Just started about 8:55 AM

-- Rebecca Waldock (RWaldock@noemail.com), September 04, 1999

Answers

You can watch it live at:

http://www.c-span.org/watch/cspan.htm

:)

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), September 04, 1999.

Two warriors!

Where are the Senators and Congressmen?

-- PJC (paulchri@msn.com), September 04, 1999.

Dr. Paula needs some coaching on her TV presence. She is largely dour, boring, flat and monotone (at least during the first part of the program.) Bad eye contact with the camera and distracting paper shuffling added to the problem. Hardly a dynamic personality for such a visual media.

I've done national TV on occasion in reference to poltical issues. It is very important that you capture and hold a viewer's attention within the first few minutes even if they don't buy the message you're sending.

All in all she is painful to watch. (Compared to Jim Lord who appears to be a "natural" at this...and that's what it's all about...appearing natural.)

Coaching helped me. It could certainly help her too.

Dr. Paula if you're listening, hire a consultant. You may be doing more TV in the not too distant future and you need to be sharp.

-- donetvbefore (betterpresence@newimage.com), September 04, 1999.

Hurray. Hurray! HURRAY!!! Best of the week. A caller brought up the Navy report. Jim disclosed (has it been already posted elsewhere?) that the 0,1,2,3 risk code has been decoded: 0 = no risk, 1 = up to 40% risk of failure, 2 = 40 - 70% risk of failure, 3 = 70+% risk of failure. [note - even if you discount the 3's by saying that was the default if there was no info, there are still the 2's which indicate there WAS info and the risk of failure was judged to be 40 - 70%!!)

He pointed out that although Kosky says - that was then, this is now - then, June 1999, when this report was current, Kosky was touring the country telling the population to prepare for a 2 - 3 day inconvenience.... WHICH MAKES NO SENSE. Jim Lord says prepare for ? (what did he say?) 2 to 6 months.

-- Linda (lwmb@psln.com), September 04, 1999.

Jim Lord.. optomistic at 8.5.

Paula ? 9.5 ?

8 = Depression.. local martial law.

-- Linda (lwmb@psln.com), September 04, 1999.

donetvbefore,

I agree with you, but she is loosening up somewhat. In all reality, what Paula Gordon or anyone else does now is irrelevant sadly.

-- PJC (paulchri@msn.com), September 04, 1999.

C-span cut off Gordon mid-sentence.

Does anyone know if this will be archived?

Did anyone record this? If so, can it be made available on someone's Website ASAP?

(I'm sure Gordon will make every effort to place it on HERS, but it would be nice to be able to view the entire broadcast right away.)

:)

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), September 04, 1999.

The show is due to repeat right after the daily headlines segment. Tune in and tape.

-- Linda (lwmb@psln.com), September 04, 1999.

Wow, Jim Lord has over 10,000,000 visitors to his Navy Documents page!

Excellent show and there will be a replay... I urge everyone who can to watch.

Thanks, Rebecca for the heads-up.

-- eubie (eubie@watching the tube.com), September 04, 1999.

Jim said prepare for a minimum 3-6 months. His 8 kids are preparing :-)

We had to transfer our pt (non-weight-bearing, need a Hoyer Lift!) so only caught the 2nd half, but it was OK, nothing we haven't read about here. Was listening to callers hoping a Yourdynamite would liven things up ;^)

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), September 04, 1999.

Thanks for the heads up indeed.

Looks like 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time (estimated) is zero hour for the replay.

:)

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), September 04, 1999.

Thanks to both Jim and Paula. All in all well worth watching.

Linda: Paula said 9.5, "provisionally", meaning that would be her take if the gov doesn't change their focus, and I think Jim questioned the odds of them doing it in time to mean anything.

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@com.net), September 04, 1999.

Would someone help me out here?

After reading a couple pages of a Paula Gordon paper a year or so ago I was left with the impression she is more concerned about mobilizing a fedgov solution than she is with the problem itself.

I don't have cable and am unable to see her on C-Span.

I found her direction to be frightening.

Have I got it wrong?

Thanks,

-- Tom Beckner (tbeckner@xout.erols.com), September 04, 1999.

I watched the show, too, and thought both Jim and Paula had plenty of substantive information to share with the audience ...

...on the other hand, it was deja vu all over again: the same program coujld have aired 6 months ago, and we would have heard the same questions from callers, to which Jim/Paula would have given the same answers Seems to me that this was an exercise in rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

The one statistic I found interesting was Jim's statement that 10 million people have visited his Web site; I don't know if that means 10 million people have downloaded the Navy report, but it's an impressive number nonetheless. IF you assume that all those website visitors actually downloaded and read the report, and IF you assume that they all took it seriously, and IF you assume they were all U.S. citizens (which is unlikely), that would mean roughly 4% of the population is looking at some fairly sobering data about Y2K. And if each of those people shared the information with a friend or spouse, that would get it up to 8% ... and it wouldn't take much more than that to reach a "critical mass" of people who might be able to exert some political influence...

Ed

-- Ed Yourdon (HumptyDumptyY2K@yourdon.com), September 04, 1999.

