Rants & Raves
My God! I almost cried after reading "The Long Boom" (Wired 5.07, page 115). Finally someone has something positive to say about our future. Growing up in the 1970s and 1980s, I was bombarded with negative scenarios of the future, all of which ended with mushroom clouds. Thank you for being the purveyors of optimism! Excuse me now - I'm off to do my part to save the world.
Mariel Garza
mariel@miramar.uucp.netcom.com
—–
"Twenty-five years of prosperity, freedom, and a better environment"? I not only buy it, I think it's much too conservative. This boom is going to happen no matter what. National authorities will not be able to stop it.
Governments are going to find it increasingly difficult to collect income tax from wired businesspeople. Right now, I could have a Japanese client wire my retainer to a bank in the Bahamas or another tax-free country and pay taxes only on the amount I bring to the US. Nations are going to be competing against each other for e-business. Easy local incorporation, supersecret banking, and no income tax will be prime components of their product mix.
With one of the lowest tax loads in the industrialized world, the US will easily switch income taxes to poll, property, and sales taxes. Furthermore, the greed of governments for tax income and the facility with which the wired world will permit money laundering will probably end the US war on drugs. You'll be able to buy crack at the local liquor store. The dealer will be your friendly, but broke, government.
While it will be possible for governments to continue collecting income taxes from poor slobs stuck in the industrial economy, I suspect the patent unfairness of taxing the wage slave while the e-businessman escapes will make income taxes political death.
Page Schorer
mrd_usa@mindspring.com
—–
Though many of the scenarios in "The Long Boom" are quite possible - even probable - most of the article bordered on ultraoptimism and wishful thinking.
As long as there are people and resources ripe for exploitation, the good ol' captains of industry will find a way to exploit them for profit. One need look no further than the Third World for victims of corporate giants such as Nike and Pfizer Pharmaceuticals.
I'd like to be able to put faith in progress, but it seems technology is moving too damn fast for the social and political aspects to catch up. Now all of a sudden the turn of the century will bring a world where everyone eventually gets together? Somehow, I don't think so.
Brian Taylor
phransys@qtm.net
Nathan Myhrvold thinks the "most upsetting" possibility in human cloning is that "rich people with big egos will clone themselves" ("In Vitro Veritas," Wired 5.06, page 109). The upsetting thing about human cloning is not the possibility that the Gateses and Trumps of the world might manufacture twins of themselves; it is the commodification of the human genotype.
Animals with desired genetic characteristics can already be patented. What happens when a biotech lab decides to do the same, not just to a single gene but to an entire human genotype, to be cloned and sold for any desired purpose? Whose rights will prevail - the human rights of the cloned individual, or the property rights of the corporation? Do we own our genes? If someone else owns my genes, how is that different from saying they own me?
Lorne Beaton
lbeaton@mnsi.net
—–
While I grant that some people are simply afraid of science, it is quite possible that those seeking the cloning ban do so out of a desire to have the issue submitted to scientific and public debate before the practice becomes widespread - with the idea that such debate will be for the greater good of society (and not to enhance the reproductive health of those seeking the ban).
Myhrvold claims that a ban on cloning is racist, as if there are no bans on the way we mix our genes to produce offspring. On the contrary, many such restrictions exist - both natural and those imposed by the state.
Currently it is not possible for two people of the same sex to mix their genes and produce offspring. In many states, laws prohibit immediate family members from bearing children together. Using Myhrvold's definition of racism, it could be claimed that we are all racist by nature in that we often exclude the gene sets of many potential sexual partners before choosing a mate.
Eric Wells
ericwell@hotmail.com
Once again, Wired has shown its ability to separate reality from futuristic cyberguru hype ("F/Xtravaganzas," Wired 5.06, page 124). As a special effects model maker on Titanic, Apollo 13, The Fifth Element, and 23 other feature films, I found it encouraging to see you give credit to nondigital filmmaking crafts. Effects visionaries have been predicting the obsolescence of models and animatronic creatures ever since that crazy computer-generated water tentacle in The Abyss.
