My Two Oral Presentations
Instructions
for my oral presentations
PRESENTATION 1: Y-2K PROBLEM
Summary of oral presentation 1
First of all, Y-2K stands for year
two thousand. The problem with Y-2K started back in the 1950s.
In order to save space, COBOL programmers used just 6 digits to render
the day's date (2 for the day, 2 for the month, and 2 for the year).
It was the middle of the century and no one really cared what would happen
in the year 2000. What Gary North and several others believe will
happen is that the computers will either shut down or start spewing out
bad data. This is because they've been programmed to recognize the
year 2000 as 1900.
In my opinion Gary North
is an extremist. He believes that the Y2K problem is a time bomb
waiting to explode. He points out that banks, railroads, public utilities,
telephone lines, military communications, and financial markets could go
down and stay down for weeks, months, or even years. I think there
may be a few minor problems, but not one of great magnitude. This
web site was created in 1997 and since then companies have made a lot of
progress in becoming Y2K compliant.
A man who shares North's
idea is Ed Yourdon, one of America's senior mainframe computer programmers.
Gary North provides a link to one of Yourdon's idea called the Domino Effect.
Yourdon and North believe that the Y2K problem will spread and companies
will begin to fall like dominos. For example, lets say one company
is successful at becoming Y2K compliant, but if the people they do business
with are not then they will experience problems as well and it will spread
like a virus. Yourdon and North believe that the "ripple effect"
is impossible to avoid and that the year 2000 problem could trigger a depression
on the scale of the Great Depression.
I never really thought about
this aspect of the problem. Indeed it could have devastating effects,
but after talking to my father (who was recently appointed chair of the
Y2K problem committee for DFS hawaii, his job is to ensure that all the
companies that they do business with are Y2K compliant) he has assured
me that their large company, as well as the people they do business with,
have been prudently working to ensure Y2K compliance in the year 2000.
In addition, I've been hearing on the news that other companies are doing
the same. North has another link to one of Yourdon?s radical ideas,
that programmers should quit their jobs and leave town in 1999. He
asks that readers of the site consider these questions: Has your CEO or
board of directors made a public commitment that all of the organization's
system will be year 2000 compliant, and that there is a detailed plan for
coping with the organizations non-year-2000-compliant vendors, suppliers,
customers, etc.? Will you be able to get another job? Do you have
enough money to support your family? North says if these people do in fact
quit their jobs, then there will be no solution for Y2K. He believes
they will quit and says, "The exodus of programmers will begin no later
than 1999." I don't agree with this last statement because there
has been no major evidence at this point (1999) that verifies that programmers
have quit their jobs out of fear of the Y2K problem.
An interesting point that
Yourdon addresses is that almost every organization could have fixed its
Y2K problem if they had begun addressing it in 1995 or before. Another
interesting issue that North brings up is that no government tax collection
agency above the county level is year 2000 compliant today. He says
that people will know in 2000 that the government cannot trace them.
Will people continue to pay, what will happen to government welfare programs,
and even the government debt markets? This information is no longer
accurate, however, because I recently read in Time magazine that the IRS
will be Y2K compliant and will be making sure that everyone is following
policy. North?s web site also contains a link to a list of vulnerable
systems entitled: If these systems are at risk, Everything is at
risk. Most of these industries, however, have already begun exhaustive
testing to ensure compliance.
I actually think it is people
like North and Yourdon who will do more damage to the Y2K problem than
Y2K itself. Although their intentions are only to warn people of
the potential dangers (because they believe our society is in denial),
I think their good intentions may have adverse effects. They are
causing great alarm which could lead to panic. North?s motto is:
There is nothing we can do already so buy gold and grain, quit your job,
and find a remote cabin safe from the rioting heard. Web sites like
North's has already caused some stir around the US according to a recent
Time/CNN poll.
This site is intended for
everyone ranging from business men/ women to housewives to students.
The world is run by computers and thus the Y2K problem could affect everyone.
To Table of Contents
Questions and Answers for Oral
Presentation 1
Q: How do computer systems become Y2K
compliant?
