LETTERS

INSIDE THE APPLE-MICROSOFT DEAL

"Apple was a pioneer company, but if it is to survive, it must reinvent itself to suit a computer culture that has moved on to other things." CHRIS RANSFORD Woking, England

Thank you for the balanced story on Steve Jobs' and Apple Computer's pact with Bill Gates and Microsoft [BUSINESS, Aug. 18]. Apple has never sought to be Microsoft but rather to offer the world a wonderful alternative. The company has made great strides in the past year, and will be reaping the rewards in the near future. I predicted months ago that Apple would rise, phoenix-like, from the ashes of its recent past. Stay tuned. WAYNE BOVI Sandown, N.H.

Jobs gave up. Just a little help, he said in Chicago of the alliance with Microsoft to help save Apple. But Steve, you know that once you put a virus-carrying disc in the A drive, your machine won't be the same. Does any Mac user want to get a Bill Gates virus? NICOLA DESIDERIO Chieti, Italy

The American dream is alive and well. There is no better example of this than Jobs. He came to the table in the late '70s with an idea and a conviction. The most important thing he did was to act on his dreams. I respect Jobs for doing what was in the best interests of Apple Computer. He set his pride aside for the good of the company. NATALIE HARTMAN Salt Lake City, Utah

Gates is reputed to be intelligent and ruthless. Jobs is said to be intelligent, ruthless and streetwise, able to live off the land. No contest. The headline should be APPLE BITES MAN. BEVERLY KAI Waikiki, Hawaii

Michael Krantz wrote that the lesson learned from the Microsoft-Apple deal is that "Art may cast a brighter light in the short term, but Commerce generally wins big in the final tally." The truth of the matter is that Commerce invariably needs Art in order to win big (e.g., the Windows imitation of the Mac icon format). Conversely, any artist honest enough to admit it will acknowledge the value of Commerce in his success. In the final analysis, the average consumer doesn't care who wins, Apple or Microsoft, Jobs or Gates. All we want is a product that gets the job done quickly, efficiently and not too expensively. ROBERT CRUMP JR. New Orleans

God bless Steve Jobs. His courage and commitment to Apple Computer are in the spirit of a true entrepreneur. Apple lighted the minds of young people, in the same way that the Rural Electrification Administration lighted rural America more than 60 years ago. With people like Jobs, the future of America's youth is right on track for the new millennium. MILT SMEDSRUD Fergus Falls, Minn.

How wonderful it would be if Microsoft Windows, the Mac OS and even UNIX operating systems could all run on the same PowerPC platform. Users could pick and choose from the best of the rich treasure of software applications and tools that are now in separate operating-system camps. BRIAN BLACKMORE Millburn, N.J.

Microsoft has managed to co-opt nearly everything. Yet as I sit facing my friendly Macintosh PowerPC and my nondescript IBM clone equipped with Windows 95, I know that only one of these machines has a soul. Rob Parsons Sitka, Alaska

MORE ABOUT EL NINO

Your excellent article on El Nino mentioned the two-week colloquium on the phenomenon held in Boulder, Colo., in July [SCIENCE, Aug. 18]. We'd like to make it clear that this conference was sponsored by the National Center for Atmospheric Research's Advanced Study Program. For those interested in the meeting's outcome, see the Web page at www.dir.ucar.edu/esig/enso MICHAEL GLANTZ, Colloquium Organizer National Center for Atmospheric Research Boulder, Colo.

POL POT'S REIGN OF TERROR

Roger Rosenblatt only touched on the tragedy that befell the Cambodian people at the hands of Pol Pot and his followers [ESSAY, Aug. 18]. It's difficult to imagine the hardship and cruelty that Cambodians endured during Pol Pot's reign of terror. But Rosenblatt apparently let his imagination run wild when he blamed the U.S. bombing of Cambodia during the Vietnam War as the destabilizing influence that allowed Pol Pot to flourish. I could have sworn we were bombing the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese troops that sought refuge in Cambodia after attacking our own troops in South Vietnam. VINCENT IAMUNNO Huntersville, N.C.

DIVORCE AMERICAN-STYLE

To reduce the divorce rate, we need to curb the marriage rate [SOCIETY, Aug. 18]. Instead of making divorce harder to get, we should make marriage much more difficult. It should be as tightly controlled and regulated by government as owning and operating a motor vehicle. It should involve rigorous training and licensing, and even more severe restrictions if a couple intends to procreate. Divorce and child-support insurance should be required. Some may think government ought to stay out of our private lives. But the social cost of divorce is comparable to, or perhaps much greater than, reckless driving. MANUEL PADRON Atlanta

Marriage licenses should be like fishing licenses--easy to get and good for only one year. Maybe people in our society are able to handle only small chunks of commitment. DOUG MCALPINE Harrisonburg, Va.