Ed,

I think the question may be "which Website did they visit?"

Did he make that clear? If so, I didn't catch it. (My rugrat has friends over this morning, so you can imagine the din)

Do you think he was talking about his Navy Website, or his other Website?

:)

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), September 04, 1999.

I thought both Paula and Jim did a wonderful job. Paula was excellent. She doesn't need any coaching on her TV presence. I had never seen her before. She might have come across as serious, but I find her more believable than someone who would have been up there smiling alot and trying to give such serious information. I thought she was extremely well versed and believable, someone I would trust that they are saying what they actually believe instead of the usual stuff you hear from all these people on news shows who are only interested in puffing themselves up and making sure they are saying the poltically correct things. Paula, even with all her credentials, came across as a very down to earth, credible person. So, don't change yourself, Paula, you are great just as you are. I also really like Jim Lord. I'd like to see his sideburns a little shorter, though. A lot of people may not relate as much to what he has to say just because that "look" is kinda unusual and lots of people are swayed by appearances unfortunately -- even Jim sounds extremely credible and honest, too.

-- cassie (healthy53@hotmail.com), September 04, 1999.

Tom, my take is that her recent work indicates she is more interested in having the government take on a leadership role especially in building awareness and pushing for disclosure of the BioChem and Nuclear safety issues. You should check it out at her site.

FM, thanks for the info on the replay. I'm on the west coast and I only got to catch the last 3 or 4 minutes. I only saw her last answer but regardless of Paula's "image" I would listen to her no matter what. She seems to have some valuable contacts and perhaps some insight into D.C. behind the scenes.

Mike

=============================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), September 04, 1999.

Ed,

That is a lot of assumptions.>p>

What was it that someone said to you towards the end of your time in front of Congress? Something about websites which insite doom and gloom or something like that, then he looked at you and said; "Oh, But not yours, Mr. Yourdon?

On another note of this thread, Paula Gordon has no real knowledge of embedded chips or systems and could hardly be considered an authority on them.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), September 04, 1999.

The repeat is starting.

-- Deborah (infowars@yahoo.com), September 04, 1999.

But Paula refers people to those who DO have expertise on embeddeds.
Ed's Web site is hardly gloomy or doomy. It's well-organized, thoughtful, full of humor, study, facts, and common sense. Ed Yourdon is the most credible, stable, mature, interesting, readable, balanced authority on Y2K in the world.

We too were hopeful that the large number of visitors to Jim Lord's site indicates at least an INTEREST among the sleeping weeples with regard to Rollover.

And yes, the CSPAN show was way too sedate and ho-hum for *** SEPTEMBER 1999 ***. (Apologies to Will Continue for klepting your sig framework ;)

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz snort zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz huh? zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz can of soup zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), September 04, 1999.

Luckily, the e-mail on my old computer is working well, so I hope I can transcribe my (mostly dechiperable) notes, copy, paste and post. If you're reading this, it means I succeeded. Sorry for typose, thought speed of posting outweighed pretty appearance. (Substance over style!) Didn't get everything, Dr. Gordon has voice that doesn't carry well from the TV to where I sit typing.

Generally speaking, Jim Lord and Paula Gordon covered ground with which forum regulars are ery familiar. Thanks to the prompt, I tuned in relatively early, just as Paula Gordon was talking about embedded chips.

Gordon refers to the IEE letter-report (Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers). To her knowledge Koskinen hasn't acknowledged that serious report. Mentions another report imminent, apparently says same thing.

Caller, independent contractor, describes with great scorn an organization he was called to, says sign above gate proclaims, "Jesus Saves." Place was full of what must have been about a million and a half dollars worth of weird gadgets and supplies, pumps, generators. etc. Can't beleive what he saw. Accuses Gordon and Lord of "striking fear into people's hearts." Says if a computer goes down, you reboot, go back on line, and carry on. No big deal. He'd like to see the look on those people's faces when they find out they've spent all that money for nothing. Says "Y'all're a bunhc of kooks and nuts."

Lord quotes Dodd and Bennet, says he doesn't conside them alarmmists. Their statement said this has the potential to be the most devastating event in the nation's history. He didn't make them say that. Congress has held 60 hearings; GAO has done 7- studies--how did he and Paula do that? They didn't convince the IEEE to write that letter to Congress. The VP of General Motors in Fortune magazine said there was a "catastrophic situation" at some of their manufacturing plants.

Gordon believes she's being less alarmist than she really feels. It's a matter of common sense, not undue concern. Caller needs to spend considerable time, perhaps a week or two, doing in-depth research. Refers to her website, also Cassandra Project site.

Caller says Y2K is like death by 1000 cuts. Asks what's th3e difference between Y2K-ready and Y2K-compliant.

Gordon says compliant doesn't mean there won't be a problem. The IEEE website will clarify the terms to caller's satisfaction. Ready means you're able to make sure that operations will continue appropriately through contingency plans if there's a problem.

Lord says he has lots of faith in the GAO, GAO has lots of credibility. Done dozens and dozens of studies, results have been extremely consistent. in 70-some odd studies. Go tot he source, don't depend on community activists like us. It's not that the world is going to end, but there is adquate reason to be concerned.

