32356...Stop the spamming!

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

One post is enough. Many people have important posts, not just you. By spamming your message on every post, you are breaking the code of etiquette here.

So, get with the program, and stop spamming us.

BTW,did you have a personal comment to make about Ed's comments?

-- Sara Nealy (keithn@aloha.net), April 10, 1999


This is apparently some troll attempting to have Ed delete all threads he posts to because of the Cutter copyright infringement. Ed should just let this one go. Its not worth the trouble and the recognition it would give the imbecile.

-- a (a@a.a), April 10, 1999.

Yes I do have a comment. He deleted this article on a thread on this forum a couple of days ago citing copy-right infringments. Is this an open forum? Do we not have rights? Or is this a selective open forum?

-- 32356 (3@23.56), April 10, 1999.


Whatever Mr. Ed has to say is open season. Is it not?

-- 32356 (3@23.56), April 10, 1999.


Why not post it twice or three times to every thread? Then you'd have even *more* rights, right?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 10, 1999.


Please stop. Here is is the thread with Ed's reason for everybody to see:

There IS a cover up!

Please stop. We have enough to cover here without this. Thank you. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 10, 1999.


You are one of the few here that I can relate to. Give me a break.

-- 32356 (3@23.56), April 10, 1999.

3: Its copyright mumbo-jumbo. I haven't paid Ed a dime for any of the info I have gotten from him, including the use of this BBS. At least respect his customers legal rights. Besides, you've read the "forbidden" article, so what's the point?

-- a (a@a.a), April 10, 1999.


That's why I'm upset. It's not fair for Ed to do that!

-- 32356 (3@23.56), April 10, 1999.

Then understand that you're not doing any favors to anybody at all. If you can relate to what I write, you should understand that I have no patience with stupidity.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 10, 1999.



OCTOBER 5, 1998


Coming up short on Y2K

Many agencies missed last week's OMB goal for having systems fixed and ready for testing

BY ORLANDO De BRUCE (orlando_debruce@fcw.com)

The first major Year 2000 milestone passed almost unnoticed last week.

Sept. 30 was a target date set by the Clinton administration for agencies to have all their mission-critical systems renovated, yet it slipped quietly past many federal agencies, which are still frantically fixing their computer systems, and past many critics.

In a quarterly report released in November 1997, the Office of Management and Budget asked agencies to complete the renovation of all mission-critical systems by September. OMB also set January 1999 as the deadline for agencies to complete testing the systems and March 1999 as the date to reinstall the systems.


-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), April 10, 1999.

You're intellectually married to Flint? Why didn't you say so...


And Flint, please try to control your spawn.

-- a (a@a.a), April 10, 1999.

evenin' Sysman - glad to see you're still up keeping regular programming hours ;-)

As for Cutter copyright, they state on their site that The contents of this web site are copyrighted and may be viewed, downloaded, copied, printed and/or distributed for informational and non-commercial or personal use ONLY, without modification or alteration. Any other use requires the prior express written consent of CUTTER CONSORTIUM.

Now, Mr. Y most likely didn't delete it, 32356 probably just forgot where he posted it.

Mr. K
***ready to see other new things***

-- Mr. Kennedy (Here@home.again), April 10, 1999.


Copy right mumbo jumbo? It's ok that there are hundreds of articles poated here! But it's not ok if it's one of Ed's customers?

-- 32356 (3@23.56), April 10, 1999.

It is very obvious that 32356 is a total jerk. I'l bet his wife hates his guts!!!

-- smitty (smitty@sandiego.com), April 10, 1999.


I think you know better than that. If you don't, please grow up.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 10, 1999.


Fair on not, this is Ed's forum. He may have a legal reason for doing what he did. I really don't care, and I think that most here don't care. We have plenty of information here. Don't be upset about one thread being deleted, please. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 10, 1999.

It is very obvious that 32356 is a total jerk. I'll bet his wife hates his guts!!!!!

-- smitty (smitty@sandiego.com), April 10, 1999.


