Rants & Raves
Intellectual Food Fight
Right on to Kevin Kelly for taking on Kirkpatrick Sale ("Interview with the Luddite," Wired 3.06, page 166). Let's have more food fights in Wired - rarely do we see such old-fashioned, gloves-off debate. But I found myself wondering why the editor of Wired had chosen such an apparent idiot to spar with - there are surely more articulate and worthy opponents.
Kelly's intellectual pounding of Sale partially obscured some critical issues. It's easy today to assume that most technology is beneficial, and that technological "progress" is inevitable. But the economic dislocations that Sale referred to are a real and tragic effect of emerging technologies. We have valuable lessons to learn from those who question the moral consequences of technology upon society.
Clifton Lemon cliftonl@aol.com
Thanks for your double-barreled exposé of Neo-Luddite Kirkpatrick Sale. I was at the New York meeting where he took a sledgehammer to a computer. It is true, as Sale says, that some in the audience applauded. But most of us sat in silence, stunned that a grown-up could do something so stupid, corny, and clichéd. Especially after he sat smugly while a female janitor cleaned up the mess he made.
Gregor Hartmann gregor8@netcom.com
Luddites Live On
Jon Katz should stick to media criticism and avoid historical commentary ("Return of the Luddites," Wired 3.06, page 162). His contention that the Luddite revolution during the Industrial Revolution "accomplished absolutely nothing" is absolutely wrong. The Luddites caused a great deal of domestic turmoil. As John Montgomery notes in Technology and Civic Life (MIT Press, 1974), only the Napoleonic Wars tied up a larger contingent of the British Army than did the Luddites. Moreover, the Luddite movement eventually transformed itself into the British Labor Party, which, by the way, is on the brink of a major comeback, largely on the strength of a humanized technology policy.
Bob Jacobson cyberoid@u.washington.edu
Different Tunes
Brian Eno's comments regarding Western versus African music show some pretty sloppy thinking ("Gossip Is Philosophy," Wired 3.05, page 146). To represent all the musical forms of Europe with only German and French classical music is just an excuse to hide his scanty knowledge of the subject. I wonder if he's familiar with the rhythmic forms of Scottish puirst a beul, or the tonal structure of Slavic music.
Eno is guilty of the charge he brings against Western music: over-categorizing.
Justin Kerr moxie@color.ithaca.ny.us
The Brian Eno interview was incredible! What an enlightened view of the future! White folk finally get rhythm! Neo-vegetable computer geeks will blossom into a matriarchy that dances with seizure-like fury rather than use a mouse!
Kudos to Wired for the thought-provoking interview. While I saw it as giving Eno enough rope to hang himself by, others, I am sure, saw it as a window into Eno's brilliance. After all, that's what good journalism is all about, no?
Nicholas Christopher ir001265@interramp.com
Philosophical Differences
My introductory copy of Wired magazine disappointed me greatly. I expected to find informative articles about the digital revolution and the information age in which we live. Instead, I discovered articles regarding the homosexual movement, substance abuse, and video sex.
This kind of content may be acceptable to some, but I do not want my money to support it. People will do what they want to sexually, but to promote it as right and proper is another story. Your magazine glamorizes porn-video sex but ridicules an infomercial for promoting healthy marriages. And people today wonder why America is in such poor shape.
As a graphic designer, I wanted to receive your magazine for the graphics and designs as well as the articles on the changing world of computers and digital technology. Although the graphics are outstanding, they are mixed with a philosophy and an attitude that I cannot accept.
Kari R. Miller Greenville, South Carolina
The Silent Majority
From a simple perusing of Wired, one would get the idea that the magazine was read and loved only by left-of-Clinton, weed-smoking academics. Would it shock your readers to learn that I, and quite a few others, including the president of a major evangelical Bible university on the West Coast, are Bible-thumping, God-fearing, Rush-listening, ethics-do-exist-and-are-standardized-believing, virgins-till-marriage, Republican-voting individuals who think Wired is one of the best, most forward-looking, intelligent, and high-quality publications to be put out in quite a long time? Or that our copies of Wired sit proudly on the same shelf as our copies of the Limbaugh Letter and The Book of Virtues - until they are taken out to share with friends and co-workers?
Steve Taylor swetz@sneezy.fafb.af.mil
Cyberspace by Foot
Your recent article on the cost of Net access left me astonished ("Net Access for Next to Nothing," Wired 3.05, page 141). To recommend a 300-baud modem, a black-and-white TV, and what is essentially a US$20 calculator to connect to the Net reminds me of old men in Cadillacs telling the "less deserving" that if they want a ride, to get a damn pair of "good shoes."
I don't want government intervention - that would really screw things up. But Net access for a decent price in areas that are not urban enough to justify a provider wouldn't kill anyone.
The Net isn't an out-of-reach abstraction, and you don't need a rocket to get to cyberspace, but to insinuate all you need to get there is a rubber band slingshot is ridiculous.
