagglezone." If he simply wanted you to have the information, he would have posted it here himself, but he's got to get eyeballs and clickthrough to satisfy the advertisers. Nothing wrong with that. And that, afterall, is what copyright law is really protecting.

If you want to reproduce some of the article here, under fair use, you can snip parts of it, and make it clear that you are snipping. Best to also opinionate about it. Copying and pasting an entire article without commentary about it is illegal, and I suppose if you are a writer selling your work, it's just not fair. I also wouldn't put it past some of these jokers to use that as an excuse to sue in order to shut this forum down...

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), February 15, 1999.

pshannon, thank you VERY MUCH for explaning this! I had no idea how that worked. All I knew was it was up there free for all to see, what difference did it make *where* it was. I should have guessed money was involved in the irritation. pshannon, from now on I will do exactly as you & STFrancis recommend. Still don't understand it completely but *can* follow the forumula ;^)

I don't always have an urge to opinionate; often don't have enough background info to form a coherent opinion and want others with more expertise to comment on the news articles posted. Hope it's enough "opinion" to say, this is interesting, what are your thoughts?

Gotta run now, hard because so much interesting stuff hopping on Forum, but Ashton's dragging me off the 'puter. Later ...

xxxxxxx xxxxxxx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), February 15, 1999.

Welcome to online reporting Declan. Good luck trying to keep control over the internet and where your precious articles are posted.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), February 15, 1999.

"Win a Furby at Hagglezone."

ROFLMAO ps... right on.

Chris... well said!

Declan, perhaps in the future you might consider writing a better tease to your story than just a cool, catchy headline and posting a link. Otherwise, you are violating the criteria of this bulletin board by trying to get people to view your article and visit your site for some profit motive. That is a violation isn't it?

The people that visit this bulletin board are here to view opinions and make theirs known. This is an educational board and not a commercial bulletin board. I don't believe your posting an article you have written and then simply placing it here via a hotlink is a credible way to get people to view your article and the advertising contained therein. Furthermore, your trying to get people to visit a website you are in control via a hotlink without notification is also not ethical.

Next time, write a tease or a blurb that outlines your article. Otherwise, don't post it here. By doing what you have done you make the argument that those involved in Y2k are either only interested in their own agenda or their own profit more credible.

Nuff said?

Mike ====================================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), February 15, 1999.

I certainly don't intend to come across as abrupt. I honestly don't have the time to respond to everyone who emails me and basic questions about web site design are, at least arguably, beyond the scope of the forum.

I think not posting the complete text of any article when a URL is readily available is a matter of simple politeness and civility. (But if "stfrancis" thinks that putting "for educational purposes only" before an article will immunize you from criminal and civil penalties, your knowledge of copyright law needs a bit of a refresh. you can check out some of my articles on the NET Act, now law.)

I intend this to be my last post in this thread. I am travelling and am in SF this week.

-- Declan McCullagh (declan@y2kculture.com), February 16, 1999.

" ... from another thread ... Rick's reponse:

"Ziff-Davis has gone out of the way recently to build 'buzz' about their online product and their TV show. Both are floundering badly.

One trick of online "journalism" (notice I put that in quotes) that's used to build a following for a news website is to take an absurd position, put commentary out there to be spread around the internet, and then set up an online feedback mechanism for people to call the author a butthead (or worse).

Wait a second. This sounds like euy2k.com. ;-)

Whoops - but there's one difference. The whole exercise for a commercial "news" website is simply to drag people into the website so advertisers can get 'hits' on their banner ads. Stir up controversy. Enraged people are more motivated to go to a particular website that does not support their own personal point of view, and to voice that opinion. And the neat thing is: those enraged people will go back multiple times to see if their rage has been validated by someone else! So, again, an advertiser gets multiple hits from one incensed reader. It's a no-lose proposition for the advertisers and owner of the website!!

I'm letting this posting stay up, even though it's not related in any manner to the topic at hand. Consider it part of Rick's Freebie School of Onlining (no accredation; no credits given).

-- Rick Cowles (rcowles@waterw.com), February 16, 1999."

I would venture that "FM" (who I don't recognize) is a troll trawling for clickthrough for ZDNet. I'm such a rube... "

<> <> <> <> <>

-- seeing a connection (trolling@for.hits), February 16, 1999.