If anything, computer graphics have created more work for physical effects artists by renewing the public's interest in special effects. Digital companies are hobbled by a shortage of skilled computer artists and six-figure price tags for workstations. Most traditional effects people supply their own tools and work freelance, so a model shop is still relatively quick and cheap to set up.
Computers have enabled unprecedented realism in effects like explosions, molten lava, smoke, fire, and water (no more giant droplets, like in The Poseidon Adventure). But when digital artists try to make vehicles, buildings, landscapes, or creatures, they end up with what looks like an extremely expensive, shiny cartoon.
Maybe someday faster and cheaper computers will make model ships and rubber monsters unnecessary, but by then we won't need actors, either. We'll just pay a licensing fee for the Sly or Arnold software.
George Willis
Venice, California
Instead of giving US$10 million to Scott Adams ("101 Ways to Save Apple," Wired 5.06, page 114), give it to George Lucas. Position Apple's comeback as a classic battle between Good and Evil. Imagine a commercial that shows a consumer contemplating his purchase. We see him looking at a Mac and a Wintel machine sitting side by side. As he steps toward the Wintel box, we hear Sir Alec Guinness telling him to "trust his feelings." The Wintel box is shown with the voice-over "give in to the dark side" just as Win95 glitches and a C-prompt appears with Darth Vader breathing. Eventually we see the man making the right decision as we hear, "No, I will never give in to the dark side."
Sam Guseman
snoslg@mvs.sas.com
—–
In discussing Apple's failure to bring the Copland operating system to market, Microsoft's Nathan Myhrvold says Apple had to suffer "the ultimate ignominy" of buying an operating system from the outside. This is a very ironic statement, considering that Bill Gates and Paul Allen bought a CP/M clone called 86-DOS and made some modifications. It was later known as MS-DOS.
Michael D. Meloan
mdmeloan@aol.com
—–
I sure hope Apple read the article! Apple needs just one important solution: Listen to your customers - they know what's good for you. I cringe every time Gil Amelio makes a decision and Steve Jobs just sits there. I'm thinking of starting a company to challenge Apple, to compete directly with it. Maybe that would light the much-needed fire under its corporate ass. What we Apple fans need is not the same old Apple, but something innovative and cool. And Apple, hear this: We would drop you in a second!
Why doesn't Wired start a computer company based on its suggestions? All of these things are pretty obvious - isn't anyone listening? How about financing me to run a company to your specs?
Oh, and Apple? You can damn well bet Microsoft read that article.
B. Thomas Romeo
tirade@pulsar.net
"Glossofacilia: A tendency to use very large words to explain very small phenomena. Glossofacilia drives to complexify rather than simplify and is the natural instinct of reactionaries to an age of change" ("Speak the Future," Wired 5.06, page 100).
Complexify? It's complicate, bonehead. And does the word reactionaries set off anyone else's agenda detector?
Robert Forsman
thoth@purplefrog.com
I just read "Digital Obesity" (Wired 5.07, page 188). I experienced indignities similar to Negroponte's when I bought a PowerCenter 150 for my wife in January. The installation became a full-time job for almost two months. Every CD-ROM contained hundreds of megabytes of data to sort through, test, configure, reconfigure, retest, et cetera. Her machine is starting out with over 4,000 files. I hit half a dozen serious snags.
My wife couldn't believe it took me as long as it did. Neither could I. What makes it worse is that this was a Mac and I had been employed as a LAN manager from '87 to '91 - I installed software for a living.
I have no idea how less-experienced people are dealing with this. I can only assume that many installations are quite fragile.
Brian Dana Akers
sfauthor@aol.com
—–
Much to the derision of friends, I am still clunking along at 66 MHz with a 486 chip and Windows 3.1. My reasons are simple: with 24 Mbytes of RAM and four years of careful operation, my machine is fast, familiar, and reliable (rather like my 1986 Chevy Suburban).