Leon
Mosher and George
Pederson
A: Some of the newer computers are built Y2K
compliant. Others are upgraded to become Y2K compliant by expanding
the year field from 2 digits to 4 digits so that the computer will now
know the difference between the year 1900 and the year 2000.
Q: What are the consequences if the
other computers are not Y2K compliant?
Russ
Muramatsu
A: Computers which communicate with one another
with one another may not be able to share information that is necessary
to conduct routine business. Thus it is important to make sure that
the companies that one does business with are Y2K compliant as well, so
that further problems can be minimized.
Q: When did the problem become noticed?
Craig
Kawamura
A: The problem was apparent from the very beginning. In the
late 1950s, a man by the name of Robert Bemer, invented the picture clause
which allowed for a four digit year. Thus the technology was available
very early on for every computer to become Y2K compliant. Despite
this fact, programmers ignored Bemer's contribution and the Y2K bug began
to spread. It was not until 1971 and again in 1979 that Bemer published
the earliest Y2K warnings. Still people refused to do anything about
the potential problem. Finally, in 1995 and there after, Y2K awareness
set in and people began exhaustive testing to exterminate the Y2K bug.
Q: How is the government coping with
this problem?
Craig
Kawamura
A: According to North's Y2K web site, the government has no
systems that are Y2K compliant yet. This site was developed in 1997,
however, and according to the Honolulu Star- Bulletin,
governments worldwide are spending millions of dollars to prevent malfunctions.
Q: Do you believe this guy North is
full of crap? Why or why not?
Jay
Donlin
A: Well I cannot say for certain what will happen at 12:00 a.m.,
Jan. 1, 2000, no one can, but I am almost positive that most of North's
predictions will not come true. Several of North's outdated claims
have already been disproved. As I said before, I believe there will
be some minor disruptions, but nothing catastrophic.
Q: Will the Y2K problem affect the "normal"
user?
Kyle
Michibata
A: In some cases it will, where the
computer systems have not been appropriately tested to ensure that they
are Y2K compliant.
Q: What are some of the precautions
or measures home PC users should take to insure their personal PCs will
survive on midnight 1/1/2000?
Wilfred
Lee and Cori
Egami
A: They should set the day and time in their home PC to December
31, 1999, 11:59 p.m. and let the clock roll past midnight. They should
then begin testing the programs which they have stored within their home
computer. You should be able to tell it you have a problem.
If you do, you need to have it fixed by getting in touch with the computer
manufacturer of software supplier to see if they have appropriate upgrades
for Y2K. Don?t panic! You should be able to bring the system back
to the current date and continue utilizing the computer for the remainder
of the 20th century.
Q: Do you think that the Y2K problem
will really cause a great depression like North and Yourdon believe?
Evelyn
Moss
A: No absolutely not. Most prudent individuals have already
taken appropriate steps to ensure that we have a smooth transition into
the 20th century. Only the doomsdayers believe otherwise.
Q: Do you have a computer and is it
Y2K compliant? And if so, how would you react if you?d lose all your files
and not be able to retrieve them if one of your "connections" didn?t take
the initiative to be Y2K compliant?
Carolyn
Agmata
A: Yes I have a computer that is Y2K compliant. My father
has also run the appropriate test to check for compliance. If one
of the connections did not take the initiative to become compliant as well,
needless to say, I would be infuriated. That is why, it is important
that we ourselves, follow through and make sure that all our connections
will be Y2K compliant.
Q: In your opinion, how will the Y2K
problem affect the general population on a personal level?
Jocelyn
Manibusan
A: Minimally since most people are aware of the problem and working
vigorously to ensure that we enter the next century with the slightest
amount of disruption in our everyday lives.
Q: Do you think that the computer industry
and programmers waited too long in addressing this problem?
Cori
Egami
A: No, they have been working on it for many years. Only the
procrastinators are now racing the clock. It is much more in the
lime light now that we are rapidly approaching the next millennium.
Q: Couldn't you just reprogram the computer?
Hyechin
Kim
A: Yes, that?s exactly what?s being done in cases where systems
are not Y2K compliant. They need to reprogram to computer to recognize
four digits for the year (2000) instead of two (00).
