Rants & Raves
Although the advent of push/pull technology ("Push!" Wired 5.03) is exciting, I foresee one problem: content, or lack thereof.
I'm certain that technology can offer walls that are video screens, cigarettes that broadcast soft drink jingles, and toothbrushes that display stock prices. I am less certain of high tech media's ability to push anything interesting into my lap. The comparison to television exemplifies my point. I have access to so many channels but can't find anything interesting to watch.
The problem is that high tech companies will pay six-figure salaries to hundreds of software and hardware engineers but will spend only a fraction of that to hire writers, artists, and photographers.
Lucien Janik Jr.
turnip@jersey.net
—–
Push applications make perfect sense in the many ways you described. But without multicast you are shoving - not pushing - the traffic down the Net.
Push applications transmit content via unicast - each viewer receives a distinct datastream. As a result, the size of a sender's network pipe determines the number of receivers it can accommodate and sucks bandwidth from networks with multiple listeners. Since many receivers want the same data, these limitations and adverse affects are unnecessary.
A better technology would allow the sender to transmit a single datastream, which the network would distribute to receivers on request. That's exactly how multicast works.
Bob Quinn
rcq@sockets.com
—–
Push media is a pox on the Web and must be eradicated at all costs!
The push model grabbed the attention of Internet publishers because it allows them to dispatch information without depending on users to visit their sites. Of course, you and I both know the real reason these Internet publishers aren't getting visitors - their content sucks and people don't want what they have to offer. Publishers aren't willing to accept that low traffic might be their problem. So what do they do? These oh-so-thoughtful publishers force themselves on us and ram their worthless information right down our pipelines.
There are so many reasons why push media is wrong, wrong, wrong, but I'll focus on one: push media is old media! Internet publishers, who couldn't figure out how to work this crazy thing called the Web, have reverted to a tired (but manageable) publishing model. Push media is just mass media delivered to your desktop.
Remember when we first saw the Web, when we dreamed of a revolution in communication, media, and perhaps even human consciousness? Remember the many-to-many publishing model? Remember the democratic free flow of information? If we allow push media to become the status quo, we can kiss our Web dreams good-bye. We will lose the opportunity to revolutionize the way we connect. We will submit ourselves once again to the mind-controlling forces of massive media companies who tell us what they want us to know, not what we want to find out.
The Web is not a one-way medium!
Julie Petersen
chickjesus@awaken.org
—–
I read (pulled, then pushed) with interest your cover story on push media and was shocked by one little paragraph on page 17. "Foremost is relief from boredom," it begins, and includes the fragment "the solitude of a country walk." It's hard enough to walk along a country road and not find a billboard (ambient push), a candy wrapper, or a soda can (both nonintentional push). To suggest that what we need on that country walk is pushed news broadcasts, pullable icons identifying tree species, and statistics on pedestrian accidents in Bumble County is a crock of roadkill.
As media (both push and pull) become more "ubiquitous," you're going to find me taking more walks in the "boring" country to get away from the millions of voices that will apparently be storming my consciousness. I'll be leaving my PDA (pull) and maybe even my road map (ambient pull) behind.
Brian Hollenbeck
grayson@frontiernet.net
—–
A constant barrage of advertising already comes at me through my television, radio, telephone, browser, newspaper, and even my email box. Now you want it to follow me around everywhere I go? It sounds like a recipe for hell on earth.
The Web is a success because it provides information to users and doesn't pander to advertisers. Television is a vast wasteland of useless predigested mush because the people running it put commercial interests before those of the viewers. If push media is going to follow the model of television, it's going to be a big waste of time.
Isaac Freeman
ijf16@csc.canterbury.ac.nz
It amuses me when people rant about digerati-biased articles in this publication. Do these same people write to Rush Limbaugh to complain about the conservative bent of his commentary? I read Wired cover to cover every month to get its unique perspective on current events, technology, and culture. It's a peek at the world through digital-tinted glasses. For mainstream coverage, try CNN.
