Kudos on the New Economy. Now Get Back to Work

I love BUSINESS WEEK, but would you people please stop beating your chests about discovering the New Economy (''Amid the euphoria, a note of caution,'' Editorials, Dec. 27)? You're starting to sound like Al Gore and the Internet. I'm glad you outed Alan Greenspan on productivity, but I worry that you're going to lose your ability to interpret economic data objectively. Congratulations. Now please move on.

Scott Learn
Portland, Ore.

Comet Counts Cursors. It Doesn't Track Users

According to ''On the Web, it's 1984,'' (Technology & You, Jan. 10), our Comet Cursor software tracks ''what Web sites you visited and what you did while there.'' That's inaccurate. All we collect is anonymous cursor counts, which we use to bill clients who pay us on a per-cursor-impression basis. Since we deliberately don't ask for names or e-mail addresses, we have no way of finding out who downloads our software or where they go while surfing the Web.

The incorrect information comes from an erroneous Associated Press account. After we clarified the matter with the AP reporter, he amended his story to say we do not collect names or e-mail addresses and do not profile users. But the press had already jumped on what sounded like a sexy story: Fortunately, several publications, including The Industry Standard and The Christian Science Monitor, set the record straight. The Internet has given new meaning to the old Mark Twain quote: ''A lie can travel halfway round the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.''

Jamie Rosen
Chairman
Comet Systems
New York

Editor's note: BUSINESS WEEK regrets the error.

Would a Y2K Meltdown Have Been So Bad?

Triumphant at having avoided the Y2K bug, should we pause for a nanosecond to ponder what might have been (''What wonders Y2K will bring,'' Technology & You, Dec. 27)?

With computers down and software impotent, could we perhaps have built a bonfire, rather than program the New Year's Eve pyrotechnics? Slow-cooked in a real oven, rather than turbocharged in a microwave? Talked with a teller, rather than banked electronically? Gone to a play, rather than rented a video? Played with the children, rather than watched them fiddle with Pokemon? Read a book, instead of our e-mail? Would the world have been worse off?

Gawen Rudder
Sydney, Australia

No Need for ''Biotech'' Labels on Food

You may have overlooked some key issues in ''Are bio-foods safe?'' (Science & Technology, Dec. 20). First, the Food & Drug Administration enjoys the confidence of U.S. consumers precisely because its labeling regulations are rational and based on science. Existing FDA regulations ensure that food labels will be meaningful and wisely protect against confusing or even alarming consumers with irrelevant information.

Some California activists are now demanding labels to identify machine-harvested as opposed to handpicked tomatoes. Swiss environmentalists have tried unsuccessfully to mandate a label indicating whether water used in the processing of foods was recycled. But labels bearing such information would convey irrelevant messages, imply incorrectly that the buyer needs to be warned of unspecified dangers, raise costs throughout the production and distribution chain, and detract from important information that's on the label.

Labeling biotech foods will only create chaos. Today, with more than half of U.S. meals eaten outside the home, the label doesn't reach most foods consumed. In Britain, a new labeling law sparked a stampede by manufacturers, retailers, and restaurants to rid their products of biotech foods so they wouldn't have to post warning labels on their products.

The need to segregate biotech foods, especially the thousands of processed foods that contain small amounts of derivatives of corn or soybeans, would raise production costs in a low profit-margin sector. If some people want to avoid biotech foods, niche markets will arise--assuming that consumers are willing to pay a premium for foods certified to be ''biotech-free,'' as they do for kosher, halal, and organic products. No government mandate is needed.


C. Manly Molpus
President and CEO
Grocery Manufacturers of America
Washington

Detroit Cars: All Talk, No Quality

U.S. auto manufacturers need to put up or shut up (''Any hope for Detroit's wallflowers?'' News: Analysis & Commentary, Dec. 27). Most of the quality that Detroit talks about is purely advertising copy. Many Americans have been fooled by this advertising barrage, purchasing U.S. autos only to find that once the the car is out of warranty, it falls apart, and they are stuck with outrageous monthly payments as well as exorbitant repair bills--a double whammy few can afford.

Extended warranties are a bold way to put auto makers' money where their mouths are. Chrysler used the 7/70 warranty program in the early 1980s to help rescue the company. Maybe it's time to go back to the old playbook.

Phil Patterson
Bixby, Okla.


I am employed in one of the many Internet startups, I'm young, unmarried, and childless--as are a great many of my peers. Many of us are passionate about our cars. But the only person I know who owns an American car is my father.

Even though they may have a high degree of quality, American cars simply feel cheap, unsafe, and have no styling. I test-drove 30-plus cars before settling on an Audi A6 Quattro. Why? It is solid, rugged, safe-feeling, and has an interesting look. American cars, while technically sound and mechanically adequate, are just plain ugly, unimaginative, and unimpressive.

Nathan E. Tableman
Hoboken, N.J.

More Buzz on the Super Hornet

Several years ago, I worked as an analyst for a company supporting the Navy office that was responsible for the F/A-18E/F, as discussed in ''The (not so) Super Hornet'' (Industries, Dec. 13). Although I had little to do with this development, I learned enough about it to realize that it was exactly what the Navy needed to replace the F-14, A-6, and early model F/A-18s; some of these early-model Hornets must be about 18 years old by now.

The program's critics have somehow convinced author Stan Crock that the F/A-18E/F is ''only slightly better than its predecessor,'' a conclusion that is false. I remember there were several areas where the F/A-18C/D was becoming deficient as the Navy's principal fighter and attack asset for the 21st century. For one thing, I remember that because of the F/A-18C/D's having been modified over the years to strengthen structure and to incorporate newly developed sensors and weapons, it had grown so heavy it could no longer return and land on the carrier with a full load of unexpended weapons plus fuel reserve. The F/A-18E/F solves this deficiency by possessing three times the ordnance-bringback capability of the F/A-18C/D. This will be important in the future when expensive precision-strike weapons will constitute the standard weapon loadout for a fighter.

In addition, the Super Hornet has a 40% advantage over the F/A-18C/D in a typical combat mission and has a 50% advantage in on-station combat air patrol endurance. In addition, it has been predicted by various analyses to be at least five times more survivable than the F/A-18C/D.

Todd Wilmot
Yonkers, N.Y.


Unfortunately, the figure of $53 million a copy fails to account for the true cost of this expensive plane. In its latest report to Congress, the Defense Dept. lists the total cost for 548 Super Hornets as $47 billion, so each plane will cost taxpayers almost $86 million. And if history is any guide, this troubled plane will end up costing more than $90 million a copy after inevitable cost overruns resulting from necessary fixes to the 84 deficiencies identified by the General Accounting Office.

In short, the (not-so) Super Hornet program will cost taxpayers more than twice as much as it would cost to produce upgraded F/A-18C/D model aircraft, which in many respects would be equal or superior to the E/F model. Just one more wasteful example of America's costly arms race with itself.

Eugene J. Carroll Jr.
Rear Admiral, USN (Ret.)
Deputy Director
Center for Defense Information
Washington

''Univision peers into cyberspace'' (The Corporation, Jan. 17, 2000)

In ''Univision peers into cyberspace'' (The Corporation, Jan. 17), the number of page views for Star Media, a Hispanic Internet content provider, was incorrect. The company had 1.2 billion page views in its most recent quarter.

''Corporate welfare: The sound bite and the fury'' (Government, Jan. 17, 2000)

Because of an editing error, the photo caption in ''Corporate welfare: The sound bite and the fury'' (Government, Jan. 17) was wrong. It should have said: ''Ethanol is on McCain's hit list, but not Bradley's.''