Q: What can we do to minimize the problems
caused by the Y2K?
Hyechin
Kim
A: Complete thorough testing of all existing system, to confirm
Y2K compliance. You many also want to take a few precautionary measure,
suggestions can be found in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin and I have also
included a list in my reactions. Last
but not least, stay calm and don panic.
Q: Will the traffic lights be affected
by Y2K?
Hyechin
Kim
A: Probably not, because most government agencies are will aware
of the potential hazards and are taking action to reduce the risk of failure.
There may be some problems in a few areas, but I am confident they will
have the problem resolved quickly.
Q: Which area of business do you think
will be at most risk from the Y2K bug?
Valerie
Iinuma
A: The smallest of businesses such as family run shops which bought
their one and only computer many years ago and failed to keep pace with
the current trends. Thereby failing to update their old systems to
new systems more likely to be Y2K compliant.
Q: Does the every day PC user have to
fear the Y2K problem? Will it affect everyday word processor function?
Email?
Sean
Marrs
A: Not the newer systems, older ones possibly. Most of the
recent computer systems (within the past four years) are already Y2K compliant.
If you are concerned then you should call the computer manufacturer and
software supplier.
Q: Is the anxiety related to Y2K also
aggravated by the millennium hysteria?
Dr.
James
A: Yes, I believe they go hand in hand. Many people get a
little crazy at the start of a new millennium. Some people even view
Y2K as being the end of the world as we know it, or the famous apocalypse.
It's silly to think that much of the anxiety is related to the millennium
hysteria because if you actually did the calculations, the millennium actually
began a few years ago. Dionysius Exiguus, laid down the basis for
the calendars we know and use today, by figuring out how long ago Christ
was born. As it turns out, he was off by several years, thus
indicating that the third millennium would have arrived no later than 1997
(Time, 1999)
Q: Can the Y2K problem be defined as
a planted virus (by the programmers in the 1950s)?
Dr.
James
A: It could be but it?s very unlikely because I don?t think programmers
in the 1950s were concerned about planting viruses to destroy computers
in the future, as they had many more things to occupy their time with.
Computers were slow and storage capacity was very small, therefore, it
is unlikely to produce sophisticated viruses as we know them today.
Q: Why is it a problem to fix? Just
the money?
Dr.
James
A: It's not really a problem to fix, and in most cases there won?t
be a problem because appropriate action will have already been taken.
Although this is a very expensive project, most people understand that
they have no choice and are putting forth whatever funds are required to
ensure that we will not end this century in a catastrophic situation.
To Table of Contents
My Reaction of Oral Presentation
1
Throughout the summary of this
report and my responses to the class questions, I have made it very clear
what my opinion is on the Y2K problem. I think that North and Yourdon
are extremist, and while they raise some interesting issues, they are quite
outrageous an unrealistic. For, example suggesting, that programmers
quit their jobs, and advising people to beware of another great depression
and to move to an isolated area. I personally don't feel that these
drastic measures are necessary. Instead, I've devised a more sensible
precautionary plan for those concerned:
-
Insure that all the companies you deal with (banks, stock companies, and
other financial institutions) are certified Y2K compliant.
-
Retain copies of all monthly statements from all institutions that hold
your assets from 1999. If you do online banking or stock trading,
be sure to print out copies of your month end balances from these institutions.
-
In you're really concerned about having access of your funds through ATMs,
keep a limited amount of cash on hand, until you are satisfied that the
people you do financial business with are not experiencing Y2K problems.
-
Students, especially those who are applying to other institutions, retain
a copy of your official transcript from student records
-
You may also want to stock up on a few supplies such as water, can goods,
and batteries (enough for a few days). A full tanks of gas is also
a good measure.
-
Most important, try not to panic. Fear could be the worst enemy because
it could lead to bank runs, food hoarding, and violence because of the
surge in firearm sales.
Special thanks to:
Walter Lieberman, Information Center Manager at Duty Free Shoppers (DFS)
Hawaii, and Chair of Y2K Compliance Committee at DFS Hawaii.
The End Of The World As We Know It. Time. January 18, 1999.
Vol. 153. No.2
Y2K Fear May Be Worst Enemy. Honolulu Star-Bulletin.