Scott C. Hill
schill@byteland.com
I read the article on Steve Newman ("Would You Buy Brooklynbridge.com from This Man?" Wired 5.03, page 50) with unbridled revulsion. Newman epitomizes everything that the Net should not be. He'll sell you a domain name like maserati.net while assuming no responsibility whatsoever for copyright infringements - can you say "sleazebag"?
I have been using the Internet since it was the Arpanet, and I marvel as much as anyone at the technological and societal changes the technology has wrought. I also marvel at the carpetbaggers and snake-oil salespeople who have crawled out from under their electronic rocks.
So, Steve Newman wants to sell gratefuldead.org for US$5,000? I'll do him one better: I just registered grateful-dead.org (a little more readable) and I'll give it to any Deadhead who wants to set up a Dead Web site for $100 - exactly what I paid for it. fifth-avenue.org? wall-street.org? digital times.com? I'll undercut Steve just for spite.
May the Steve Newmans of this world suffer bit rot and leave the Net to those of us who will benefit from it (and not just profit by it).
Dan Klein
dan@klein.com
The Telecommunications Reform Act is the most overrated and inconsequential law enacted by the 104th Congress ("The Great HDTV Swindle," Wired 5.02, page 57). Until I can purchase cable TV from the local phone company - GTE - here in Elkhart, Indiana, instead of the mediocre monopoly TCI, I will not be convinced that the 1996 act is anything but a populist ploy.
The FCC, Congress, the US Justice Department, and state governments should be using their bully pulpits to encourage the regional local-access telephone operating/exchange companies to compete against TCI for the lucrative right to purvey the passive cable TV signal. TCI has not proven that it can satisfactorily deliver cable TV, so how in cyberspace is the company going to handle the more difficult task of interactive fiber-optic Internet access? The superior technology of regional phone companies will soften America's transition from analog to digital HDTV by maintaining the dual-TV signal conveyance system that TCI is opposed to.
I see TCI as a more dangerous monopoly than Ma Bell ever was. The government should consider dividing up the listless cable conglomerate into seven firms, which could be bought at fire-sale prices by the probable hybrid telecom firms of Nynex/Bell Atlantic/AT&T/Pacific Telesis/Southwestern Bell, et cetera.
Terry DeShone
Elkhart, Indiana
Certain Indian officials might want to expel foreign broadcasting ("Caught in the Waves," Wired 5.03, page 54), but then again, certain US officials might want to ban the Internet. What matters is how these desires translate into policy.
I reported for Wired News that the Indian broadcasting laws currently under consideration try to restrict foreign ownership of companies broadcasting from within India - not satellite broadcasters such as STAR TV, which beams into India from Hong Kong. In the most recent draft legislation, the limit on foreign ownership is 49 percent for direct ownership and 74 percent for indirect - far more than the 25 percent permitted by US law.
In fact, this "restriction" will actually be a liberation. Currently, only the Indian government can broadcast (uplink) from within India. Now private companies will have that right, too.
Rishab Aiyer Ghosh
rshab@dxm.org
When I finished the article about Julian Simon and his one-man crusade to induce us all to put our heads in the sand ("The Doomslayer," Wired 5.02, page 136), I headed for some of Simon's primary sources. A half-hour of perusing the Statistical Abstract of the United States found no support for the claim that "from 1980 to 1990, known crude oil reserves increased by 50 percent." The Energy Information Administration's U.S. Crude Oil, Natural Gas, and Natural Gas Liquids Reserves Annual Report listed "known crude oil reserves" at 29.8 billions of barrels in 1980 and at 26.3 billions of barrels in 1990. Needless to say, I was surprised by this factual inconsistency in an article about "Mr. Data."
Regardless of the accuracy - or inaccuracy - of the facts Simon states, what is most compelling are the ones he fails to mention, such as the steady, documented rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations over the last 50 years.
Emma C. Farmer
McKinleyville, California
I remain baffled by the relentless quest of Nicholas Negroponte and friends to attach microvalues to everything digital ("Pay Whom Per What When, Part II," Wired 5.03, page 220). In virtually every situation Negroponte described, it's not at all difficult to develop a payment scheme that doesn't require micropayments.
