Although I don't think think the Illinois Supreme Court made a good call with this one, I don't think it can honestly be called censorship. Censorship is the government banning of particular information from the media, whereas this is just a matter of the government not handing out information. As was mentioned in the article, reporters are still able to gather crime info from other sources. To say that this is censorship is like saying that the government is banning me from driving across the country just because they haven't given me a BMW.
Well, if I was running a web site that was not dedicated to book reviews, when I *did* do a book review I'd make a point of it being one I thought folks would like. Think of the reviews here as an extended recommendation rather than a good/bad review of a random book. Write up the wheat, forget the chaffe.
A good start for the mechanics and history of cryptography is Somethingorother Singh's recent book, The Code Book. A GREAT place to start on the web is www.disinformation.com. Just do a search for cryptography (or whatever else you want). It might be a little heavy on the paranoia, but is that really so bad?
It seems to me that the internet is good at promoting contacts and intellectual interaction but not so good at promoting "quality time." I have found that the internet is very helpful in maintaining contact with distant friends and family, even those that normally don't write letters. They're a lot more likely to send a quick email every few days than they are to write a lengthy epistle every couple of months. The trouble, however, is that while people are writing to their distant loved ones, they aren't hangin' out. I don't mean that email in particular is causing this, I just mean that time spent online is time spent *not* sitting around talking, *not* going for a walk, *not* cuddling with a particularly loved one. Personally, I blame Everquest.
What would the dimensions be for Internet Space? Perhaps they could corespond to the proposed "nets", or some modified version of same? For example, a site that sells porn would rate high as both an xnet and a buynet whereas a mailing list dedicated to the second coming would be pretty far out on the undernet and godnet axes (and maybe someday the newsnet axis?).
Although I think that in general the idea is an interesting and handy one, one problem I see in it is the fact that a lot of the "buynet" and "corporatenet" sites are intended to be complete standalones, so as to keep all the business to themselves (this excludes advertising). They all have similar themes and motives, but can they really be called a net if they interconnect as little as possible?
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't this sound a bit familiar? I have this mental picture of Nikita Kruschev pounding on the podium with his shoe shouting, "We will bury you!"
Although I don't think think the Illinois Supreme Court made a good call with this one, I don't think it can honestly be called censorship. Censorship is the government banning of particular information from the media, whereas this is just a matter of the government not handing out information. As was mentioned in the article, reporters are still able to gather crime info from other sources. To say that this is censorship is like saying that the government is banning me from driving across the country just because they haven't given me a BMW.
Well, if I was running a web site that was not dedicated to book reviews, when I *did* do a book review I'd make a point of it being one I thought folks would like. Think of the reviews here as an extended recommendation rather than a good/bad review of a random book. Write up the wheat, forget the chaffe.
A good start for the mechanics and history of cryptography is Somethingorother Singh's recent book, The Code Book. A GREAT place to start on the web is www.disinformation.com. Just do a search for cryptography (or whatever else you want). It might be a little heavy on the paranoia, but is that really so bad?
It seems to me that the internet is good at promoting contacts and intellectual interaction but not so good at promoting "quality time." I have found that the internet is very helpful in maintaining contact with distant friends and family, even those that normally don't write letters. They're a lot more likely to send a quick email every few days than they are to write a lengthy epistle every couple of months. The trouble, however, is that while people are writing to their distant loved ones, they aren't hangin' out. I don't mean that email in particular is causing this, I just mean that time spent online is time spent *not* sitting around talking, *not* going for a walk, *not* cuddling with a particularly loved one. Personally, I blame Everquest.
What would the dimensions be for Internet Space? Perhaps they could corespond to the proposed "nets", or some modified version of same? For example, a site that sells porn would rate high as both an xnet and a buynet whereas a mailing list dedicated to the second coming would be pretty far out on the undernet and godnet axes (and maybe someday the newsnet axis?).
Although I think that in general the idea is an interesting and handy one, one problem I see in it is the fact that a lot of the "buynet" and "corporatenet" sites are intended to be complete standalones, so as to keep all the business to themselves (this excludes advertising). They all have similar themes and motives, but can they really be called a net if they interconnect as little as possible?