This reactionary stance is starting to get me into trouble, though. The installation of a new 36Kbps modem required trying three different products and US$150 in labor charges before I could find one that would work with my antiquated system! However, my biggest frustration, as Negroponte so clearly illustrated, is with software. My Excel 6.0 does nothing I need above my Excel 3.0. But to maintain compatibility with the files I send to and receive from other users, I have to run bigger, slower applications. The "need for compatibility" keeps users upgrading perfectly satisfactory products. The X.X upgrade is really a triumph of marketing over real-world needs.
This situation shares a number of parallels with the American automobile industry in the 1950s and early '60s. Desperate to keep the consumer returning to the showroom annually, manufacturers relied on unneeded styling and engineering updates, sort of a Cadillac Eldorado 6.5! We need a Volkswagen Beetle OS to free us from this weight and horsepower loop.
Philip Barrett
prodserv@worldnet.att.net
Declan McCullagh presents a hopelessly biased point of view while taking some cheap shots at Bell Atlantic, Nynex, and the rest of the telephone industry ("Telco Terrorism," Wired 5.06, page 53).
Most Americans agree that telephone customers should pay for the services they use. Businesses generating higher call volumes generally pay higher prices than those who generate less. McCullagh fails to point out that ISPs stuffing our residential and business networks with billions of bits and bytes a day don't want to help upgrade the system to accommodate that explosion in online traffic.
ISPs can well afford to pay a flat, cost-based charge that allows us to do the necessary upgrades needed to handle the massive traffic volumes. Our proposal offered earlier this year would allow consumers to continue to enjoy flat-rate pricing packages. There is absolutely no reason why this cost could not be absorbed by the burgeoning Internet industry. We have never proposed that new charges be levied on residential customers.
In its recent order on access-charge reform, the FCC imposed additional fees on second residential lines to subsidize primarily ISP-driven demand for network capacity. In the end, customers who don't go online could be forced to pay for services they don't use.
We want Internet traffic on our networks; we also want ISPs to pay a fair price. The truth is that Internet traffic is causing congestion problems in our networks and ISPs are using our networks for far less than it costs us to service them. We are developing and deploying both short- and long-term technical solutions, but the regulatory obstacles to determining a fair access price for Internet providers need to be eliminated.
Edward D. Young III
Vice president and associate general counsel Bell Atlantic
Philadelphia
—–
It's extremely frustrating to hear the telcos whine about Net surfing overburdening their networks. There was a time when the telcos charged lower per-minute rates for evening and night service, to lure callers when the lines were most idle. The more usage during off hours, the more they could drive their network costs down.
Now the telcos are seeing increased usage with the Internet, and they're still complaining. I believe they're having a problem accepting this major communication phenomenon because they didn't pioneer it, as they have other telecommunications breakthroughs. Now they want to charge an extra something per minute because they need to subsidize future network development. Well, they should have thought about that before computers met up with telecommunications.
I'm waiting for someone - perhaps one of the companies spotlighted in "The Race for Space" (Wired 5.06, page 42), like ICO Global or Odyssey - to come along and provide alternative access on a wireless basis. That would free up the local loop and allow the telcos to spend time developing a network worthy of our data requirements.
Mike Mueller
mmueller@chattanooga.net
—–
Excellent article! While the Internet Access Coalition's position prevailed regarding access charges on ISPs, Internet consumers and small businesses will be the losers - no "special" access charges, just increased rates for second residential lines and business lines. So the Baby Bells will have even more revenue and still no incentives to build data-friendly networks.
Jan Goebel
Communications director Information Technology Industry Council
Washington, DC
While "In the Zone" (Wired 5.06, page 130) accurately portrays part of Starwave culture, there's much more to us than technojocks. There are more than the "couple of women" you mentioned. The producer of ESPN SportsZone is a woman. On the site I work on, ABCNEWS.com, we have more women than men on our staff of engineers, producers, editors, and designers. None of us play ultimate with the guys, but we do hike, jam in local bands, take photography classes, and go salsa dancing.
Your reporter should have explored further than the men's locker room, though admittedly none of the women would have been too keen on being photographed in our locker room with nothing but towels around our waists.
