I think to make a reasonable guess, we should set up some stipulations as to what this IT must accomplish to make sense in light of the information we do have.
Let's assume that these people who have commented on IT are at least as intelligent as we are, so they would tend to think of the same problems that we would in regards to how well this will work. The information in the origional article is only of value if we can assume that it's well thought through and realistic.
So, we have been told that this will be revolutionary, that it will sell for about $2,000, it will change the world more than the internet, that it will make this guy richer than Bill Gates in 5 years, and that you can put them together easily.
From these facts, we can infer the following:
1) It's simple. If you can put it together quickly and it's under $2,000 it can't be very complex, and it can't incorporate any super high-technology, you can't make monopole magnets and room-temp superconducting for under $2,000.
2) It would be used by a LARGE number of people. In order for it to have more impact on society than the internet, hundreds of millions of people all over the world will have to use this on a daily basis.
3) It's easy to mass-produce and has a fair profit margin. If this guy's going to become richer than Bill Gates in 5 years, this thing has to be easy to make at quite a bit less than $2,000, and it has to have mass-market appeal.
4) It would have to produce a complete revolution, a change in the way we think about one or more important aspects of society. Our daily lives would have to change in a meaningful and significant way.
If we apply these rules to some of the different guesses so far, I think most of them fall flat. A personal flying machine would be difficult to learn how to safely use, and would be useless in a huge city like LA where there would be hundreds of thousands of people flying in a limited space. This contradicts rule 2.
Same goes for a hover vehicle or super-bike.
Also, people, particularly Americans, love their cars. We want cup holders, cruise control, 50 disk CD changers, air conditioning, luggage room, and the whole family in the back seat. We won't give that up for a personal flying machine, a single-seat hovercraft, or a super bike. So those all break rules 2,3, and 4.
If anyone disagrees with these rules, or would like to add other stipulations for IT, let's make a good set and apply it to our guesses.
Until that clip learns to proof my work and give useful comments, it's worthless. If it only would have said, "Are you sure you want to call your boss a 'worthless whore-mongering carbuncle' in the company newsletter?" At least that would have been something.
Slashdot Mirror
I think to make a reasonable guess, we should set up some stipulations as to what this IT must accomplish to make sense in light of the information we do have.
Let's assume that these people who have commented on IT are at least as intelligent as we are, so they would tend to think of the same problems that we would in regards to how well this will work. The information in the origional article is only of value if we can assume that it's well thought through and realistic.
So, we have been told that this will be revolutionary, that it will sell for about $2,000, it will change the world more than the internet, that it will make this guy richer than Bill Gates in 5 years, and that you can put them together easily.
From these facts, we can infer the following:
1) It's simple. If you can put it together quickly and it's under $2,000 it can't be very complex, and it can't incorporate any super high-technology, you can't make monopole magnets and room-temp superconducting for under $2,000.
2) It would be used by a LARGE number of people. In order for it to have more impact on society than the internet, hundreds of millions of people all over the world will have to use this on a daily basis.
3) It's easy to mass-produce and has a fair profit margin. If this guy's going to become richer than Bill Gates in 5 years, this thing has to be easy to make at quite a bit less than $2,000, and it has to have mass-market appeal.
4) It would have to produce a complete revolution, a change in the way we think about one or more important aspects of society. Our daily lives would have to change in a meaningful and significant way.
If we apply these rules to some of the different guesses so far, I think most of them fall flat. A personal flying machine would be difficult to learn how to safely use, and would be useless in a huge city like LA where there would be hundreds of thousands of people flying in a limited space. This contradicts rule 2.
Same goes for a hover vehicle or super-bike.
Also, people, particularly Americans, love their cars. We want cup holders, cruise control, 50 disk CD changers, air conditioning, luggage room, and the whole family in the back seat. We won't give that up for a personal flying machine, a single-seat hovercraft, or a super bike. So those all break rules 2,3, and 4.
If anyone disagrees with these rules, or would like to add other stipulations for IT, let's make a good set and apply it to our guesses.
Until that clip learns to proof my work and give useful comments, it's worthless. If it only would have said, "Are you sure you want to call your boss a 'worthless whore-mongering carbuncle' in the company newsletter?" At least that would have been something.