Is there time to solve the problem? Gordon says no, even NERC admits there will be failures. There will be failures in federal buildingd--too many embedded systems for all to be found and remediated in tiume. With low level of understanding, can only focus on sites/systems that can do the greatest damage.

Gordon heard that in POctober th4e fedearl government will increase its efforts to get the public to become more aware of the seriousness of Y2K. Gordon asked Koskinen if this was true, he said, Yes, it's right. She told him, It's too late, should have been focused on this long ago. SDays UK, Canada, Australia ahead of US.

Caller asks if Y2K is government conspiracy to impose NWO. Lord explains how 2-digit problem began, not ecuse for NWO, not government conspiracy. just cheaper that way.

In response to caller, Gordon says was FEMA employee in early 80s, helped prepare for nuclear attack re evacuation and relocation. Is not aware of current FEMA plans to do same re Y2K.

Gordon says health care area anticipated to experience worst problems. In general you could see disruption to critical business servces that we use all the time. Y2K is going to go on for long period of time, all throughout next year. not for short period of time. Majority will happen after January 15. Economic effects of Y2K, particularly in foreign countries, is a long-term problem that has a spike in January.

Gordon - it's not just information systems, communic-technical connectivity, it's a convergence of problems throughout the globe, not just isolated problems, connectivity. There is an opportunity for federal government to change whole focus between now and Dec 31 to emulate Canada, to start to bring in all kinds of experts not wait until rollover to see what happens. The new Information Coordination Center is for problems after rollover. It's the wWrong approach, need to focus between now and rollover and at rollover to PREVENT,

Failures re September 9 - Lord is convinced that 9999 is a non-issue. Correct that Y2K problems do not all occur on Jan 1, surveys show 3/4 of corporations have already experienced Y2K problems. Saw it as early as1970, mortgage companies, when 30-year mortgage numbers were coming up not correct.

Caller wonders about Y2K problems in hospital system vis a vis Navy report re number of utility problems,

Lord says there is no verbiage at all in the report. It's a list of all Navy and Marine installations in the world, lists the likelihood of failure of electricity, water, gas and sewer systems. 125 American cities are expected to have utility failures. Explains 1-4 scoring. 45 of those cities greater than 100,000 population. Has asked government to answer how information was compiled. Can't substantiate it, doesn't know if it's good or sloppy job, desn't know if it was by telephone--those are questions utility companies need to be asked, Navy needs to be asked. Reflects that government has an indication that the problem is worse than they say.

Re gas utilitiess expected to fail. List that Navy compiled is as of June 99. They say it's ongoing, a work in progress, things are different now. But the fact of matter is, in June, when that document was prepared, Koskinen was going around the country saying there'll be 3-5 days of inconvenience. If you don't know how bad the problem will be, you don't prepare in the most modest way. Lord doesn't know what a reasonable amount of preparedness is, but the notion that this nation should be prepared for a 3-5 day inconvenience is ludicrous. 3-6 months supply of food, water, energy is more like it. If the governmentt is wrong, people will die, if Lord is wrong, you get to have a party. Almost no penalty for overpreparing, but great penalty for underpreparing. Lord has 1 year supply of food and water. But did this 35 years ago when he went to VN, leaving his wife and children at home. Having food in his house was a great comfort to him, so has been living this kind of lifestyle for a long time. The only special thing he did for Y2K was making hard copies of computerized data, etc. He moved to Utah from DC; had been planning to leave DC for many years. But did so at the time he did because of Y2K. DC is not going to be prepared, will have serious difficulties.

Gordon prefers not to talk about personal approaches to this problem, her greater message is getting the governmentt to focus on Y2K to prevent problems. She encourages listeners to contact congressmen, the president, and Koskinent, to urge them to recognize seriousmess of the problem, create an approach that will deal with it in an adequate way. One of the reasons it's not dealt with adequately is that the president has made the decision not to get actively involved until after the rollover. There could be many reasons: one is it's very difficult for people in political life to own and be accountable for a problem. If they come forward and say this is a serious problem , it's a crisis, then they are in the position of being held accountable for whatever is done to deal wih it. By waiiting until after the rollover to come in and play an active role is very cynical and is going to cost lots of lives. Politicians can do this because they see problem on a 0-10 scale as maybe 3-5 category (personally not publicly) but to the public they see it as no more than 1-2.

(Explains 0-10 rating scale.)

Gordon says State Department and GAO, she believes, thinks 6 or above. {Moderator reads detailed definitions re disruptions.)

Gordon thinks if federal government would do everything it could in the time remaining, it would be a 5. Would be mitigated even more if there was more leadership. The government has to be really forthcoming about the seriousness of Y2K, bring in those who have the understanding to make sure that everything that can be done is done.

CGordon says we could end up with a 9.5. Since March she's become more cognizant of what's been going on re nuclear power plants. A lot of this information is on the web, can download videos for public viewing.