But the Big Three are confident they will enter the new millennium smoothly. GM, Ford and Chrysler plan to finish debugging by the end of 1998.

[from April 1998]

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), April 10, 1999.


From the horse's own mouth: Folks, I deleted the thread, sorry that I didn't post a message to explain why. I'm not sure who posted the message originally, but the material belongs to the Cutter Consortium, a research organization for which I'm the Director of the Y2K Advisory Service. We write a series of in- depth reserarch reports and weekly email briefings for our clients, and that message was one of them. Someone got his hands on it and decided to publish it on -- of all places -- the forum that I maintain. The material is copyrighted by the Cutter Consortium and, unlike the many other essays and articles that are available on my web site, that email briefing is not "public domain".

It's not a coverup or a plot, just an attempt to maintain some level of respect for the copyright laws.

The issue of Y2K predictions "not coming true", and the interpretation of what that means, has already been thoroughly discussed on this forum...

-- Ed Yourdon (ed@yourdon.com), April 09, 1999.

-- 32356 (3@23.56), April 10, 1999.

Flint! Your buddy is bothering us! Make him go away!

BTW...32356...what are you, incarcerated somewhere?

-- a (a@a.a), April 11, 1999.

"Will something really happen or just another April Fool's Day?"


-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), April 11, 1999.


Ed is correct. We have several threads on this topic. What difference does one more make? <:)=

PS - Good evening Mr. K.

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 11, 1999.


ad hominem! I GI!

-- 32356 (3@23.56), April 11, 1999.


He obviously didn't want that article published here. Why?

-- 32356 (3@23.56), April 11, 1999.


Yourdon makes his living selling his opinion. I think if someone stole the tools of your trade from you, you'd stop defending their 'right' to steal from you pretty damn quick.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 11, 1999.


Flint has a good point. What is your point? Do you want Ed to admit that he is wrong? I don't think we know yet that he is wrong. If you read some of the other threads, you will see that many people have said that these problems will not show for weeks on months from now. I agree. Besides, very few programs do look ahead processing, when compared to the big picture. Maybe this tiny percentage of programs were fixed. We are still not out of the woods. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 11, 1999.

32356 is a real shithead! Let's give him some of his own medicine!

-- cookie monster (cookie@monster.com), April 11, 1999.

Flint you wrote: Yourdon makes his living selling his opinion. I think if someone stole the tools of your trade from you, you'd stop defending their 'right' to steal from you pretty damn quick.

Tell me how this is stealing anything, when it is printed in a public domain? He just didn't want it re-printed here.

Sysman you wrote: Do you want Ed to admit that he is wrong?

Right or wrong? To waffle or not to waffle? That is the question!

-- 32356 (3@23.56), April 11, 1999.

Point well taken, Mr. Yourdon. It is prudent to delete material that is copyright protected, whether from a paid subscription or not. If the copyright and statement of permissions are not honored under all circumstances, then the premise of the protection for works could not stand.

Mr. K***would place a bet that 32356 isn't in law school***

-- Mr. Kennedy (here@home.now), April 11, 1999.


I'm going to bed. Like I said, I really don't care why Ed deleted the thread. I'm sure he had a good reason, be it legal, personal or waffle. If you have this big of a problem with it, I suggest that you e-mail him, if he doesn't pick up this thread and give you an answer that you can live with. Just please, stop posting this everywhere. We get your point. Thanks, and have a nice weekend. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 11, 1999.

32356: Get a freakin' life. I know religious zealots less crazy than you are behaving. Turn off the computer and breathe deeply. Try to remember that you are not nearly as important to anybody in the universe as Ed Yourdon apparently is to you.

PJ in TX

-- PJ Gaenir (fire@firedocs.com), April 11, 1999.

I have an idea. Start your own Y2K site, and you can publish all the copyrighted material you want. It might prove very interesting.

"What a wretched and peevish fellow is he,..." Shakespeare

-- gilda jessie (jess@listbot.com), April 11, 1999.

