Xprize has a nice little $10,000,000 prize they're giving away to the first company or group who can build a ship that will travel to a sub-orbital level and be ready to run again in two weeks. I think there're over 18 teams competing and one of them has already had a sucessful launch. Most of the optomistic followers of the project that I've spoken to say that someone will succeed in the next 36 months. I can agree with that. ____________________
As an author, I'd like to see the market itself play more of role in copyrights and patents. I'd like to see them traded and sold, and I'd be very interested in seeing the public have the ability to retire a copyright by paying for it. Library associations or the government could put a work into the public domain by insuring that the author has a good amount of money for it.
Something like this system would accomplish several things at once. It would give the government a nice way to compensate artists for their art (like the National Endowment for the Arts, but less opinionated, since the money would come after the completion of a work). It's certainly more democratic. And MOST importantly, such a market would give artists a VERY good reason not to sell their rights to an industry.
Come to think of it, a market as such would be the perfect marketing vehicle for artists as well. "Say, that band Squidloaf has gone up five points in the last week -- maybe I'll check that out."
All the law needs to say is essentially, "respect copyright". After that, the market takes over and decides how long the copyright lasts, and the market allows anyone to retire a copyright, whenever, for the right price.
I'm just thinking off the top of my head, so I may not be seeing any inherent "bads" in such a system, but honestly, at first glance, it seems to be a natural way to value art in our culture and gives artists an option to release their work to the public domain and an incentive to keep it out of other people's hands (since they could make some money off of it).
Actually, the idea gets ridiculous when you start thinking about futures on copyrights, but that's a different story. _________________
First of all, you did this in 1996. I think banks understand a lot more about the important issues like accessibility, security and ease-of-use than they did in 1996 (at least ATMs have improved). I can only imagine how primetive their software was in 96.
However, to your second point, being able to access your bank account securely from any platform without proprietary software does not preclude banks using open source software to develop new cross-platform applications that get around the quirkiness of web-based interfaces. If it stinks, don't use it -- it'll give them incentive to make it better.
I'll put it this way: You buy and use software and services from software companies. Most companies that are not software companies now have IT divisions to deal with technology in their industry. Why wouldn't you buy software (or download it for free) from a non-software company that was guarunteed to be more secure than your browser (especially MS Internet Explorer) and easier to use. God knows an application like that could interact with the rest of your system a little better and wouldn't be the size of Internet Explorer or Netscape (both of them FAR too huge for web browsers).
Maybe you don't want Citibank developing software for your PC. Fine. Would you be adverse to Sun developing it? Would you be adverse to Microsoft developing it? How about the open source community?
It's only a matter of time before companies like Microsoft and *most notably* AOL figure out how to make an end run around the web so that average users don't have simple access to the rest of the net. Why not beat them to it? ________________
I didn't mean for my argument to come across as a complete dismissal of the web. It should and will (probably) always be used for content delivery. Really, that's what the web is -- a hypertext document delivery system. It's great for that.
In many ways software really isn't as accesible as the web -- agreed. But what companies and developers should be concerned with is the benefit to the user. Users should come first and I don't think HTML provides much of a base for good interface design. ______________________
It also ignores a very important energy storage device that some scientists are developing at Lockheed-Martin's Skunkworks. It's not as radical as you might think -- the flywheel. Here's a clip:
In this way, the flywheel can substitute for a battery, while offering features that no battery can match. Even the most exotic battery can be damaged if you charge or discharge it too quickly. A flywheel isn't affected by this treatment, and can operate at extreme temperatures, can contain 10 times a battery's power density, and - according to its advocates - should last for decades.
Here's the whole shebang: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.05/ flywheel.h tml
They claim that this flywheel device should be able to store 10 times what conventional batteries can. ______________________
Prefab user interface components that will free designers from having to write code for scroll bars, list boxes and other common Web page elements.
Why can't corporations see past the web? It's the protocol stupid! Didn't the popularity of Napster teach anyone anything?
So businesses claim they want more control over their user's interface. They want it to be easier to use and more reliable. It sounds to me like they should just create software instead of continually trying to use the web as a development platform -- something it's not good at and was never intended to be used as.
