Other sources of Y2k informationgreenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread |
Today I had an interesting conversation in Bokonon's chat room. It caused me to wonder how many people on this forum are *unaware* of the other sources of Y2k information that are available to you on the net.During the conversation, we discussed the usenet newsgroup "csy2k", the MSNBC forum, the Debunker site, along with the mention of various daily Y2k "media-news" sites. It' my impression that many (if not most) of the people here restrict their research to this forum only. It's my opinion that in order to get a balanced view of Y2k it is necessary to see "both sides of the story". It's also my opinion that this cannot be accomplished by restricting your research to sites which are decidedly bias (either "negative" or "positive")in their content.
I realize that many people here feel they get "all the news that's worth reading" without leaving this forum. Many of you probably rely on the "regulars" here to bring you that news. I disagree with that philosophy as I have seen a ton of information which, for whatever reason, never finds it's way here.
With that said, I would suggest to everyone that they make a practice of dropping in on other sites. Do a search through their archives. It doesn't matter if you disagree with their stance or if you dislike their personalities. That isn't the issue. The fact is you may be given a different perspective which you hadn't thought of before and which may prove enlightening. Not a knock on this forum, but face it... if you only shop here, you will only buy here.
Does anyone disagree that hearing only "one side of the story" can only be detrimental towards making a truly informed decision?
(Hmmm, wonder what would happen if I gave a real email address?)
-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), November 23, 1999
One news source bit it today. y2knews.com RIP
-- Capt. Dennis (capden@hotmail.com), November 23, 1999.
?
http://y2knews.com/looks just fine to me
-- whazzup (wit@dat.biz?), November 23, 1999.
Wonderful lay-up and Pro goes for the basket.
-- snooze button (alarmclock_2000@yahoo.com), November 23, 1999.
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/policy.tcl?topic=TimeBomb%202000%20% 28Y2000%29
This forum is intended for people who are concerned about the impact of the Y2000 problem on their personal lives, and who want to discuss various fallback contingency plans with other like-minded people. It's not intended to provide advice/guidance for solving Y2000 problems within an IT organization.In the spirit of TB2000's "mission-statement," I've compiled a list of resources, sites and links that you may find useful while researching the Century Date Change.
-------
The Executive Summary of the Senate Y2K Committee's 100 day report:
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001Rwk
http://www.senate.gov/~y2k/documents/100dayrpt/exec_sum_100days.pdfThe Senate Y2K Committee's 100 day report:
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001SFC
http://www.senate.gov/~y2k/documents/100dayrpt/-------
http://www.accessatlanta.com/partners/ajc/reports/y2k/dos.html
[snip]
[The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: 9.19.99]
Be prepared: A list of do's
By Marilyn Geewax
Atlanta Journal-Constitution Staff Writer
Washington -- Don't panic, but get prepared. While the nation's basic infrastructure will function after Jan. 1, authorities say the Y2K computer bug is sure to cause some problems. The power could go out in one community, while the water system falters in another and traffic lights malfunction in still another. Because no one can say with certainty which systems might fail, "the basic message we are giving people is ... be prepared for an emergency," said Red Cross spokeswoman Leslie Credit. Start your preparations by figuring out who is going to be in your household between Dec. 31 and mid-January, and what each person's special needs will be. Then lay out a strategy for making sure everyone can stay hydrated, healthy and warm for up to two weeks. These are among the recommendations being made by mainstream agencies:
WATER
THE POTENTIAL PROBLEM:
Local providers typically keep water flowing by using pumps and valves controlled by microprocessors and chips. Computers also regulate various aspects of water treatment, such as the addition of chlorine. In addition, Y2K-related power outages could cause a loss of heat that would allow pipes to freeze and burst.
THE SOLUTION:
[snip]
-------
Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem:
http://www.senate.gov/~y2k/House Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology:
http://www.house.gov/reform/gmit/y2k/index.htm-------
Family Disaster Supplies Kit (FEMA):
http://www.fema.gov/library/diskit.htmEmergency Food and Water Supplies (FEMA):
http://www.fema.gov/library/emfdwtr.htm[snip]
Emergency Food and Water Supplies
If an earthquake, hurricane, winter storm or other disaster ever strikes your community, you might not have access to food, water and electricity for days, or even weeks. By taking a little time now to store emergency food and water supplies, you can provide for your entire family.
This brochure was developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Community and Family Preparedness Programs which provides information to help families prepare for all types of disasters.
WATER: THE ABSOLUTE NECESSITY
Stocking water reserves and learning how to purify contaminated water should be among your top priorities in preparing for an emergency. You should store at least a two-week supply of water for each member of your family.
