Dec 95 Letters

Thanks to Julian Dibbell for his excellent column about censorship of the Net (Dialog Box, September). The Communications Decency Act is truly frightening in its broad power to determine what is decent for the American public. There can be no potential for development in a society where the government or a few powerful corporate and religious interests determine what is available to each individual. Only through an open exchange of ideas, even though some may be offensive, can people truly be free.

Brent Markood,
via the Internet

I am a mother of five children and a power user, and I strongly disagree with those who, under the guise of the First Amendment, think they have the right to put anything anywhere.

The Commission on Pornography's research concluded that more than 90 percent of sexual crimes have been linked to pornography.

Whatever happened to parental authority? "No" is not a dirty word. If you don't trust your kids, password-protect your system. If you want your kids to enjoy the Net, monitor their activities.

Marie Goodwyn
The Colony, Texas

It amazes me that anyone can defend the type of disgusting filth that permeates some sections of the Internet under the guise of the First Amendment. Is it really in the country's best interest to allow the proliferation of this stuff? Or does it just offend Mr. Dibbell personally that someone would have the audacity to restrict his freedom?

Has it ever occurred to Mr. Dibbell that the growing permissiveness of society is contributing to its decline? Right now the only thing holding back anarchy is the fact that we have laws in place that provide a deterrent. Remove those laws and every filthy form of vermin crawls out from the woodwork looking for something or someone to exploit. The Internet is a prime example.

David S. James
via the Internet

I have been following the debate over the Communications Decency Act and your article by Sen. Jim Exon (Dialog Box, October) brings up several questions.

First, the definition of words like "indecent" and "obscene" depends on your own personal belief systems. Second, why bring judgment and prosecution on Internet service providers when the responsibility for what children see, hear or read is yours and mine? Why isn't the CDA addressing how to deal with the perverts, pedophiles, pornographers and irresponsible parents? Third, much of the material Exon objects to comes from overseas, but how can Congress enforce American morals on foreign countries?

I find Mr. Exon's comments to be abhorrent and his CDA to be absurd and ill-conceived. The CDA is just another government ploy to reduce personal freedoms and liberties in this country.

I want to congratulate you at WINDOWS Magazine for airing both sides of an issue, controversial or not.

Christopher W. Geib
via the Internet

I have just about had it with this self-serving attempt by Congress to ingratiate itself with every far-right-wing, techno-incompetent, morally superior, small-minded insecurity case in the country.

I am appalled at the trivialization of the issue and the blatant pandering to irrational fear.

What's all this Senate babble about depraved pedophiles and child molesters on the Internet? For children to be exposed to them, parents must first give their children access to the computer, and users must search for and request the smut (both acts of choice). I think it is much more important to educate children to the nature of the world they live in.

Robert Geiger
via the Internet

To the Justice Department, which is expanding its investigation into the incorporation of Internet access tools in Windows 95: Kiss off! Microsoft has made my life easier, so get off its back. I have been testing a beta of Windows 95 for some time now and I have to say that I am hooked. With its 32-bit Winsock and its ability to multitask 32-bit applications, it has made accessing the Internet a dream.

Darrin Rodriguez
via the Internet

As a lawyer with experience in dealing with the computer industry and federal antitrust law, I offer the following observations on Mike Elgan's column (The Explorer, October).

First, you are correct that the "monopolist" accusation against Microsoft is based on its success. However, you are incorrect in your belief that the law condemns monopolists. The antitrust law condemns misuse of monopoly power.

Second, the principal question is whether MS has market power; that is, the power to set prices above the level the market would set without MS influence. Your statement that MS has 80 percent of the world computer market would be prima facie proof of market power.

I agree that MS's technological achievements far outshine any occasional monopolistic misstep. The market has chosen Windows because it is superior to other OS choices. It should be free to make that choice without interference from government agencies that don't understand the market or are responding to disgruntled MS competitors.

Howard Jacobson
via CompuServe

As a developer of Win32 software, I was extremely pleased to read your article titled "Windows 95 Faces Uphill Battle" (Win.INI, July). I am sick and tired of Microsoft bashing and all the magazine reviews exploiting some weak aspect of Win95 in a beta version. I am very happy with the interface, the API and the peppiness of Windows 95 as compared to Windows 3.1. I agree that no matter how big and arrogant you think Microsoft is, it should have nothing to do with which operating system you choose. Thank you for your honest and straightforward computer journalism with no hidden agendas.

Dave Armour
via the Internet

Great job explaining how to get the Windows 95 Internet connection up and running (Windows Online, October). I've been fooling with communications software for 12 years, but I couldn't get the TCP/IP dial-in working with my Internet provider. Then I read your piece, followed it step-by-step and was logged on in three minutes. You'll probably want to rerun this little gem every issue because there are going to be a lot of people who have the same trouble. Thanks for the help.

Mike Himowitz
Electronic News Editor, The Baltimore Sun
via the Internet

Thank you for the best explanation of Windows 95 I have seen anywhere (Fall special issue). It's a shame that Bill Gates' manual can't explain Windows 95 like you did. I installed the program the first day it came out and after spending 4-8 hours every day since then, I still had problems. I got my copy of WINDOWS Magazine yesterday and within an hour

I had solved about five of my problems and am running Windows 95.

James K. Gazzaway
via America Online