Lord says scale is from WDC Y2K scale (WCDy2k.org.com), put together by Bruce Webster, ranges from absolutely nothing to absolutely worst case. Lord thinks it will be an 8.5. Likelihood of government doing something beforehand is very low. But this is only his judgment, based on 23 years of research. Full time.

Call asks re nuclear weapons. Gordon says her understanding is (*couldn't hear) something about possibility (or not!) of accodental launch. It's a complicated matter, not just engineering, also technical, human, and there's talk about standing down nuclear power plants.

She says If the federal government does not come forward and exercise Churchillian kind of leadership in this situation, we have problems. We need to mobilize and do what can be done outside of government. There are a number of other levels of govt--S. Dakota and California are proactive and that's the kind of attitude she'd like to see. We need to "badger" everyone. Even if you're in a locality where everything is fine, it does not mean you don't have to prepare. We have a global economny, Y2K will impact wherever we live. There may be technological disasters, no-one is safe. Make sure that government is doing everything it can to minimize possibilities of disaster.

Caller asks re turning clock back. Lord says it's a valid Y2K technique, set clock back 28 years necessary to keep day of week correct. It doesn't work with all systems, in fact it can create extra problems. It's not very widely used because it causes other problems and takes time. Time taken must be on getting prepraed. It's not getting finished, there's no choice at this point, focus attention on getting prepared.

Caller re prescription meds. Her doctor will not prescribe beyond the normal prescription. What to do? Gordon has two practical suggestions: get another doctor to write you a prescription, if insurance won't cover it pay for it yourself.

Caller also says Georgia Power Company anticipates problem re 9999 - caller from Atlanta. Also if Y2K isn't corrected, how can we prepare re ATMs, water. Backup supply, says Lord, comcentrate on energy. We don't need electricity but need heat and light, can be relatively cost effective. Got to the Cassandra Project on line, there are many sources of basic preparedness. Does not believe that electric utilities in Atlanta are expecting problems in September. That's when they will conduct drill but do not expext to have probs.

Moderator asks if there are no Y2K problems, will you feel after giving this advice?

Lord says I drive in my driveway every day. I have home insurance but I don't feel anything becasue house has not burned down. The best thing that could happen is not to have to suffer any kind of disrupton. There's no joy at all watching my children and grandchildren have to suffer through what I think is possible. Three years ago when he started, his children thought like everyone else; they now believe him, are indeed taking steps to prepare.

Caller has worked with systems over 20 years, computers fail all the time. Asks Paul for examples of types of systems, e.g., pipelines, water. that are going to fail? After amount of work that's been done they should know which of these systems are going to fail.

Paula says there are exa,ples, see her website, list of references. One of the categories is failures. Another is embedded systems. She spoke to a water purification embedded systems expert (based in France, multinational company)m he explained how a, valve malfunction can be responsible for chemicals going into drinking water; you have a problem. (End of show

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), September 04, 1999.

Old Git: you are marvelous. Thanks!

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), September 04, 1999.

Thanks O.G. : )

Gordon heard that in October the federal government will increase its efforts to get the public to become more aware of the seriousness of Y2K. Gordon asked Koskinen if this was true, he said, Yes, it's right. She told him, It's too late, should have been focused on this long ago

ahhh..."the plan" is getting clearer. Isn't September/October typically a bad time for the stock market anyway? Could it be that the Fed understands that the bottom will not drop out on January 1 but will degrade over time and in stages? I don't think the Fed could really become "crisis oriented" until "something" triggers awareness or problems.

Mike

===========================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), September 04, 1999.

Super, Old Git! Thanks.

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), September 04, 1999.

Always gratitude, never an offer to mud-wrestle. Sigh.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), September 04, 1999.

It was 10 thousand hits to his website, not 10 million.

Jim L. Says he does not expect a national grid failure, "not a high liklihood of the grid going down". Some scattered failures in remote areas.

He said he has no knowledge if of wheather the "navy report" was a good job or a sloppy one.

Paula has a bad case of shock. Probably from working for so many years in "contingency planning" for nuclear disaster. Dhe has absolutly no understanding of the subjects sh talks about, she just knows that what she has heard is BAD.

Gee gotta wonder where on the web she came up with that idea?

It could not be that information given out about embedded chips (now extremely downgraded) that caused thousands to speculate and put thier resulting ideas all over the web could have been it huh? She was probably uncomfortable because she is worried about her nose running on TV, she blew it while off camera.

I really could not understand why she was upset that entities that made sure their operations would continue after Y2K because of contingency plans was a bad thing. If Jim Lord thinks the grid will run with minor failures in remote areas, why does he worry so much?

Ashton & Leska Re: your discription of this forum *grin* I like your sense of humor

Old Git, AHA! You type and spell like I do when I'm tired!

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), September 04, 1999.

Cherri,

I'm all for clarification. Can you provide us with an authoritative third party link that shows us how and why the embedded issue to which Paula refers has now been "extremely downgraded?"

Otherwise, I watched most of the program twice and was struck by the fact there me was only a veiled mention of the economic considerations of encouraging national preparedness beyond the "three day storm."