Why should I pay a nickel every time I reach for a piece of armor in a game? Why inflict that complexity on the system? Rather, let me pay for the game by the minute. Place a minimum charge on playing, if need be.
The Tyson-Holyfield fight was priced as it was because of a simple fact: the last Tyson fight - which cost US$50 on pay-per-view - lasted less than one round. To the once-burned fans, pay-per-round made excellent sense and still does.
Bid-and-offer systems for things such as telephone calls, while interesting and valuable in many ways, also have no need for a new micropayment system. So why does Negroponte continue to tell us we need it?
W. D. Baseley
wbaseley@postoffice.ptd.net
I noticed two undereducated digs at the NC, or network computer, in the February issue ("NC: New Centralism?" Wired 5.02, page 123; Hype List, page 180). A misstatement in the first article - "Yanking expensive PCs and replacing them with cheap NCs will save companies a lot of money. But the cost of innovation will be high" - misses a major point. The NC is not meant to replace the PC! It's an Internet device. The NC provides Net access to those unable to maintain and configure the ever-complicated desktop PC.
PCs are powerful devices with one major function: to create and edit digital information. A PC is like a television studio: a factory for creating content. Why should a consumer of digital information be required to buy a PC? That would be like requiring TV viewers to purchase a television studio.
PCs have not found a stronghold in public schools, libraries, and other poorly funded public institutions because they are too complex and the knowledge needed to keep them running is too expensive. What is needed is a simple device with an intuitive user interface that allows people access to the information they want, without the hassle of having to know the inner workings of the technology. The NC is more than a burned-out buzzword or a dumb terminal. It is a simple solution to a complex problem: bringing networked information to the masses.
Michael Eichler
meichlerofcmail@interoffice.net
It had been a long time since a piece of journalism absorbed me as much as Po Bronson's "Building the VW of PCs" (Wired 5.03, page 156). I was astonished by Bronson's clarity as he perceived the motivations of the engineers at La Honda. "Man, he must have done his homework to get such a handle on the dynamics of the group," I remember thinking. And wow! What a great saga. Who wouldn't be enthralled by a group of quirky engineers running amok at a backwoods oasis of creativity?
It wasn't until I went to the Web site to scare up Bronson's email address that I realized - oh! - it's fiction. Too bad: as an article, this story was darn close to inspirational.
Aaron VanderWal
avanderw@eddie.cis.uoguelph.ca
The estimate of the dollars lost from software pirates given in "Warez Wars" (Wired 5.04, page 132) is overinflated. US$291.5 million a week? Prove it.
At a recent lecture I attended, some software industry guru held up a CD ROM and claimed that it could be purchased in China for about $20 but had well over $20,000 worth of programs on it. He then claimed that billions of dollars per year were lost due to piracy. Whooaa. After the lecture, I asked whether in calculating this billion-dollar number, the organization counted the evil disk as $20 or $20,000 in lost profits. It had used the bigger number, arguing that consumers might have actually spent the 20 grand. What?!
When Michael, the "warez junkie," downloads $50,000 worth of software, the industry is not losing $50,000 in real money. Would he have spent $50,000 on the legal software? If the answer is no - and I bet it is - then the software industry hasn't lost a penny.
Frank Golding
fgolding@richoneil.com
—–
In setting up the warez issue as a battle between the anarchistic, profit motiveless pirates and the stuffy, horrified-by-the-(probably exaggerated)-profit-loss software developers, the article missed a key point. Who really loses from the proliferation of warez?
As a legitimate user of NewTek's LightWave 3D, I'm paying considerably more for this software than I would otherwise have to, because of the amount of time and energy that NewTek has to devote to copy-protecting its software, not to mention the additional profit it builds in to cover the losses it will incur from piracy. As in any war, it's the innocent bystanders who usually suffer the most.
John Prusinski
jprusins@cybergrafix.com
—–
I usually enjoy your magazine and its cutting-edge material, but this time you went too far. Wired has a reputation for being not so smart when it comes to the Internet and computing underground, but the warez piece was the worst. How could you write an article on software pirating without explaining exactly how the warez scene works?