February 9, 1999. A-1.
To Table of Contents
Suggestions for Future Generations
-
Make sure to read the instructions
for the oral.html file before starting your report and adhere to it
very closely to attain the best possible grade.
-
Look at previous generations oral.html files to get a good indication of
how the report should be done.
-
Don't wait longer than two weeks to post your summary and responses or
else too much time may have elapsed and your presentation may not be fresh
in your mind.
-
If your presentation was on a particular site, such as mine, be sure to
click on the other available links to get and overall view of the entire
site.
To Table of Contents
PRESENTATION 2: CONTENT CONTROL (Chapter
7)
Summary and Reaction of oral presentation
2
The main
idea of this chapter was about filtering devices, how they work, and what's
available right now. The main filtering system that the book examines
is PICS (Platform for Internet Content Selection). This was a technology
standard launched in 1995, and was created by the World Wide Web Consortium
as a result of the U.S. Communications Decency Act (CDA). The CDA
was passed in late 1995 but was overturned in 1997. This law would
have outlawed the posting of indecent material on the Internet. The
CDA thought this material would corrupt and endanger vulnerable children.
The Supreme Court, however, felt that the law as too vague and impeded
individuals rights. The CDA would not only have impacted porn sites,
but many valuable sites as well, such as health care, art, medical information,
and religious decisions.
The author expressed her enthusiasm and her
agreement with the Supreme Courts decision to overturn the CDA. I
agree with this decision as well. It would be a shame if we were
limited to resources that contained beneficial information just because
it had a slight sexual connotation, for example, information on "Aids"
prevention.
Thus, PICS was born. Although the internet
was already full of boundaries such as domain names, passwords, and payment
requirements, the problem was that too much of what was out there was not
clearly marked. The solution was to label the content. People
could then use the labels to decide whether they wanted to select or filter
the content. "The labeling technology can be inserted into the computer
infrastructure so that a user can instruct a browser where to take him
or what to avoid automatically" (Dyson, 169). Although the devices
are not 100% guaranteed, they do create a more secure environment that
emphasizes parent control rather than government control.
I think the invention of PICS was a smart
move because if filtering tools were not made available then who knows,
the CDA law may have been reestablished within a few years after its overturn.
The invention of filtering tool benefits everyone, because it gives those
individual the right to block what they believe is indecent material and
others the right to explore everything the internet has to offer.
The chapter states that the philosophy behind
PICS is to: Give parents or anyone else the tools to filter content for
themselves and their children (Dyson, 169). "PICS is the underlying
technology for tools to create and publish labels and for the filters and
other tools to recognize them" (Dyson, 170). PICS allows both the
web site owner as well as a third party to label a site, and then allows
any PICS-enabled browser or soft ware tool to find and interpret the label.
The label can be either physically on the site, or else ratings can
be collected by a third-party ratings bureau that one could refer to automatically
over the internet. "The ratings are judgments about a site and labels
are formal ways in which they are expressed" (Dyson 171). PICS allows
the consumer or user to decide what they want to know, as well as a way
of specifying who made the rating. That way a user could obtain labels
from raters they trust.
Here is where things stand now with PICS,
it is analogous to the chick and the egg problem. People won?t use
PICS filters until there are enough PICS-labeled sites, and the label bureaus
won?t be established until there are more PICS-filter users. There
are, however, many popular softwares out there right now that do or promise
to offer PICS filtering tools in the near future, such as Microsoft, Netscape,
and Compu Serve.
There are currently tool that not only filter
information coming in, but information going out as well. A popular
software is Net Nanny. It can block things such as a revealing home
address, a credit card number, or confidential corporate information.
There are also corporate versions designed for employers rather than parents.
These filters can block employee access not just to indecent sites, but
also to productivity destroying games, potentially virus-ridden downloaded
software, and time-wasting chat rooms (Dyson, 183).
In general, self-ratings are the most accurate,
particularly because the web sites know what they are offering. There
are two problems associated with self-rating however: 1) The sites may
fudge the truth (to have more users visit their site). 2) One individual?s
criteria for rating their site may be different from another individual
rating their own site. Basically, "people have different preferences
and perspectives" (Dyson, 176). In the end, people will just choose
a rating service that is compatible with their interests and views.