Michael brings up an interesting point in that regard.

Remember, "It's the economy, stupid?"

(OT: My evil twin just commented on the physical resemblence between James Carville and John Koskinen. I need to lock her up again.)

Fabulous effort O.G.

:)

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), September 04, 1999.

Typing challenged this morning.

Must be those rugrats running around.

Oh--one other thing, O.G., when Gordon used the word "badger" I believe she was referring to the "Community Conversations" initiative, and expressing her opinion that badgering one's utility officials, banks, etc., really does no good.

Anyone else pick that up?

:)

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), September 04, 1999.

Cherri, I need you to clear something up for me.

You suggest that we all ignore Paula Gordon because, "she has absolutely no understanding of the subjects she talks about, she just knows what she has heard is bad."

Following this logic, we (and you) should heed the words of such as Yourdon and Hamasaki and others who DO have an understanding of the subject.

Yet, you are a scofflaw when it comes to the warnings of those two worthies and others. Essentially, you are saying don't listen to Gordon because she doesn't know her subject and don't listen to Yourdon, Hamasaki and others because they do.

Would you explain this please?

-- Vic (Roadrunner@compliant.com), September 04, 1999.

FM --I don't have a written transcript of the session, but I'm pretty sure that Lord was talking about 10 million hits on his own web site. How would he have any way of knowing how many hits the various Navy web sites have had -- and why would the Navy be disposed to tell him?

Cherri -- again, without a written transcript, I have to admit to the possibility that I'm wrong her ... but I distinctly heard him say ten MILLION hits, not 10 thousand. There were reports during the first day or two after the Navy report had been issued that some 400,000 people had already downloaded the report.

Cherri -- re the comment during the Senate hearing: it was Senator Bennett who was expressing concern that many Y2K web sites express a "doom and gloom" perspective. At which point he paused, looked at me with a smile, and said, "But not yours, Mr. Yourdon." It's possible that he was being subtly sarcastic, but I took it as a sincere remark. In any case, there was no question mark at the end of his statement...

Ed

-- Ed Yourdon (HumptyDumptyY2K@yourdon.com), September 04, 1999.

Rebecca, Old Git, FM, et al,

Thanks so much for the ongoing commentary. Some of us are such subversives we do not own televisions, though this is one of the very few times I regret that choice. I wonder what kind of ratings a show such as C-SPAN typically has. Anybody know?

-- RUOK (RUOK@yesiam.com), September 04, 1999.

RUOK - ". I wonder what kind of ratings a show such as C-SPAN typically has. Anybody know?"

At least 20 by my count.

-- Linda (lwmb@psln.com), September 04, 1999.

Linda, I hope it is at least more than the 20 in this choir---LOL.

If anybody taped the show, and would be willing to distribute copies for a reasonable charge, could you let us know? I think this would be a valuable tool for discussion with our DGI loved ones. I know, I know, the hour is late (and perhaps too late), but there are a few I can't give up on at least trying to convince of minimal preparations.

-- RUOK (RUOK@yesiam.com), September 04, 1999.

Ed, Lord could have 10 million "hits" on his website, but that doesn't mean 10 miilion different people. If you had 1 million people frequencing his site 10 times each since the report was released, you could come up with that number. That's more likely the scenario, since I've been on his site 20 times already.

My guess is you're looking at the same million or so who are taking this issue seriously, a maybe just a few newcomers. So in other words, "same as it ever was."

-- Hiway (Hiway441@aol.com), September 04, 1999.

I watched the show this morning, and I was impressed by its quality and its possible impact. I'm hopeful that it will reach some ostriches and not so Y2K-aware people. Paula Gordon WAS natural, that's who she is, and in my book, that makes her that much more credible. She's an everyday person not-made-for-t.v. expert. It's also a good feeling to have a real face to attach to Jim Lord, his mannerism are consistant with the idea I had of him in my head as a trustable respectful gentleman.

RUOK, unfortunately I'm afraid that they were preaching to the choir indeed, certainly more than 20, but the y2K aware and pessimists at most. I want the video badly! My husband had to go to work this morning and missed it. Paula and Jim neatly presented what I've been trying to convey to my husband. If he still has doubts that I might have lost some marbles, this video should shake him and impart some credibily back to me, if only by association.

Ed, I agree with you that the show could have aired 6 months ago and all in all at least WE didn't learn much of anything new, but Paula made a very important statement with deep implications; that she learned only in June that President Clinton had made the decision long ago to "wait and see" and deal with the crisis after the role- over. That was the most powerful message IMO throughout the whole show. It butteressed everything else they discussed and warned about. Hopefully a light bulb went on in the viewer's mind; "so that's why we haven't been barraged with serious y2k in the media!". I can fantasise.

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), September 04, 1999.

Git:

Do you mudwrestle?

Ed:

10 Million hits would be far more believable to me than the 10 Million people Jim claims has been to his web site. It's a common mistake to think that each hit or user session repesents a unique user. If you recall the internet release of Starr's report, many powerful servers at multiple locations and by multiple organization (public and private) were feeding the downloads to millions. In the face of this, it seems that it is unlikely that Jim has had THAT many unique users to his site.

