Cyphernomicon Top
Cyphernomicon 1.5

Introduction:
Comments on Style and Thoroughness


    1.5.1. "Why is this FAQ not in Mosaic form?"
           - because the author (tcmay, as of 7/94) does not have Mosaic
              access, and even if did, would not necessarily....
           - linear text is still fine for some things...can be read on
              all platforms, can be printed out, and can be searched with
              standard grep and similar tools
    1.5.2. "Why the mix of styles?"
           + There are three main types of styles here:
             - Standard prose sections, explaining some point or listing
                things. Mini-essays, like most posts to Cypherpunks.
             + Short, outline-style comments
               - that I didn't have time or willpower to expand into
                  prose format
               - that work best in outline format anyway
               - like this
             + Quotes from others
               - Cypherpunks are a bright group. A lot of clever things
                  have been said in the 600 days x 40 posts/day = 24,000
                  posts, and I am trying to use what I can.
               + Sadly, only a tiny fraction can be used
                 - because I simply cannot _read_  even a fraction of
                    these posts over again (though I've only saved
                    several thousand of the posts)
                 - and because including too many of these posts would
                    simply make the FAQ too long (it's still too long, I
                    suppose)
           - I hope you can handle the changes in tone of voice, in
              styles, and even in formats. It'll just too much time to
              make it all read uniformly.
    1.5.3. Despite the length of this thing, a vast amount of stuff is
            missing. There have been hundreds of incisive analyses by
            Cypherpunks, dozens of survey articles on Clipper, and
            thousands of clever remarks. Alas, only a few of them here.
           - And with 25 or more books on the Internet, hundreds of FAQs
              and URLs, it's clear that we're all drowning in a sea of
              information about the Net.
           - Ironically, good old-fashioned books have a lot more
              relevant and timeless information.
    1.5.4. Caveats on the completeness or accuracy of this FAQ
           + not all points are fully fleshed out...the outline nature
              means that nearly all points could be further added-to,
              subdivided, taxonomized, and generally fleshed-out with
              more points, counterpoints, examples
             - like a giant tree...branches, leaves, tangled hierarchies
           + It is inevitable that conflicting points will be made in a
              document of this size
             - views change, but don't get corrected in all places
             - different contexts lead to different viewpoints
             - simple failure by me to be fully consistent
             - and many points raised here would, if put into an essay
                for the Cypherpunks list, generate comments, rebuttals,
                debate, and even acrimony....I cannot expect to have all
                sides represented fully, especially as the issues are
                often murky, unresolved, in dispute, and generally
                controversial
           - inconsistencies in the points here in this FAQ
  

Next Page: 1.6 Corrections and Elaborations
Previous Page: 1.4 Who Should Read This

By Tim May, see README

HTML by Jonathan Rochkind