Some services offer collaborative filtering which is a way of achieving
the same clustering of opinions from a broad database that you get by selecting
a rating service that matched your opinions.
Rating Systems must search through new sites
as well as old sites due to membership changes, management changes, or
just to update material. Thus, ratings must not be static.
This is where third-party raters are extremely useful. They can provide
ratings for a broad range of ideas and topics in usually an unbiased fashion.
The methods used by third-party raters to develop or validate their rating
are automated text analysis and human inspection.
The remainder of the chapter gives descriptions
of some of the filtering tools that are available, such as: CYBERsitter,
Cyber Patrol, and Net Shepherd.
Source: Dyson, Esther. Release 2.0 A Design for Living in
the Digital Age. Dell Publishing Group, Inc., New york: 1997.
To Table of Contents
Questions and Answers for Oral Presentation
2
Q: Should Internet uses have access
to all types of information, regardless of its contents, or should there
be restrictions on certain kinds of material?
Albert
Ne
A: Even though restriction that is not by
choice is a violation of freedom of speech, I do feel that there should
by limitations to certain kinds of material being accessed on the web.
For instance, I don't think anyone should be allowed information on how
to make bombs, or be able to view "hate" sites on the net. Although
these sites alone do not make a "killer," they do provide a move in the
wrong direction. I see no good that can come out of these sites.
Q: What is your opinion on corporate
filtering systems? Do you support it or not?
Jocelyn
Manibusan
A: I have mixed feelings about this one.
While I feel that employers have the right to ban leisure and inappropriate
activities on the internet during office hours, I do think that filtering
devices may accidentally block sites that could be beneficial. If
there was a tool available that could control for this then that device,
in my opinion, would be ideal. I also think that sometimes employers
may use filters as a means of imposing their values and beliefs on their
employees (by making only certain sites available) and I do not agree with
that.
Q: When is this filtering system supposed
to be completed?
George
Pederson
A: The filtering system was a technology standard
launched in 1995 to prevent the outflow of indecent material on the internet,
and to otherwise preserve the right to freedom of speech. PICS is
the underlying technology behinds tools to create and publish labels and
for certain software to recognize these labels. There is currently
several software tools available that utilize PICS as a means of content
control.
Q: What about parents who are not responsible
or who know less about computers that their child? Do those kids
go unprotected? What do you think?
Russ
Muramatsu
A: That is definitely a concern. This
is when computer education for parents comes into play. I think children
whose parents are not responsible and who are computer illiterate are very
much at risk. These parents are probably not aware of the potential
dangers of the internet. I believe it is their responsibility as
parents to learn about the computer especially if surfing the internet
is a hobby of their child.
Q: What if parents don't want a filter,
will they be forced to purchase one?
Russ
Muramatsu
A: The text indicates that by 2004, filtering
technology will probably be a standard in all Internet tools available
to consumers. Whether or not the parents want to make use of the
filtering option, I think will be entirely up to them (unless there are
more tragic incidences like Columbine High then perhaps the government
may make filtering devices mandatory).
Q: Name or list, if any, disadvantages
of having filtering device.
Carolyn
Agmata
A: The technology is not foolproof, especially
when it comes to filtering outgoing information. It may block innocent
works that were spelt incorrectly or send out slight variations that may
still reveal personal information. Another disadvantage of filtering
devices is that they may block out educational information such as medical
topics like "Aids."
Q: In your opinion, what is the best
way to control the content on the Net?
Evelyn
Moss
A: The internet is so huge that it is virtually
impossible to control what gets put out on the web. I think filtering
devices are probably the best bet for content control. Although they
are not guaranteed, overall they create a more secure environment and provide
control in a more just way than the government would.
Q: Who does the labeling?
Evelyn
Moss and Hyechin
Kim
A: There are two people who are responsible
for labeling the sites, the site owners themselves and third-parter labelers
(people who have the job of searching through various sites and labeling
them according to their content).
Q: Do you think filters should be allowed?