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), September 04, 1999.

Jim did say 10 million...to look at the navey papers. I thought for mainstream tv it was pretty darn good. Made for a pleasant Saturday morning....sort of :> Not fun to think about but nice to get some info from the media. I thought the callers were good. I even thought one might be Diane. How many of you all called in ??????? Come on now...fess up. There were a couple of our pollies on there.

-- Moore Dinty moore (not@thistime.com), September 04, 1999.

I taped it if someone Really wants a copy. I think it was an excellent hour to give to someone on the fence, loved ones, pastor, neighbor etc. What I liked was that there were two experts, calm, rational and articulate predicting a 9.5.

Cherri, Dr. Gordon must know something about embedded systems and devices. She has written a serious white paper on on the subject. It is found at: gwu.edu

What struck me was Lord saying that he was more concerned about the water than the electric.

All in all a good reason to relocate, buy more food, and finish all preps.

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), September 04, 1999.

Thanks to all, especially Old Git, from the land of the cable challenged.

Perhaps the 10 million hits on Lord's site does reduce down to repeat lurks by 1 million people, but how many untold numbers of immediate family, friends and relatives do they influence? And how far do those additional individuals impact ripples, within ripples, and their continuing conversations beyond themselves?

Remember the concept of.. Six Degrees of Separation? Similar impact, IMHO.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), September 04, 1999.

Does anyone know if C-SPAN sells videos of their programming?

Otherwise BB, I may be taking you up on that offer.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), September 04, 1999.

Old Git,

I watched the program 2 times, and your synopsis was wonderful! I felt as though I were watching it a 3rd time!

-- Rebecca Waldock (RWaldock@noemail.com), September 04, 1999.

check out cspan.com, then cspanstore/videotapes. Looks like they are a couple of days behind. Cost: 29.95

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), September 04, 1999.

Some quick responses,

Ed,

Per my earlier question, I wanted to know whether Lord was talking about visits to HIS Navy web site, not the NAVY's web site. Certainly, he couldn't have any way of knowing about hits to the former (unless, of course, he has an informant sitting by the server. [Grin ) To clarify, I meant the www.jimlord.to site that deals exclusively with the Navy survey, not Jim Lord's other Y2k site.

RUOK, I have it on tape and can provide dubs (after all, am I not vidprof? [grin]) at cost, provided I can determine the "copyright police" won't come after me for doing so. Anybody know if C-Span is partially funded by tax dollars?

Just writing off the top of my head here and wouldn't you know it? The "rug rats" are calling. It's also 92 degrees in my office today with the sun beating on my window. Time for a break!

:)

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), September 04, 1999.

$ 29.95 ?

Somebody has to be kidding here.

Really?

At that cost, methinks there may be no tax dollars involved in C-Span's funding.

Anyway, those of you who know copyright drill with regard to duplicating C-Span tapes, post the info here.

I don't have the time to check on it today.

:)

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), September 04, 1999.

And Cherri, dear, where's your link?

I'm not asking for an argument. I'd really like to know.

:)

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), September 04, 1999.

I just watched it again. I made a copy of it. He did say I've had I've had 10 million hits on my website...er to see the navy papers. I was wrong. Now on to Ed, Cherri -- again, without a written transcript, I have to admit to the possibility that I'm Cherri -- re the comment during the Senate hearing: it was Senator Bennett who was expressing concern that many Y2K web sites express a "doom and gloom" perspective. At which point he paused, looked at me with a smile, and said, "But not yours, Mr. Yourdon." It's possible that he was being subtly sarcastic, but I took it as a sincere remark. In any case, there was no question mark at the end of his statement... Ed Ed,

The question mark was mine. I believe you were correct in your first possibility, The expression on your face can only be described as "blanching". That along with "the nationalization of your copper mines" had me in stitches for days.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), September 04, 1999.

Mailing Address

C-SPAN Archives

Purdue Research Park

PO Box 2909

West Lafayette, IN 47906-2909

ORDERS: 1-877-ON-CSPAN

FAX: 1-765-497-8282

Send payments to:

C-SPAN Archives

PO Box 66809

Indianapolis, IN 46266-6809

info@c-spanarchives.org

When will my tape be shipped?

We try to ship promoted tapes and programs less than six-months old seven days after the order. Older programs average fourteen days.

Is there a shipping charge?

Yes, we charge $7 for the first videotape program and $3 for each additional program. Shipping for the first product is $5.50 and $1.50 for each additional product.

Product prices are recently changed. Shipping and handling is now calculated separately. The price of a single product remains the same, but the price for ordering multiple products has decreased.

How are tapes shipped?

We ship all tapes by two-day FedEx service.

What if I need my tape sooner?

We have three types of Rush orders

3-Day Rush: Shipped on third business day $75 per program

Today Rush: Shipped today (if received by 2:00 PM) $150 per program

Immediate Rush: Shipped today (received after 2:00 PM) $200 per program

Saturday, Holiday, Early Morning, or Same Day requires customer Fedex account for charges in addition to the Rush charges.