If Etrade or Citibank or eBay *really* want to make any progress, they should skip the web browser and get to the desktop. They beat Microsoft that way. They beat Macromedia that way. They get as close to the customer as they can and they can use http or https for whatever data transactions they like.
What the open source community needs to do is come up with a simple set of tools for building thin clients -- a development kit ( like a visual Java) that would allow lots of developers to go to lots of companies and say, "Screw flash. For that matter screw Internet Explorer. If you want to get close to your customers and own the user experience, make a thin client."
Personally, I would just like the way that would put Microsoft pretty much out of the picture. ____________________
I also wonder if perhaps as interactive entertainment becomes more pervasive if we aren't going to see something truly addictive... so much so that it could ruin someone's life
It is also interesting to note that once some form of electronic cash exists on the internet, it becomes a real possibility for experts in the game (heroes, lords, whatever) to actually make money off the game.
Clearly games like Ever Quest possess all the necessary elements for establishing an economy (albeit a fantasy virtual one). Namely, if there is a channel for information exchange, then there is a channel for experts to sell their expertise within the context of the game.
That of course would bring about the also real possibility that over time some people might pretty much decide to only exist in the game as opposed to RL. But is that such a bad thing if you can make a living off it?
Napster did more than create a file-sharing community and force the music industry's hand. I think it is fair to say that Napster is responsible for copy-protected CD formats, sloppily created music software standards (created by a desperate music industry) and probably higher CD prices. I agree with you that these high paid executives should have to come up with creative solutions but they shouldn't have to do it with a gun to their head.
Replay and Tivo (and especially customized desktops) are going to create a whole new Napster scenario. The result: copy protected television streams overpriced and incredibly restrictive (read: paranoid) subscription services and probably the death of some good entertainment because commercial prices will drop through the floor as ratings dive. Maybe none of this is unavoidable, but one would hope that the public has learned that copyright is a right within the law and unless you *change the law* what you are doing is wrong. But more importantly, sharing files like this forces these industries into nasty positions that cause them to overeact and generally make things harder and more complicated.
PVRs are great. Watch the show when you want. But the public should refrain from rebroadcasting television shows by file sharing over the internet and let these companies come up with good solutions that will allow them to make some money so they can provide new entertainment. If we put them out of business by disrespecting the rights of the creators we haven't done anyone any good.
______________
I don't advocate criminal activity in the name of protest. Our gorvernment is a carefully built system that DOES allow for public protest and change.
However, I don't entirely disagree with this guy's ideas. I don't like corporate control, don't like invasions of third world countries under certain guises and abhor inhumane treatment of any "citizen of the world". Does anyone here on slashdot know of an organization that tracks this kind of development and news but holds a less violent point of view?
______________
why pay for a good 3d graphics card in every pc if you are going to do number crunching !
That definitely wouldn't make any sense -- buying new G4s to build one of these; however, a lot of universities have everything from old Centris Macs ('member those?) to just old PowerPCs that have been replaced in the lab but not thrown in the garbage yet. A good use for these machines is to recycle them and one way to recycle is to create a bigger faster machine with them.
I love it when writers and academics sit around arguing about what history will be twenty years from now. Everyone's concern with the web for business, its social impact and how it changes our lives is very short-sighted. Who was arguing this about Gopher or FTP? It's just a protocol on the Internet. It's good for some things and not good for others.
However, the internet is evolving. Information will be transmitted wirelessly and it will be transmitting back and forth between microchips in everyday objects. Sooner or later VR will become common place and someone will want a way to operate in VR across the internet.
The internet *will* have a major impact on our lives -- the web was about 10% of the impact. Think of it as just the equivalent of the printing press -- it was revolutionary, but there was still a lot of important development yet to occur.
Regardless, talking about the effect of something like the web (which is 8? years old) is silly. We won't -- can't -- know where all the cards will fall for some time. The real *problem* (if there is one) doesn't have anything to do with the technology. It has to do with the ridiculous hype machine that modern journalism has become. it either REALLY SUCKS or is INSANELY GREAT. No journalist that I've read recently has said anything like, "The web is a useful tool for sharing information over long distances and should have a decent impact on information distribution, much like email." All they write is: "The web is going to change EVERYTHING!"