No wonder Dorothy Hutelmyer is smiling. Having just won her suit for damages against her husband's lover for ruining her marriage, she's gone to the head of a long line of women who have used the outdated U.S. divorce laws for highly questionable personal gain. For an entire century women have been screaming for equality--until they enter a divorce court. Then they suddenly become the meek, the downtrodden, poor souls who are blameless for the failure of their marriage. But women are 50% of a marriage. Why do our courts and society see divorce as a problem rooted in the male side of marriage? THOMAS G. CARUSO New York City

Divorce is legal in the U.S., and as long as it is, people should not be punished for it. On the other hand, my boyfriend's ex-wife promised to kill herself and never did. Do you think I can sue her for breach of promise? LEE COVINGTON Seattle

CENSORING THE NET

Joshua Quittner's column on a group of journalists who are considering a rating system for Internet content [THE NETLY NEWS, Aug. 11] included the Newspaper Association of America as one of the industry representatives that had formed a "self-appointed council" to look at whether it should "decide what's news and what's not." For the record, the N.A.A. has not participated in this group, although some of our member newspapers may choose to take part in its discussions. The N.A.A. does not advocate the development of a rating system that would allow any arbitrary body to decide whether a news Website should be rated or labeled. Such a system amounts to a form of censorship, which cannot be supported by the newspaper industry. JOHN F. STURM, President and CEO Newspaper Association of America Vienna, Va.

The Internet Content Coalition, which represents producers and distributors of original content on the Web, has attempted to engage diverse media in a wide-ranging dialogue on current efforts to "rate" content. Like the recently adopted TV-rating systems, Web-rating schemes promise to give parents more control over the amount of sex, violence and foul language to which their children might have access. We aim at preserving, not limiting, the free flow of information on the Web. The issue is less what's news and what's not than what protections and guarantees can be put in place to ensure that what's news continues to be what's seen. MARK BAILEY, Acting President Internet Content Coalition Philadelphia

SOCIAL SECURITY'S ROBIN HOOD

In "Robin Hood in reverse," George Church pondered whether he should collect Social Security payments he doesn't need, at the expense of the working poor [VIEWPOINT, Aug. 18]. But he conveniently failed to mention that the working poor also receive Social Security pensions, and many of those contributing relatively little receive proportionately greater benefits than those who have paid in much more to the system. Moreover, the great majority of those receiving proportionately less are not millionaires but ordinary people with incomes under $100,000, and the money withheld from their paychecks could have been better invested privately. There are two sides to Robin Hood. CHARLES F. BROWN Kingfield, Maine

I was thrown on the trash pile 18 years ago not because I couldn't do the work at my job but because I was considered old. I had to grin at the man who made the decision to get rid of me. I thought at the time, "You are going to be paying me while I play." And so he has, and his children and grandchildren also will be doing so because I expect to be hanging in there 18 more years. ELLEN M. GREER Kissimmee, Fla.

MASTER OF TV DRAMA

How delighted I was to read the review of the biography of television producer Fred Coe [BOOKS, Aug. 18]. I was lucky to be his secretary at NBC television in 1950-51. He deserved his title as the "boy genius" of TV. Every Sunday night he produced the Philco Playhouse, presenting a one-hour drama. Fred's standards were high, and because he gave his utmost, all those around him did likewise. When his wife was expecting a baby, we on his staff urged Fred to name it either Phillip or Phyllis so the child's name would be "Phil" Coe. Needless to say, the Coes opted for another name. MARJORIE KREGER GALLAGHER Midlothian, Va.

THE TIME 100

I applaud you on the preparation for your special issues on the most influential people of the 20th century. I was quite impressed with the plans your managing editor outlined [TO OUR READERS, Aug. 18]. As a former English teacher, I want to see who will represent literature, especially fiction! BILLY J. HOBBS Tyler, Texas

Is it really necessary to compress a parade of the greatest personages of this century into yet another totally meaningless list? I suspect there are not enough pages in any edition of TIME to include all those people who have made important contributions to our world. LEE SNIDER New York City

I propose that one of the people of the Century be the schoolteacher. No other individual or group has had the constant influence that they have had. WILLIAM C. THOBABEN Red Hill, Pa.

This century was one of revolutionary change in how women are viewed. A woman's status has been elevated from appendage of a husband to full U.S. citizenship, socially and occupationally. The 20th century should be called the Century of the Woman. Please give this some thought when compiling your list. ALICE SAVAY WEBB Houston

What theory of history is at work here? Do great historical figures (we used to say great men) shape history, or is it the other way around? If technology shapes events, then perhaps we should be naming the technocrats. If greatness is defined by the ability to deal with the cataclysmic effects of technology, then we should name religionists and philosophers. We are in the middle of a massive paradigm shift, and we should not get so busy naming trees that we neglect the whole forest. ENID P. STERN Sandy Spring, Md.