I'm not sure I want to purchase a videotape...do you loan tapes?

We do not loan tapes. We try to keep our tape prices affordable so that it is not cost prohibitive to purchase them.

What if I only want a small part of a long program?

We have set our prices low so that you can obtain the entire program. This is usually more economical than having us research and edit. When our cataloging indicates timecode, we can provide segments for $30 or $60 per hour, plus a $40 editing fee. You must speak with a researcher to identify the segment and complete a "Segment Request Form." However, for segment requests, we do not view tapes to find individuals speaking or particular statments.

Can I make copies of the videotapes I obtain from the Archives?

Generally it is permissible to make one archival copy, or edit the tape for ease of use, in videotape format. However, no copies may be made to create additional copies or for distribution. C-SPAN retains the copyright for their programming. If you are uncertain, please check with the Archives before duplicating the tape.

Is it possible to get a program on a broadcast quality tape such as Betacam or 3/4?

We generally provide programs on 1/2 VHS format. Approval of the use is required before we can provide the material on a higher quality format. Request a Special Format/Special Use Request Form and we will assist you with the approval process.

How are the prices determined?

Programs less than 5 years old are $30 per hour. Hearings are $60 per hour. Archival programs are $60 per hour. Booknotes, National Press Club Speeches, and American Perspective programs are $24.95 These programs remain at this price regardless of age.

Does the Archives have other programs not listed on this site?

Yes, the C-SPAN Archives holds every program that has aired on the C- SPAN networks since October, 1987. If you do not find the program you are interested in, send an e-mail inquiry and our researchers will respond.

How long will the videotapes be available?

Since we are an archive, we keep all programs forever.

What are the dates on the programs?

The date is when the program or event originally occurred, not when it aired.

Why are some programs listed as "NOT FOR SALE"?

We can only sell programs to which we own the copyright. C-SPAN occasionally airs programs that are acquired for showing on the network, but cannot be sold. We list these programs so that viewers searching for them will be able to find them even if they cannot purchase them.

What if I am looking for myself, a relative, or a friend who was at an event C-SPAN covered?"

Only the persons indexed in our listings are guaranteed to be on the tape. C-SPAN covers public affairs events and its cameras are primarily focused on the main speaker and panels. We cannot search the videos for individuals who are not identified nor guarantee that those individuals will be found on the tape. There are often cameras of other news organizations at events that capture events off of the podium that C-SPAN may not have taped. If you are requesting a tape to find an unindexed person, please be aware of these limitations. You may want to consult with our staff before ordering.

Can I return a tape I purchased?

You must first obtain authorization to return a tape. Please note that all of our tapes are custom duplicated in real time. Tapes that have been returned after viewing cannot be resold. These tapes might have been damaged or recorded over when they were placed in a customer's VCR. Consequently, tapes that have been shipped have no return value.

As an archive of irreplaceable master tapes, we must be very careful in retrieving and copying these tapes for orders. Thus, each order, and especially those for older and rare items, require custom attention by our duplication staff. If you are uncertain if the videotape is really the program that you need, please consult our research staff before placing your order.

-- Gayla (privacy@please.com), September 04, 1999.

You're the best Gayla!! Thank you! *big hug*

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), September 04, 1999.

Thanks, BB, FM and Gayla!

Here is a link to the recent shows that are available from C-Span:

C-Span Store

The list is 2 days behind, as BB said. Looks like anyone interested in purchasing the tape should check back at the above link in a few days.

When they say that their shipping charge is $7, and also allude to a handling charge, I'm unclear whether the handling charge is included in the $7? Wowsers, this is spendy...but, it sounds like something that may help a few people I know. I hope.

-- RUOK (RUOK@yesiam.com), September 04, 1999.

Does this mean I cannot give copies away for free?

-Copyright challenged

-- bb (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), September 04, 1999.

RUOK, as I understand it they reduced the price of handling for subsequent videos part of the same order, but shiping remains the same.

For instance,

one 1-hour video of Lord/Gordon = $30 + 5.50(S)+ 1.50(H)= $37

two 1-hour videos of same = $60 + 5.50(S)+ 3.00(H)= $68.50

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), September 04, 1999.

FM, I'm going to post a new thread called Embedded chips and safety issues, But you can go to the thread

Down near the bottom is good about safety.

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001A1t

and I will try to gather some more info and post it.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), September 04, 1999.

In clarification of the stats on my JimLord.to website, I actually misspoke on the air. I have had over ten million PAGES downloaded from the site in just over two weeks. A page downloaded means one individual viewing a single page. When you click to the next link that's another page downloaded. I don't know how many visitors or unique visitors.

Live TV is not without its perils.

Jim Lord

-- Jim Lord (JimLordY2K@aol.com), September 04, 1999.

Jim: Thanks for the clarification. Even 10 million 'hits' translates into a considerable number of 'user sessions'. It might be interesting to run your stats through an analysis tool such as Webtrends (or similar) to get a better feel for what those stats mean.

Unfortunately, I missed the show but I've seen both you and Paula on a C-SPAN covered event previously and respect the both of you for what you are doing.