[snip]
-------
Current articles about Y2K
Newswire search:
http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news?o=1&p=%22year+2000% 22+bug+glitch+y2k&za=or&t=0&g=1&n=20Newspaper article search:
http://search.excite.com/search.gw?search=%22year+2000% 22+bug*+glitch*+y2k&c=timely&callerfarm=ntInfoseek newswire search:
http://infoseek.go.com/Titles?qt=%22year+2000% 22+bug*+glitch*+y2k&col=NX%2Crf_i500sRD%2Ckt%3DA% 2Cak_news1486&sv=IS&lk=noframes&svx=home_searchboxSanger and Shannon's Review of Y2K News Reports:
http://sangersreview.com/Y2K news articles, updated daily (from WorldNetDaily):
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/y2k_index.shtml-------
The Y2K Middle Ground:
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001fItTB 2000 (Y2000) Preparation Forum (Y2K Prep Only Discussions):
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a.tcl?topic=TimeBomb%202000%20% 28Y2000%29%20Preparation%20ForumYear 2000 Preparation Archive:
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a.tcl?topic=Year%202000% 20Preparation%20ArchiveBrian's Y2K research links:
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001A3xEd Yourdon's Y2K links and resources:
http://www.yourdon.com/y2kresources.htmlVideo recordings of presentations on the Year 2000 problem:
http://www.bog.frb.fed.us/y2k/video_index.htmContingency and Consequence Management Planning for Year 2000 Conversion - A Guide for State and Local Emergency Managers (FEMA):
http://www.fema.gov/y2k/ccmp.htm
http://www.dlg.oem2.state.co.us/oem/cpguidew.htm
http://www.fema.gov/y2k/ccmp_fl.pdfSenate Y2K Committee Hearings:
http://www.senate.gov/~y2k/hearings/U.S. Department of Commerce report - "THE YEAR 2000 PROBLEM AND THE GLOBAL TRADING SYSTEM":
http://y2k.ita.doc.gov/y2k/y2k.nsf/dd5cab6801f1723585256474005327c8/b3 cb5b3db231dd9b85256759004baaa5Open letter from The Institute Of Electrical And Electronics Engineers, Inc. to Congress:
http://www.ieeeusa.org/FORUM/POLICY/99june09.htmlThe Jo Anne Effect - Fiscal year 2000 rollovers in accounting software:
http://www.computerpro.com/~phystad/jae.html
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00122f"U.S. showcases $50 million Y2K Center":
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001mUs-------
-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), November 23, 1999.
CD,If you believe that the majority (or even a significant minority) who regularly post here *never* read others sources of Y2K information, I think you may be mistaken.
My view of two of the sources you mention in particular: Debonkers is dominated by one individual who sounds like a frothing psychotic. He is occasionally joined by a small handful of lapdogs (literally 4 or 5) and groupies who mostly write the equivalent of, "yeah, N/T". We get the full flavor of their combined intellect when a few of their members regularly dress up in disguises, make up silly names, and try to trash this site. Lovely, lovely folks. Their forum is so extremely rabid that even Flint has said it gives him the creeps. To me, that speaks volumes about what Debonkers has become, even if they never resorted to trashing this forum.
csy2k is not a lot different than TB2000 on a grouchy day. In fact, some of the same people post to both forums. Most of the same articles are posted at csy2k that turn up here (usually I see them here a little sooner), and csy2k suffers from the same fossilized binary positions as this forum. But,IMHO, that group degenerates into personal attacks much more quickly than TB2000 does...usually within the first two posts, leading to protracted counter-flaming, consisting of nothing but scathing personal insults.
-- (TrollPatrol@ack.org), November 23, 1999.
Here are some of the news sources that I go to each day when compiling Sanger and Shannon's Review of Y2K News Reports. (Some of these are dupes with Linkmeister's, and I'm sure I'm forgeting a few. You can make bookmarks of these, or just visit the Review each day.) Not in any particular order:Year 2000.com's Press Clippings page
Yahoo's Tech page (not all of the Y2K related articles make it to the Y2K page.) I check the Reuters and AP links. I prefer Yahoo! for Reuters and AP stories because it generally credits the writer. Not all sites do that.
Wall Street Journal/Dow Jones Newswires search page, but you need to pay for a subscription.
News Now occasionally has things not found elsewhere.
Australian Broadcasting Corporation Y2K page
Australian Financial Review Y2K page
WorldNetDaily's Countdown Page
Debunking Y2K, yes, occasionally, there is even a good lead there.
And, of course, TimeBomb 2000
-- (pshannon@inch.com), November 23, 1999.
CD, it's as if you've never seen the gazillion of hotlinks to other Y2K news forums/sources posted daily on several threads on this forum.This forum is a research center; several regulars consistently research other news sources, bring the links and articles here, and it is dissiminated.
I don't just sit here passively and absorb like a sponge what others say, I DO click on hotlinks, and I DO research those other sites/sources/authors to get an idea of their agenda and backgrounds.