Hyechin
Kim
A: Yes I think filters should be allowed because
they can serve as an aid for parents trying to protect their children from
inappropriate sites. Filters may have come in handy in the Columbine
High shooting incident, where children learned how to make bombs off the
internet. I do not believe, however, that filters should be used
as a substitute for parent control. It is ultimately the parents
responsibility to educate their children.
Q: Content control allows for parents
to manipulate what can be viewed, with this filtering how would you rate
the quality of content control?
Craig
Kawamura
A: Filtering devices are not perfect.
There are millions of sites out there and at this point it is almost impossible
for the filtering tools to account for all of them. There are also
some issues concerning the reliability and biases of the rating systems.
That is why I feel these filtering tools cannot be a substitute for parent
control. They do, however, provide some means of content control,
and in my opinion are much more effective than not having anything at all.
Q: How do you draw the line between
censorship and free speech?
Cori
Egami
A: I personally don't feel that filtering
tools constitute censorship or impede upon freedom of speech. Filtering
tools are optional and people can decide what they want to see and what
they don't want to see, that is their right. Although the children
are not getting to choose what they want to view, they are still minors
and it is their parents responsibility to decide what is appropriate and
what is not.
Q: How can every site in existence possibly
be accounted for and rated? Isn't like counting and measuring sand?
Cori
Egami and Sean
Marrs
A: Labeling and rating sites is indeed an
extremely tedious process, and at this point, there is no guarantee that
every site in existence can be accounted for. As I mentioned in the
summary, the problem right now is that there are not enough label bureaus
established because the filtering tools are not in high demand. Unless
we can think of a more efficient way to label websites then reliability
of filtering systems will always be at question.
Q: How does filtering work? Does
it look through the entire web pages or only at the descriptions and titles?
Leon
Mosher
A: Different filtering tools provide the user
with different options. Some of them only look for key words or specific
subjects, while others are more sophisticated and look at the label ratings
for that particular site. In the later one, website owners or third-party
labelers look through the entire web page and give it an appropriate rating
(similar to a movie rating). It is then up to the parents to decide
which tool they would like to invest in.
Q: Are there standard rating systems?
Kyle
Michibata and Valerie
Iinuma
A: PICS is the standard or underlying rating
system in which softwares base their filtering tools on. PICS is
responsible for allowing website owners or a third party to label a site
and for PICS-enabled browsers and other software tools to find and interpret
these label.
Q: Why do some people oppose filtering
in libraries and schools?
Dr.
James
A: I think people in libraries and schools
are often opposed to filtering because they can accidentally block out
information from many valuable sites such as health care, art, medical
information, and religious decisions.
Q: Do you think parental control is
enough to protect children online? Or is government intervention
needed? Most parents would not get involved, or might not: What about
their children? Do we need to train parents?
Dr.
James
A: I think that if parents make an honest
effort to learn more about the computer and the internet, then we have
a decent shot at protecting our chidden online. Whether it means
attending training sessions or taking a computer course, then it must be
done to ensure safety for the children. Things are getting so bad
these days and there is so much harmful information on the internet that
I believe parents must take these extra measures. So it is not only
the parents that need to educate their children, but also the parents who
must educate themselves.
To Table of Contents
My Reaction of Oral Presentation
2
By now
you probably know what my opinion is on filtering devices. I think
they can be an excellent tool for content control if used in collaboration
with parent control and education. Filtering devices cannot serve
as a substitute for parents and they do not remove responsibility of the
parents to teach the child right from wrong. Filtering tools should
only be used as a means to reinforce what has already been instilled by
the parents.
To Table of Contents
Suggestions for Future Generations
-
Make sure to read the instructions
for the oral.html file before starting your report and adhere to it
very closely to attain the best possible grade.
-
Look at previous generations oral.html files to get a good indication of
how the report should be done.
-
Don't wait longer than two weeks to post your summary and responses or
else too much time may have elapsed and your presentation may not be fresh
in your mind.
-
If your presentation was on a chapter of a book, make sure to read each
section carefully and seek help if you don't understand a concept.
That way if the instructor or classmates asks you a question, you will
be well prepared.
To Table of Contents