Separate groups specialize in "releasing" games and applications. People known as "couriers" spread the files to FTP sites and BBSes. Releasers often have jobs at software companies and can get ahold of new titles early on. The names of the cracker, the releaser, and the uploader are listed on every program. Some people will do anything to get an early release and will put out betas or incomplete programs.
Once the program is cracked and uploaded, the courier groups do their thing. These groups are assigned to specific BBSes and FTPs. The courier that pumps out the most megs is allowed on more BBSes. A good courier must move files everywhere - fast. To do this, some couriers have two nodes or modems uploading and downloading at the same time. Net couriers deal with spreading megs on the Internet; others spread warez through IRC. A pirater in China simply downloads a pirated version and copies it onto some two-way CDs. It is easy. It also does not take much skill to be a courier. All you need to know is how to completely waste your life for the purpose of fame and recognition.
"Lucky Luciano"
Los Gatos, California
As a creative director in the kids' entertainment business and a producer of online entertainment, I am always excited to see more content devoted to girls ("Girl Games," Wired 5.04, page 98), who have been underserved in the CD-ROM world. As the article mentioned, Chop Suey broke the mold.
However, I noticed a blooper in G. Beato's story. Chop Suey was the collaborative work of two women: Theresa Duncan and Monica Gesue. Not only did Gesue conceive, illustrate, and art-direct the CD-ROM project, some of the more memorable writing was hers as well. Heck, Cortland, Ohio - where the story is set - is Gesue's hometown. In the spirit of professionalism (and good manners), you should give credit where credit is due.
David Vogler
davidv3249@aol.com
Jon Katz's excellent "Birth of a Digital Nation" (Wired 5.04, page 49) was marred only by its ethnocentricity. It is incumbent upon the digerati to be aware that the online world is not American. The politics and morals of the Net are being forged everywhere. In areas such as export cryptography and censorship, US policy designed to "regulate" cyberspace is already floundering. Slowly and inexorably, control of such matters is moving into the Digital Nation; a nation that is not and will not be bounded by geographical borders.
Peter Miller
ocean@mpx.com.au
Have the laws of physics changed recently? When I was in high school, sound waves were carried by compressions and rarefactions of air ("Get Wireless," Wired 5.04, page 142). Electromagnetic waves were a completely different phenomenon, needing no transmission medium whatsoever. Sounds and electromagnetic signals were both described as waves, because they each exhibited wavelike characteristics, but they were very different things. Calling radio waves and other electromagnetic waves "airwaves" was just a metaphor.
Um, did this change? Your map of the electromagnetic spectrum seemed to include sound waves, which is like including snail mail in a list of modems: they're not the same thing.
Barrett Sundberg
action8r@io.com
I read "The Internet Revolution" (Wired 5.04, page 122) with growing disbelief. It is a remarkable achievement to write about a budding political revolution for 12 pages without actually discussing the politics of the movement. David Bennahum mentions democracy a few times and says something about antinationalism, but by and large he gives a warm and fuzzy reading about something not only unlikely but improbable. By his own account, these people are apolitical and their influence nil.
The idea of the Web playing a role in a revolution is exciting, but applying it to this particular situation is far-fetched. I have received some of the emails from Belgrade he refers to, but I could not help thinking of the real, brutal massacre of hundreds of thousands of people - on both sides, but mainly perpetrated by the Serbs - and justified intellectually by the same Serbian intellectuals and clergy who call themselves "democrats."
I charge Bennahum with incredible na�veté, ignorance, and lack of journalistic curiosity for the truth. It might have been an extremely titillating adolescent experience to be brushed by history, but both ignoring political reality and trying to bend reality to his partisan agenda is reprehensible.
Tamas Banovich
manyone@hotmail.com
- Photo Finish: The negative/positive photographic process was announced in 1839 ("The Future of Photography," Wired 5.03, page 90), the same year the daguerreotype was introduced.
- Typos 'R' Us: Eric Michael Strauss's correct email address is eric.strauss@internetmci.com (Rants & Raves, Wired 5.03, page 44).
E-mail: rants@Wired.com
Snail mail: Wired, PO Box 191826
San Francisco, CA 94109-9866
