Rants & Raves
Friends and Foes
"Why does he leave us feeling cold?" Esther Dyson asks of Newt Gingrich ("Friend and Foe," Wired 3.08, page 106).
It was difficult to tell from the interview, unless you happen to be a pedophile. He certainly talks the Wired-approved cybertalk. Maybe if his hair were green. Or maybe if we weren't so brainwashed by the East/West Coast media élite into believing the party line. Maybe if Gingrich were openly gay, or a charter subscriber to Hustler, or raised by lesbians on a commune in Rwanda. Or all three.
But, unfortunately, he's a white guy wearing a tie, holding forth in the US House of Representatives, and expressing opinions at odds with The New York Times-CBS Evening News view of reality. That, folks, is why he makes us uncomfortable.
John Healy Woodbridge, Connecticut
The Newt Gingrich interview was first-rate. However, I detected some journalistic hypocrisy in Esther Dyson's introduction. Why did she feel the need to editorialize her political opposition to Gingrich? Readers would not expect her to hold the same views as Gingrich anymore than they would expect a reporter interviewing Jeffrey Dahmer to be a cannibal.
George L. Vickers lexcom@galileo.mis.net
Stop the Insanity
It's not until you see that stuff in print ("This Is Not Totally Entertaining. This Is Insane," Wired 3.08, page 136) that you realize how much work making The 11th Hour has been. It's not an experience that Rob and I want to repeat.
Speaking of Rob, he's only mentioned by first name in the article. Rob Landeros and I founded Trilobyte together over five years ago. That's a long time. While I was finishing The 7th Guest (waaaay back), he was busy designing The 11th Hour, and two years later he is finally seeing the fruits of his labor.
Me? I'm still busy snake wrestling with silver discs that are too big and compiling my daily reports into a book, even if it's only to remind myself what not to do next time.
Graeme Devine
Chief Executive Officer Trilobyte
Net Films, Take Two
Scott Rosenberg wants computers in movies to be more realistic - not just plot devices ("The Net Net on Net Films: Crapola," Wired 3.07, page 117). As a screenwriter and software supplier to the film industry, I cringe when Hollywood representations of "high-tech" computer screens and software look more juvenile than Prodigy 1.0. Since millions of moviegoers are familiar with computers, there's no excuse for these kinds of reality glitches.
As for making computers more than MacGuffins, get a grip. Movies are about characters interacting dramatically with other characters and objects.
Computers are just objects, and the world of bits and bytes and gray little boxes, in and of itself, is boring. Movie computers that resonate with modern viewers aren't actually computers, they're futuristic, fictional characters (who happen to be machines) that play on our current cultural fears of technology.
Complaining about how Hollywood treats computers is like bitching about the bum rap that Stephen King gives cars and corn.
Steven Sashen
Though I've never had high expectations for Hollywood, I do notice whether a film gets the technology right. Rosenberg hoped that Johnny Mnemonic would go beyond the usual Hollywood clichés and, arguably, it does. However, the plot rests on the premise that a major corporation can put all of its critical data on a chip - but make no backup. This suggests that Hollywood is out of touch not only with technology, but with the millions of people who have learned - often the hard way - to back up their hard drives.
On the other hand, Robocop, a movie with no pretensions of realism, contains a wonderfully accurate portrayal of a database search. Robo-cop sees a face on the street. He plugs himself into a computer and searches through mug shots until he finds the face. From that he gets a name, and then a list of known accomplices. He searches through the accomplices, finds one that he recognizes, and reads his criminal record, which includes suspicion of murder. He looks up the murder victim, and finds his own name and face. This 30-second scene offers a good overview of what computers can and can't do and how people use them.
Steven McDougall swmcd@world.std.com
A High Price for Free Stuff
I was disturbed by Esther Dyson's article on the future of intellectual property ("Intellectual Value," Wired 3.07, page 136). It is premature to assume that all will be well for creators in a future without intellectual-property protection and widespread distribution. Dyson proposes that advertising for publishers and peripheral support services for software developers will compensate for the losses that free, wide distribution will bring. These are not viable solutions for many smaller and independent producers. Much of the alternative press, for instance, deliberately survives without the constraints of advertising, but can only maintain itself through traditional subscription structures. Rather than flippantly accepting the demise of copyright laws, we should use technology to re-enforce existing law. If we don't start recognizing the value of intellectual production at the same level as physical production, the result could be less creation and fewer choices - too high a price to pay for free stuff!
Patrick Benard patrick@individual.com
New Decade, Same Interactivity
The conclusions drawn by your intrepid correspondent in "People Are Supposed to Pay for This Stuff?" (Wired 3.07, page 148) did not surprise me. The last time interactive television was popular - in the early '80s - it was called videotex. Companies held field trials just as they're doing today. The technology was cruder, but the premise was the same - people would pay to shop at home and view information using their television and a hand-held device. What happened? As your article said, "All of us are really two people - the person we say we are in focus groups and the real person deep inside." People wouldn't pay for the service. When it comes to interactivity, nothing beats trolling the aisles at WalMart.