From a piece I wrote on another forum some time ago. By the way, the following is original research and cannot be copied in any way without my permission. . .

Q. Can anyone use a posting to a public Bulletin Board System in, for example, an article for which he or she receives gain?

A. He or she cannot use without written permission original research created by a list member, defined by Stephen Fishman, Esq., in The Copyright Handbook (1996), as "a work of art or literature, or a work that conveys information or ideas." There are three fundamentals defining eligibility for copyright protection: fixation(such as a piece of paper or a computer disk), originality (authored, combined or adapted by the poster) and minimal creativity (creativity need only be minimal to invoke protection).

Q. What about the Fair Use doctrine?

A. Four factors determine whether use of material is fair use: 1. If the material has been significantly altered or appeals to a diferent audience, it is likely to be included under fair use; 2. If the material is for nonprofit or educational purposes, it is likely to be considered fair use; 3. Unpublished works are more likely to fall under the Fair Use doctrine; and 4. If the portion used is likely to affect the fair market value of the work, it will likely be ruled not fair use.

Q. What does "gain" mean?

A. The U.S House of Representatives has recently passed the NET Act, which deals with Internet copyright infringement, and the definition has been applauded by the European Commission member of the Berne Convention. (European Commission - Proposal for Directive on Copyright and Related Rights in the Information Society.) The definition is "in a broad sense [and] includes receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works." It is likely that this definition will be adopted by the Berne Convention.

Q. Is there such a thing as International Copyright Law?

Not exactly. But international treaties exist which protect citizens in the major trading nations from copyright infringement. For instance, the emphasis in Britain, and the many countries that base their law on British Common Law, is on protecting an author's economic rights. E.g., versions of the Fair Use Doctrine would prevail in determining copyright infringement.

The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works referred to above was convened in 1971 and is the principal international body charged with international copyright protection. It is currently being refined to account for electronic communications and processing, although its current regulations will still protect most copyright-eligible material.

At the present time the principle of national treatment applies to international intellectual copyright, i.e., generally, a foreigner enjoys all the rights and privileges of a citizen as they refer to copyright infringement. In other words, an American work as to which copyright enforcement is sought in the United Kingdom would be treated under the law exactly as if it were a U.K. work for the purposes of the copyright law.

In short, what infringes copyright in one country will probably infringe in another, where British Common Law is the foundation of the legal system.

I am not a licensed attorney and the foregoing should not be construed as legal advice.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), April 11, 1999.

I dropped Ed an e-mail last night ref this. Asked him to fix the posts if he could.

32356- If you truly wished to further either your point of view, or the discourse on teh subject, you would NOT engage in theis particular tactic, which only serves to infuriate the rest of us who are trying to help people make sense of what is reported.

MOST of us here, regardless of what our position on the subject might be, agree that what you are doing simply gets in teh way, and weakens your position by prejudicing anyone who might have been dubious.

How, you might ask does it prejudice them? By demonstrating, for good or ill, validly or not that you feel there is so little evidence to support you that you need to resort to this type of tactic.

Chuck (a night driver) Rienzo

-- chuck, a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), April 11, 1999.

32356 looks and sounds like Maria.

-- Gotcha? (here@home.com), April 11, 1999.

32356: Do you work at Space Camp?

-- a (a@a.a), April 11, 1999.


If you're so sure Ed's reason for deleting the thread is bullshit, why don't you let us know your real name? You wouldn't be worried about copyright infringement suits, right?.

-- Ned (entaylor@cloudnet.com), April 11, 1999.

What Ed Yourdon said about April 1999, to me, is not nearly as important in the scheme of things as, say, the federal government missing its remediation deadline not just once...


...but twice, including March 31, 1999. And we're only talking about "mission-critical" systems here. Only about 10% of the federal government's computer systems have been defined as "mission-critical."

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), April 12, 1999.

32356 is Xena: Warrior Princess over on Biffy.

She likes waffles.

-- Lisa (lisa@work.now), April 12, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