We receive far more letters and blog pingbacks than we have room for in our printed Letters and Blogs. So here are the ones we chose that from. (Please note that we don't publish letters where no post town is given - and we do ask for them when we receive letters. So if a letter isn't used, that's often why.)
NOT NEUTRAL This article by Andrew Orlowski (below) is one of the most garbled, confusing and unhelpful I have come across. Does the Guardian exercise no editorial control over low-grade writing and poor expression like this? Shame on you. Alex Murphy (no post town given)
>> I never thought I would say this, but I've actually read something written by Andrew Orlowski which has not prompted me to throw things at my computer screen in anger. In an article on Net Neutrality, he has actually uncovered something that has been worrying me since I first heard about the debate. The big problem is, how do you define the term? You can get five different definitions from Wikipedia alone. http://technollama.blogspot.com/2007/04/social-network-me-that-neutral-web-20.html
>> When the ink is dry on this issue, historians will see it more as a testament to the power of the internet to win support for dubious causes than anything else. To think that neutralitarians have actually built a movement to pressure Congress to enact laws against unprecedented, speculative, hypothetical ills is actually mind-boggling. Don't they have enough real problems? http://bennett.com/blog/index.php/archives/2007/04/05/any-old-cause-will-do/
DROPPING DRM Your analysis of EMI's move to drop DRM was pretty good. However, you neglected to mention Magnatune, an online music store that offers its DRM-free music in the customer's choice of Ogg Vorbis, MP3, FLAC, AAC, and more. In addition, 50% of their gross revenue goes to the artists. You may wish to consider them for future stories. I'm a very satisfied customer. Matt Flaschen, Atlanta, Georgia
FLASH, OR NOT There is no doubt that Flash can provide richer content for web pages, and my daughter loves some of the Flash games that are available. But it was disappointing that the article failed to make any mention of the issue of accessibility (complying with the DDA) - an issue that has dogged Flash in the past. I know newer versions of Flash can produce content that is more accessible than older versions can, but it still relies on the authors of the Flash movies to understand all the issues and put accessibility features in (something that to a large extent you get for free with HTML). The reality is that few Flash developers do this. Part of my job involves reviewing the accessibility of web pages and sites, and some common problems with Flash movies include 1) the difficulty of tabbing around within them, and the response to keystrokes; 2) the text in the movies cannot be made larger; 3) graphics are not labelled up appropriately or at all - I could go on. All these things make life much harder for screen reader users, and for others who cannot use a mouse. This wouldn't matter so much if an HTML version of the functionality was provided too, but unfortunately that seldom seems to be the case. And companies may wonder why they are paying to develop the same functionality twice. For these reasons I still feel that Flash is unsuitable for key functionality that everybody needs to access. Graham Armfield, Woking
>> I'm a card-carrying member of the Mark Anders fan club, but saying that Flash is the new publishing tool of the century is a bit much. Flash may be Gutenberg's printing press, providing a huge jolt and showing everyone how revolutionary things can be, but there's still a lot of innovation to be had in our little section of the web. http://blog.digitalbackcountry.com/?p=753
>> First, members of my fan club have secret decoder rings, not member-ship cards, but more importantly, I had no idea what he was talking about with "the new publishing tool of the century" line. Where did that come from? ... I don't remember using those words, and interestingly, in the article they do not appear within quotes. However, in looking at the context of the statement, I think I understand what it means... I do believe that as we've moved into the 21st century, the web has transformed to include more than just text and images, and that Flash has been an enabler of that shift to a richer web experience. http://www.andersblog.com/archives/2007/04/great_article_o.html
>> It's great to see people coming around to the fact that Flash is an extremely powerful tool now. The Flash/Flex/Apollo Ecosystem is a powerful combination when it comes to building not just web apps but disconnected desktop apps. But the true power of Flash is still being dreamt by Adobe so I definitely expect exciting times for web publishing. http://blog.jodybrewster.net/2007/04/05/flash-is-the-new-publishing-tool-of-the-century/