I have to agree with the comment above that Paula doesn't need any 'coaching'. She comes across as someone thrust by events into the speaking role that she now finds herself in. For me anyway, the rough edges on her 'stage presence' are clues that she is not there as a professional witness, hired by some PR firm to run with their ball. In short, I agree that it adds to her credibility. In my own judgement, she is clearly not doing what she is doing for financial gain or fame. I believe she is speaking out because few others will.

But what I believe is irrelevant at this point in time. We are going into this ill-prepared (collectively) for all but the most minor of events. All preparations that will be done are now complete.

The Rimmer household owes a small piece of its awareness to both of you. So we have made preparations as best we can within our own means. We have neither 'bugged out' nor 'gone off the deep end'. We have simply tried to make our dependencies on external goods and services more 'fault tolerant'. We will be delighted should the limits of our fault tolerance not be tested next year.

Many thanks to the both of you.

-- Arnie Rimmer (Arnie_Rimmer@usa.net), September 05, 1999.

C-Span archives the Washington Journal show for one week at http://www.c-span.org/guide/journal/archive/. If you have Real Video, you can watch the show. Yesterday is not archived yet. I have been waiting impatiently for them to post it so my husband can watch it (our VCR is messed up). Just thought you might all want to know. Nicki

-- Nicki (y2kaware@excite.com), September 05, 1999.

Jim,

You wrote:

"Live TV is not without its perils."

Indeed, but your interview was a good example of grace under pressure. I particularly enjoyed your slam-dunk of the "kooks," caller. One question about that: Was your use of the phrase "intellectually dishonest," a nice way to say "obtuse?" [grin]

Also, will you be updating your .to web site soon?

:)

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), September 05, 1999.

The program was excellent -- good for borderline family, friends, and neighbors. Both Dr. Gordon and Jim Lord came across as concerned, thoughtful, non-wackos....but, even I was aghast at the 8.5 and 9.5 possible outcomes!

My only wish: to know what Dr. Gordon had planned for personal y2k contingencies....what a person does is the measure of their belief in what they say, and this would have been a helpful eyeopener.

Thanks to this forum for the tune-in schedule --would have missed it otherwise.

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), September 05, 1999.

"We have neither 'bugged out' nor 'gone off the deep end'. We have simply tried to make our dependencies on external goods and services more 'fault tolerant'. We will be delighted should the limits of our fault tolerance not be tested next year." Arnie Rimmer

....sigh....

When I grow up, I want to be as eloquent as Arnie! :-)

(PS- Arnie, your posts are always a delight!)

-- Gayla (privacy@please.com), September 05, 1999.

Finally--thanks, Stan! No, I never have mudwrestled. However, with the seven inches of rain Dennis just left in central NC and cunclogging a downspout about half-way through, I did get my feet wet, so to speak. Not to mention my arms, legs and everything else. Mud only on one arm, though. Is there such a thing as arm-mud-wrestling?

Glad y'all got so much use out of my notes. I was actually typing notes from the TV. One thing I CAN do, I can type really fast! The problem comes in deciphering later when I hit spots where I lost the home keys! I do apologize again for the numerous typos--very sloppy--but I did only a hasty proofread, thinking it better to get the information out than to present a pretty page.

Cherri--a true story: Margaret Thatcher, as Prime Minister, enjoyed an audience with the Queen every Wednesday. At one of those sessions both women arrived wearing identical blue dresses. Later, Mrs. Thatcher had her secretary call the Queen's secretary to see if she could find out in advance what the Queen would be wearing when they met in the future so as to avoid embarrassment. The Queen's secretary replied, "Her Majesty never notices what other people are wearing."

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), September 06, 1999.

I received an email from Dr. Gordon clarifying her position to me:

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Saw your note on one of the C-SPAN threads. Thought I would drop you this note and try to clarify your concern regarding my rating.

My comments on Russ Kelly's website for September might be a help to read.

I am not at a 9.5. I am at a provisional 5 to 9.5 depending on whether or not the government (or anyone else) makes sure that everything is done that can be done before the rollover.

I am working to see to it that additional initiatives are taken that will help minimize the impacts.

Other relevant URLs are in my signature below.

I hope this helps clarify where I am coming from.

Best wishes,

Paula Gordon

PS You might find the RealVideo website of particular interest.

Paula D. Gordon, Ph.D. Director of Special Projects, Research Program in Social and Organizational Learning, George Washington University Please direct all communications to pgordon@erols.com.

For Parts 1 - 4 of a White Paper on Y2K by Paula Gordon, see http://www.gwu.edu/~y2k/keypeople/gordon. (Part 5 coming soon.) For a Y2K Audio/Video webpage of Y2K related programs, see http://www.y2kapproaches.com/real/pgordon.htm. The videotaped proceedings of the July 1999 GW Y2K Conference will soon be posted there. For comments on the conference and copies of prepared statements and related material, see http://www.gwu.edu/~y2k/keypeople/gordon/1999conference.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hope you can get it to a 5.0 Paula, but I doubt it. I think you do too.

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), September 06, 1999.