"Put that pedal to the metal," we advised in our December cover story on why $5 gas is good for America. That advice provoked some serious road rage. "Spencer Reiss' bit of oily fluff is the most starry-eyed, sunshine, lollipops, and rainbows piece of crap I have ever read," wrote one angry driver. Another suggested the author displayed "only slightly less hubris than the captain of the Titanic." Speaking of motherships, readers loved our story on the new online episode of Star Trek. But one musicologist wondered if our mention of a theremin in the Star Trek theme was a bit off-key. Well, Rod Roddenberry Jr.'s office agreed with us, but we wanted to hear it right from the source. Composer Alexander Courage didn't call us back, so we're sticking with our story. Sing it with us: Ahh AAAHHH …
Fueling the Gasoline Fire
Five dollars a gallon is a bargain, for America and the rest of the world, considering the true cost of oil ("Why $5 Gas Is Good for America,"
issue 13.12). What should anger us is how long we have allowed hidden transport subsidies, tax breaks, and lobbyists to shape our energy policy. Oil got cheap because we wouldn't put a price tag on fresh air. Technology coupled with market forces will help nudge the cleaner, cheaper energy future closer, but let's accelerate it by factoring in the real cost of a clean environment and better health.
Paul Welsh
Singapore
When we find the next great energy source, how long will it take to create hundreds of millions of vehicles and machines to be powered by it? How long will it take, and how much will it cost, to create an international distribution infrastructure for the new energy?
The article's carefree tone and final encouragement to "drive more" come off as irresponsible and uninformed. You write for an audience of geeks and professionals - surely you could encourage us to do something more useful and intelligent.
Rob Davis
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Spencer Reiss' story misses one crucial fact: Oil is one of the most energy-dense naturally occurring sources of power on the planet. To leave oil behind, we would have to discover a resource even more energy rich. None of the potential technologies that Reiss lists qualify. After the oil production peak, the human race will, for the first time in history, have to switch to a power source that contains less energy than the last one. Modern agriculture is the process of turning oil into food, and there are more than 6 billion mouths to feed: We have a problem of biblical proportions on our hands.
Al Budynski
Portland, Oregon
Your recommendation to use more oil to keep prices high defeats the purpose of shifting to alternative fuels. The US should increase prices by increasing gasoline taxes. Higher gas taxes would make alternative fuels economically feasible, reduce oil consumption, protect the environment, keep oil money out of the hands of our enemies, and help with our budget deficit.
Rob du Mont
Goose Creek, South Carolina
Transforming the current oil economy into an economy based on another energy source will still require oil. And many of the "new" sources of energy you listed are still based in large part on indirect oil consumption. The problem with plant-based energy sources like corn and soy is that most of the inputs (fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides) that are used to grow modern agriculture come from fossil fuels, particularly natural gas. And the manufacture and transportation of a solar panel or a wind turbine uses enormous amounts of energy. I have yet to hear of the solar panel that was made using solar power.
Patrick Schaefer
Falmouth, Massachusetts
Americans are worried about paying $4 per gallon? Here in Canada, we've been paying the equivalent of about $5 per gallon, and we've endured it without the collapse of our country. Instead of debating the results of expensive gas, call your neighbors up north. Been there; done that; moving on.
Frank J. de Swart
Mississauga, Ontario
Actually, Do Call It Spyware
Your article about Claria makes it sound like a legitimate business ("Don't Call It Spyware," issue 13.12). Changing its product description from spyware to adware without changing its deceptive techniques of installing uninvited software, producing unwanted pop-ups, and making removal difficult is like changing the word shit to feces; it still doesn't smell any better. Claria will always be unwelcome spyware, no matter who it sues.
Tash Robinson
Mechanicsville, Virginia
I am writing on behalf of the Anti-Spyware Coalition, a group of technology companies, public interest groups, and academics joined in the fight against spyware. In the article about Claria, the author writes that, as part of a process to rehabilitate its public image, "Claria became a supporter of the Anti-Spyware Coalition." Let me be clear: Contrary to Claria's declarations, the company has never provided the Anti-Spyware Coalition with support, financial or otherwise. The only companies that are permitted to become members of the Anti-Spyware Coalition are those that make or distribute legitimate anti-spyware technologies. The coalition has not - and will never - take money from adware or spyware developers.
Ari Schwartz
Deputy director, The Center for Democracy & Technology
Coordinator, The Anti-Spyware Coalition
Bowled Over
It seems the US government was right after all: Toilet seats really do cost $600 (Wired Tools 2005, issue 13.12). What's next - actual evidence of WMD in Iraq? UFOs are really weather balloons? Elvis is actually dead? The mind reels.
Tom Lundin
Lakeville, Minnesota
What's the Big Secret?
On the claimed explosion in classifying government documents (Start, Infoporn, issue 13.12): What makes you think anyone would want to read most of this material? When my mother was in the Navy, the adage was:
*If the stuff's inconsequential
See the file marked *confidential.
If it's obsolete or older,
Please look in a secret folder.
Things do not seem to have changed much since.
Will Linden
Kew Gardens, New York
In Praise of Buckyballs
I loved Bruce Sterling's latest column about buckyballs (Posts, Sterling, issue 13.12). It's great to hear a voice out there that is excited about the potential of new, hugely beneficial technology and yet cautious not to race into technologies that could have major consequences. Here's to reusable buckytubes.
Jonathan Renich
Eugene, Oregon