Jim Tiller piranhaxlg@aol.com
Invest in Wired
You guys are cool. In a world of continuous inflation and a weakening dollar, you make my money worth something again. You are cool because when I'm working 10 mind-numbing hours behind my terminal, I can turn to your magazine and still look like I'm working. You are cool because if anybody at work asks me what I'm reading, I can tell them with a sick smile, "The next five years of life as we know it."
Ilan Gluzman ilangation@aol.com
Who Watches the Watchers?
The article by Peter Cassidy, "Can Pyromaniacs Fight Fires?" (Wired, 3.05, page 84), distorts what the National Information Infrastructure Task Force's Privacy Working Group has done and makes no attempt to evaluate why the participation of federal agencies such as the National Security Agency and Internal Revenue Service might be useful.
Recognizing that federal agencies can only partially perceive the complexities of protecting privacy in cyberspace, the Privacy Working Group began by holding dozens of meetings with a broad spectrum of privacy and technology experts. To further encourage public debate, the group held two public hearings and issued, on behalf of the Clinton administration, the proposed privacy principles for public comment. These can be found on the Web at www.iitf.doc.gov/ or by modem at +1 (202) 501 1920.
True, a number of the group's members come from federal agencies. But these agencies handle lots of personal information, and it is important they understand how privacy and the National Information Infrastructure will interrelate.
Personal privacy is important to this administration. But privacy is not an absolute. What the Privacy Working Group is attempting to do, with substantial input and assistance from the public, is find a balance that ensures the establishment of an information infrastructure that will protect individual privacy and deliver its full promise in public and societal benefits.
__Sally Katzen Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
US Office of Management and Budget
Same Old Medium
The insightful writing in your magazine never ceases to amaze me. Todd Lappin's article about radio ("Déjà Vu All Over Again," Wired 3.05, page 174) was a great example of how "the more things change, the more they stay the same."
A service becomes less interactive as it becomes more consumer-driven, because, let's face it, interactivity takes time and concentration. That's something many new Net users will not want to employ.
Ultimately, the Net will become another mostly passive source for information and entertainment, much like TV and radio are today.
George Fiala 76774.2111@compuserve.com
Factories in Space
The recent article on "The Future of Solar Energy" (Wired 3.05, page 74) was fascinating and informative, but it leaves out the biggest future use of solar-energy: space-based industry.
Earth receives only 1/2,000,000th of the sun's output. With cheap solar energy, space-based industry will be able to mine and process materials at competitive cost. And in space, heat can be radiated harmlessly into vacuum.
Todd B. Hawley, thaw@dnai.com
Cultural Discontents
John Andrews's article, "Culture Wars" (Wired 3.05, page 130), is a hackneyed attempt to ridicule France's cultural protectionism. His failure to comprehend cultural policy in anything but neoconservative economic terms results in caricature.
First, the premise that cultural regulation is a pernicious form of thought control does not correspond to policy measures undertaken by democratic governments in countries like France, Great Britain, and Canada. Quotas, for example, don't force anyone to watch a given film or television program. We're not talking here about countries with a single, state-run television or radio station. Quotas simply offer audiences programs that may not otherwise be available.
Second, Andrews's suggestion that cultural regulation is technologically obsolete in the era of the information highway ignores the history of media. It is a paradox of cultural policy that the media technologies that least respect borders - radio and television - are the most heavily regulated, and that the medium easiest to regulate technologically - cinema, because films must pass physically through customs posts - circulates the most freely. The history of cultural policy teaches that, regardless of the technological challenges, where there's a sociopolitical will, there's a way.
Finally, it's important to get beyond the strictly economic frame Andrew constructs. Films and television programs are not just trade commodities: they have cultural value as well. The market model Andrews subscribes to has historically restricted cultural expression and encouraged the monopolization of the mediascape by large transnational corporations. Why do we want to defend such a system?
__Mike Gasher Montreal, Canada
Your "Culture Wars" article was a typical example of American smugness and self-absorption.
All around the world, people are diligently trying to preserve and protect endangered flora and fauna because biological diversity enriches our lives and may be necessary for our survival. We need to protect the world's cultural diversity for the same reasons. A steady diet of American culture is as unhealthful as a steady diet of Big Macs.
Mike Kohut mkohutnw@yknet.yk.ca
Undo!
We messed up big and forgot to give many of the photographers who contributed to issue 3.06 the credit they deserve. To wit: page 41 (top), Mikkel Aaland; page 41 (bottom), Eric Luce/San Francisco Chronicle; page 42, William Mercer McLeod; page 43, Chip Simons; page 46 (tank), Andy Hernandez/Sygma; page 47 (Bi Bop), Tobias Everke/Gamma Liaison; page 108, Fondation Teilhard de Chardin; page 116, Goodby, Silverstein & Partners; page 139, Takashi Watanabe; page 140, UPI/Bettmann; page 146, Kevin Kelly; page 149, Chris Stewart; page 174, Bill Zemanek; page 194, Kevin Kelly.
