[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Cyphernomicon FAQ -- Review in "Wired"
> [email protected] (Timothy C. May):
> > 1. Rishab Aiyer Ghosh tells me he has committed to write a review of the
> > Cyphernomicon FAQ for "Wired," for either December or January publication.
> > I had nothing to do with this, and it surprised me when he contacted me to
> > notify me. (I reminded him of the "pre-release" status, the
> It surprised _me_ that you put this on the list - magazines usually don't care
> to announce their future stories so much in advance, but this is a little
> review and cypherpunks are noted for their discretion ;-) so I guess it's ok.
Sorry! It never occurred to me that this could be a secret, as several
Cypherpunks have reported on upcoming articles they are writing, or
are to be interiviewed in. But, like Rishab mentioned, be discreet (as
well as being discrete, always a good thing for number theorists).
on Abelson's Web doc:
> If he does a good job, then it would be nice. A web is really the best way to
> browse through so much inter-related info.
That's a matter of opinion, and perhaps of age. I find most hypertext
docs incredibly confusing and incoherent. Web docs I've seen are often
just a mishmash (mishmosh, for you Gen Xers) of scraps, of articles,
and of pointers to other, equally disorganized docs.
This is a raging debate in hypertext and authorial circles. The "voice
of the author" vs. "lost in hyperspace."
What kind of job Hal Abelson and his associates do--if they still plan
to do it (Hal contacted me within a matter of hours of the release, so
he clearly couldn't have seen much of it...maybe it's considered too
extreme, too outre, for an MIT class...)--is of course unknown. I
don't think any of them has the time to do a fine-granularity linkage,
so the "Web browsing" will mostly likely just be the usual
course-granularity linkages of entire chapters, not individual points,
a la Nelson.
> > 4. Yes, I still have concerns about multiple, out-dated copies floating
> > around. I worry about people going to great lengths to "Webify" the version
> Come on. Responsible sysadmins regularly mirror updates - from the thousands of
> PGP sites to the dozens who download 6 mb of movie databases each week. Every
> one does not get in sync as soon as the new release is out, but these things
> usually don't take more than a week.
If they agree to do so. But I see a lot of old, outdated FAQs on
people's systems, indicating that updates are often not diligently
All I ask is that anyone who puts up copies at their sites agrees to
maintain them as current, and if they leave their site or can't
maintain the docs currently, that they then delete the old version(s)
and thus not lead anyone into thinking that what they find is current.
Seems reasonable to me.
Warning: I'm using Netcom as my Internet service, and both mail and
News are being delayed by up to several days. I may not be able to
respond promptly, and may have missed other posts and messages.
Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
[email protected] | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
Cypherpunks list: [email protected] with body message of only:
subscribe cypherpunks. FAQ available at ftp.netcom.com in pub/tcmay