__Joan Francuz Phoenix, Arizona
The Glow of Nostalgia
While I enjoyed reading your review of Historically Brewed ("Calculating Nostalgia," Wired 3.07, page 165), it was the picture of the TRS-80 Model III computer that thrilled me. The similar Model IV remains my favorite way to get on the Internet from home (at a considerably higher speed than 300 baud). The fingering can be a bit awkward, but in the enveloping quiet of night - when that gray, phosphorescent glow shimmers across my living room, overwhelming my senses and bathing my soul in unremitting ecstasy - I feel ... well, pretty darned good.
__Jeffrey Bowlen bowlen@email.unc.edu
I Want My AM/FM
I found your article on RealAudio interesting, though I do not agree that it will kill radio ("RealAudio is the Real Deal," Wired 3.07, page 38). First, radio's appeal has always been its live, local programming. Sure, many listeners treat radio as background noise much of the time, but studies show that the majority of listening takes place in the car and at work. Would I rather download a traffic report 30 minutes before I leave for work instead of just catching it on the car radio? The live report will be more accurate and will probably include an alternate route if there's a jam.
Second, radio is portable. I can take my walkman to the beach and effectively cut myself off from the world. And what do I want in an emergency? A laptop and cellular modem for IRC chat about the tornado ripping toward my hometown? Nah. Give me a little AM/FM portable, some double-A batteries, and a place to take shelter!
Finally, even if I could set my PC to randomly download my favorite songs from the Net, I'd never hear new material. Radio exposes us to music that we might not think of listening to, but that we enjoy.
Radio might eventually be broadcast digitally, but it'll still be here, cranking out the hits and letting you know which roads are crowded. After all, we're still commuting to work, right? Well, most of us.
Robert Usdin roba@cybercom.com
Confessions of a Child Cyberaddict
I'm 11 years old and I've been programming since I was 7. I'm an occasional hacker, and a true cyberspace addict. Enough about that. I thought your article on European demo coders ("Demo or Die!" Wired 3.07, page 142) totally kicked! Your magazine has finally brought life to the computer industry.
__Matthew Blackmar gtwb53d@prodigy.com
Chivalry, Not Satanism
The Society for Creative Anachronism Inc. is not a pagan organization, as you implied in your article "Technopagans" (Wired 3.07, page 126). Members re-create the highlights of the Middle Ages such as costuming, feasting, and chivalric combat.
But over the past 30 years, the society has had more than its share of misguided, fundamentalist detractors who confuse dressing in pre-16th-century clothing with practicing Satanism. Your article did nothing to help. As a nonprofit, historical research organization, the society is completely secular.
Corrie Bergeron corrie@solon.com
Evolution and Its Discontents
Human skulls evolve? ("Revolutionary Evolutionist," Wired 3.07, page 120.) Assuming that humans are around in the future, they will look as we do now. For a change to occur, there must be a mechanism that deselects the unchanged. What mechanism will eliminate our current skull size? Even if one exists, its effect would be neutralized by modern society, which aids in the reproduction of all of its members. In essence, civilization is the end of evolution.
Peter N. Dezendorf deze@eworld.com
With regard to "The Digital River" (Wired 3.07, page 122), I would argue that human existence is more analog than digital. We feel, love, express, and interpret the present analogically. For example, humans are always aware of the temperature of an interaction. But "temperature" is an analogic quality. Degrees Fahrenheit is a digital representation of that quality, which cannot fully express the quality of temperature that it measures. Similarly, any digital interpretation of human experience can only be an approximation. "How do I love thee? Let me count the ways." What an impossible digital task.
__Ed Stutsman ed.stutsman@the-spa.com
News of the Wild West
Your article "Hell Hath No Fury Like a Monopolist Scorned" (Updata, Wired 3.06, page 84) referred to West Publishing Company as "a monopolist." West is a "leading publisher of federal case law," as you say, but it has no monopoly on case-law publication. At present, more than 190 competing providers supply more than 750 sources of case law to the marketplace - an odd monopoly.
The article also claims that West's law books are expensive. A typical Federal Reporter volume has 1,580 pages and costs about US$29, or about 1.8 cents a page. A typical trade book like Silicon Snake Oil has 247 pages and costs about $22, or 9 cents a page - or five times the cost per page of a West reporter volume.
Lastly, the statement that "electronic legal databases have left West vulnerable" because West has only a "fading" print presence is also wrong. West has offered legal information online since 1975 and in CD-ROM format since 1988.
__Ruth E. Stanoch Manager, Government and Media Relations
West Publishing Corporation__
Undo
In our enthusiasm for cyber rights, we mistakenly referred to the EFF-Austin organization as "Austin's Electronic Frontier Foundation" ("Net Backlash = Fear of Freedom," Wired 3.08, page 70). EFF-Austin is the full name of this Texas-based cyberliberties group, which has no formal connection to the national Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Send your Rants & Raves to:
E-mail: rants@wiredmag.com
Snail mail: Wired, PO Box 191826
San Francisco, CA 94109-9866________