Reena Kawal
Associate producer, ABCNEWS.com
Seattle
The note in Just Outta Beta ("Singapore Sling," Wired 5.07, page 157) on Singapore's new national intranet was interesting. Too bad the "cred" of the report was diminished by the writer relocating Singapore's capital to Malaysia. Singapore is the capital of Singapore, whereas Kuala Lumpur is the capital of Malaysia.
The error is ironic, given that the Malaysian government has pledged a policy of no Internet censorship as part of a Bill of Guarantees to promote development of its Multimedia Super Corridor.
Mike McGurrin
mmcgurrin@compuserve.com
While reading "A Farewell to Arms" (Wired 5.05, page 51), I kept waiting to find out more about the dire threat we all face from digital rebels striking blows against the Empire. In the end, I felt I was watching a bunch of paranoid, technobabbling Chicken Littles clucking about an impending I-war that cannot be defined, located, or even confirmed. Sure, the rebels in Chiapas have a Web page. So what? So does a friend's daughter who loves Marilyn Manson. That doesn't make her a threat to national security.
In the future, worldwide information networks are far more likely to be used to control information and dissent than to foment revolution. Of course, that would mean the Internet is just another power tool/advertising rag in the great annals of politics and commerce.
Erik Milstone
emilstone@mindspring.com
Dave Winer poses the question, "When will Silicon Valley get the message that great software is created by people, not companies?" ("The Shame of Java," Wired 5.07, page 109). Not while software programmers are denied the persona of stars and don't have agents to represent them.
The business model for the software industry needs to become more like the movie model. Instead of the hire-and-fire protocol of traditional business, creative groups should be formed by combining the talents of independent individuals represented by agents who negotiate in their client's interests.
As long as programmers allow big business to treat them as chattel, they will get only the chaff from the massive harvest that only they can create.
Brooke W. Boering
vagabond@cruzio.com
Carl Malamud wants to preserve the rights of free speech and of access to government documents ("Contrarian Libertarian," Wired 5.07, page 130). This hardly makes him a libertarian.
Government's role on the Internet should be the same as that in real life: protecting people from assaults and thefts by others. Whatever commerce is agreed to by consenting adults needs no government intervention, in real life or on the Internet.
Carl's other suggestions for government intervention - getting involved if ISPs provide bad service, Net-oriented R&D - are inappropriate for government, at least from the libertarian point of view.
Many think it is possible to have government intervention and civil liberties, too. Such a compromise is always a pact with the devil; true civil liberties come from minimal government, not big government with nice rules.
John L. Shelton
jlshelton@mindspring.com
At the risk of sounding like a dead-language geek, I must take exception to the Latin translation of "Get wired!" on the cover of your June issue. Hey, I spent six years studying this stuff, and I rarely get a chance to use it, so I just couldn't let this opportunity go by.
Unless you intended to toady up to your readers (apparently individually, due to the singular number) by assuring them that they are already among the enlightened few, your translation is wrong.
Internexus es means (assuming we allow the invention of the word internexus) "You are wired!" I checked the Tired/Wired roster and did not see your readers listed under the appropriate column, so I can only assume it is a mistake. If you want to say "Get wired!" you would have to use the imperative voice, Internexi estote, which is plural (Internexus esto would be singular).
I can only hope we have red-flagged this tragic mistake before thousands of screensavers need to be changed.
Eric Stoltz
stoltz@primenet.com
Ear Plugs: We misidentified a Seagate 251 as a C8 251 ("Afterlife," Wired 5.07, page 146). n CD-WRONG: "Bosnia: Uncertain Paths to Peace" was not a CD-ROM project (Electric Word, Wired 5.06, page 42), but a presentation of The New York Times (www.nytimes.com/bosnia/). n White Out: White Town's single "Your Woman" ("Bedroom to Big Time," Wired 5.06, page 136) was released on the US independent music label Parasol Records prior to being released on EMI in the United Kingdom. n Belated Thanks: Vipin Gupta at Sandia National Laboratories provided analysis for the satellite images of North Korea ("Private Spy," Wired 5.08, page 114).
Send your Rants & Raves to:
E-mail: rants@Wired.com
Snail mail: Wired, PO Box 191826
San Francisco, CA 94109-9866