"It's also my opinion that this cannot be accomplished by restricting your research to sites which are decidedly bias (either "negative" or "positive")in their content."
This forum is the oposite of one view bias. It is not "negative" nor "positive", it has a "global" view. If one gets the impression that it is "negative", that's because it's the big picture of Y2K trying to pierce through the reader's own research, i.e., the threads and links one decides to read. Y2K is not a "positive" happy event, like the first walk on the moon was.
What I see on this forum are some people that are more pessimist than others, some that are more optimist than others, and some that more realistic than others. Perception is defined by the perceiver. All these perceptions taken together on this forum negate "bias".
-- Chris (#$%^&@pond.com), November 23, 1999.
If you believe that the majority (or even a significant minority) who regularly post here *never* read others sources of Y2K information, I think you may be mistaken. -TrollPatrolCD, it's as if you've never seen the gazillion of hotlinks to other Y2K news forums/sources posted daily on several threads on this forum. -Chris
I feel you've missed my point guys. I have no doubt that many here refer to other sources for information. And, there's no question that Y2k news is brought to this forum. What I suggest, rather, is that you spend some time at sites which hold a different view than what is espoused on this forum. The fact is, there are a LOT of well-reasoned and/or fact based arguments out there which contradict statements made on this forum. If you ONLY visit sites which have a definite "slant", then you will not have the benefit of hearing those arguments. You may still disagree with the arguments but at least you can make *truly* informed decisions.
Linkmeister put up a fine example for what I am trying to say... Many of his links lead to issues which have been discussed elsewhere by people with backgrounds many here do not share. Often they have come to entirely different conclusions than what are expressed here. However, Linkmeister's links do not point you to these counter- arguments and many on this forum will not even realize there is another side to the story. This is not an "accusation"; merely a fact.
*That* is why I suggest you research other sites.
-- CD (not@here.com), November 23, 1999.
>> Linkmeister put up a fine example for what I am trying to say... Many of his links lead to issues which have been discussed elsewhere by people with backgrounds many here do not share. Often they have come to entirely different conclusions than what are expressed here. However, Linkmeister's links do not point you to these counter- arguments... <<And the links you have thoughfully posted for us come to no conclusions, aduce no facts and help us not at all. Or did you post some links here I didn't see?
There's an old saying: everyone's a critic.
I see you make a number of reasonable-sounding statements here. You refer to web sites full of contrary information that would contradict the conclusions offered on this forum. You speak of facts we ignore. You speak of arguments we do not acknowledge. Any of these statements could be simply backed-up by merely posting a link that proved what you are saying is true.
But you didn't. I can only conclude you are only making reasonable-sounding noises. Sort of like the famous typewriting apes. But, as Gertrude Stein said, "There is no there there."
-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), November 23, 1999.
I don't just sit here passively and absorb like a sponge what others say, --cut-- and I DO research those other sites/sources/authors --cut-- -ChrisSorry Chris. It wasn't my intent to dismiss your comment. If you are routinely doing that then I applaud you. It's to those who don't follow suit that I posted this.
-- CD (not@here.com), November 23, 1999.
I have a policy Brian... I never do homework for those who can do it themselves but are simply too lazy. Judging from your "tone", I take it you fit that description. I named some sites in my original post. Go find 'em yourself.
-- CD (not@here.com), November 23, 1999.
>> I named some sites in my original post. Go find 'em yourself. <<Let's see.
You named csy2k. Go do a search in deja.com on brianm@ims.com. Yes, I found it. But it would have taken some research for you to know that.
You named the Debunker's forum. Been there. Cpr, the main contributor, is, uh, shall we say non compos mentus. Hardly a great source, by my standards.
Then you named the MSNBC site. Most of what I have seen there is by-lined opinion. And most of it is of mediocre quality. Same goes for ZDNet, which you didn't mention.
Listen, CD, posting links hardly qualifies as "doing people's research for them". Get off your high horse. If you want the greatest number of people to agree with you, you need to give them a reason to do so. If you don't care what people think, why do you come here to post and why do you criticize anyone for any conclusions they have drawn?
I'm sorry. You write somewhat well. But you smell like a self-important phony to me. YMMV.
-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), November 23, 1999.
Sorry Brian. I'll strive to be more humble in the future.
-- CD (not@here.com), November 23, 1999.
>> Sorry Brian. I'll strive to be more humble in the future. <<Striving for humility is all well and good. But not exactly what I had in mind.
Imagine it is after the Thanksgiving meal. Imagine there is a pile of dirty dishes in the kitchen. Imagine volunteering to wash them. Yes, it requires getting your hands dirty. Even if it may be against your "policy".
Now, apply that same thinking to TB2000. You'll do fine.
-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), November 24, 1999.
Yes dear.
-- CD (not@here.com), November 24, 1999.