>> Yes, and that's exactly why users hate it. You won't be able to block ads in a Flash-only world. http://www.beardsworth.co.uk/news/comment.php?id=983_0_1_0_C
PRICEY ADOBE To update Jack Schofield's article on Thursday December 21, 2006 concerning prices in Europe compared with those in the USA, Adobe have done it again, but with more bare-faced cheek than before with the new CS3 suites. I first bought Flash, Dreamweaver and Fireworks when they were owned by Macromedia. The European price was slightly higher than in the USA, but since Adobe have taken over it is now double the USA price. Flash is practically a monopoly as the Flash player is on nearly all computers and to create content Flash is almost a must-have. For this alone Adobe should be forced to equalise its prices. Adobe claim that the huge European price hike is due to regional sales being lower. What nonsense! They know that they can get away with it. Resellers in the USA have been banned from selling the software in Europe. I cannot believe that if the European court forced Adobe to sell at an equivalent price that they would not conform. This is blatant opportunism and a rip-off. Mike Preston (no post town given)
VIOLENCE IS FOREVER? Just wanted to say that your argument against the Wii is very weak. In order to make it you reference a quote by an insomniac dev, hardly an unbiased source - the man makes his money on Sony consoles, So of course he isn't going to praise the system that is taking money out of his pocket. I'm a long time gamer (gaming for over 22 years), and let me tell you violence is all right but not the be-all and end-all, GTA 3 was good the first time I played it but after the sequels it has gotten repetitive. In fact most of gaming has gotten stale; regardless of whether they are covenant, chimera, zombies or locusts, there are only so many times you can kill some creature the same way before it gets dull. The Wii has made gaming fresh in a way that I haven't experience since the rise of 3D gaming. So while violence is OK, the Wii isn't opposed to that, its just about making it fresh and more accessible. Avinash Tyagi (no post town given)
DATABASE COPYRIGHT I am a lawyer in the field of intellectual property, and I would like to point out an error in your story entitled "New study casts doubt on Ordnance Survey's copyright control". I refer in particular to the sentence, "Unlike copyright law, which can be used to block the reproduction of almost any part of a creative work - even John Cage's 4'33" of silence - the database directive allows users to copy information, provided that it is not a "substantial" part of a database." This is wrong. Under UK copyright law, any part of a copyright work can be freely copied as long as it is not a "substantial" part of the work. This is because of s.16(3) of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988, which provides that "References in this Part to the doing of an act restricted by the copyright in a work are to the doing of it— (a) in relation to the work as a whole or any substantial part of it". Thus any insubstantial part is not an infringement. The argument in the study mentioned in your article may or may not be complex , as you say it is (since there is no link to the study, I have not read it), but this particular point is not complex and your account of it is incorrect. James Whyte (no post town given)
GOOGLE IN RWANDA The slight tone of scepticism with which you report Rwanda's rush to buy Nicholas Negroponte's '$100' wind-up childrens' computers is well-placed. Negroponte is pushing this clockwork-powered toy, which he intends to sell in its millions, as a serious development tool for the entire 3rd World; but, aside from the technical issues you raise, there also is a serious moral problem here. I recently heard Negroponte at a new technology conference in Udine, Italy, tell a crowded hall of well-fed Europeans that they could easily generate some 20-30 watts of electricty using the wind-up mechanism of the device while, and I quote, 'a malnourished African child could generatate 5-6'. At this meeting Negroponte revealed Bill Gates's hostility to his plans, which he put down to Gates's jealousy. Yet there is another explanation for Gates's negativism. Can Negroponte's gadget possibly be in any way an 'appropriate technology'? And in a world riven with war, pestilence and hunger, is this the best of way of spending (with the usual manufacuturers) millions which might otherwise be put to better purpose? Brian Winston, Lincoln Professor of Communications, University of Lincoln