"Ginger is going to change EVERYTHING!"
"Wireless technology is going to change EVERYTHING!"
"G3 -- any day now -- is going to change EVERYTHING!"
on and on and on.
I know we all turn a deaf ear to it and have a rational sense of the actual change that is occurring on the ground level, but the public doesn't and the business men don't and it is going to take things like the Dotcom Panic to get everyone to realize what is hype and what is real. Ebay is a great site. It is one survivor of several hundred infant deaths.
Technology is useful and wonderful and has been providing people with better ways of life for hundreds of years. The hype machine is what is out of control.
__________________________
Moreover, you don't have to be an ergonomic engineering genius to figure out that the design they have is not going to stay where you put it. Even one ounce eyeglasses need to have nose braces to keep them from falling off. Besides that, without semi-transparency (like these guys), the device just blinds you -- fine for a desk but it can't help mobility any. (Ever tried working on an old style microscope for several hours?)
Incidentally, according to an old CNN article, Xybernaut cut a deal with microvision to distribute head-mounted laser displays within the year. Since the article is old, maybe its not happening anymore, but it would seem to be a good reason to wait on these devices improving a little.
_________________
In Neal Stephenson's version of the future, he says that everyone pretty much makes the same wages and has the same standard of living, provided you don't mind making the rough equivalent of a west indies brickmaker. The only people who have the "opportunity" to move about are those that are well educated and have significant and rare skills.
He's not the only one who has a monopoly on that belief either. I don't think you need to read books like this to get a pretty clear picture of the future -- try the Unabomber's Manifesto (I'm not kidding -- I don't respect for one moment his use of violence to make his point -- but I won't say he was entirely wrong in his beliefs)
I mean, we're discussing in another post how programming may become menial by 2015. Programming!? How long do you think it will take Burger King or McDonald's to figure out that they can turn their cash registers around if people can use ATMs? Having certain "service" jobs is about as demeaning as welfare -- we just call it "work".
If you've got a PhD, life looks fantastic. If you don't know what PhD stands for, life looks pretty bleak.
The idea that all programmers are the same is about as ludicrous as assuming that all construction workers are the same. Some of them sweep up the construction site and some of them install specialized glass plates in high rise buildings. Some them make no money and some of them make boatloads -- guess which is which.
Programming as a career is just the same as most other careers. If you spend your time doing general work and not educating yourself about what you do then you become a liability to the company you work for. If you study and learn and stay on the edge of technology then you are an asset.
You are confusing maleability and control with ease of use. Ease of use means the interface is transparent -- the user does not have to make choices about the interface; the designer/programmer/computer does that.
A command line is not easy to use practically by definition. If you sit down to the command line of an OS you have never seen before you have to look something up to figure out what to do. That is not ease of use.
Being "open" is not ease of use either. The vast majority of people (not us) want a computer that they can use without having to know anything about computers. They don't want to know what's in the box, they don't want to know how it works, and they don't want a bunch of confusing options that costs them too much time to use anyway. Apple gets this. Always has. Just click this button and it will work. There are power-users of the macintosh platform, but the macintosh is not a power user platform.
Up here in NYC, we're hearing *a lot* about accountability. Tell your potential constituents that it is time for the government to be held accountable. How can it be accountable when it relies on other institutions to provide its services? How can it be accountable when its very records may become unavailable in the future because the company that created the software/protocol/files has gone under?
Moreover, accountability means a government should be run like a business and any business has to find ways to cut costs. Using open source software cuts costs. Only, if you're going into government, don't call it open source -- call it "publicly developed".
Not to jump to harshly on a simple grammatical error, but "easy of use" is precisely the problem. There is nothing about MS Windows nor has there ever been anything about windows (or DOS for that matter) that is easy to do. The middle class wants the "status quo" -- not ease of use.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Apple sue Microsoft a few years back for stealing their look and feel? They lost and now Microsoft is suing somebody for stealing their look and feel. C'mon.
Hello, Pot? It's the kettle calling. You're black.
Commerce
1. Mr Jeffrey Bezos, Founder, Amazon, USA.
I am so tired of hearing about Jeff Bezos. Give me a break! He's the number one finalist in commerce? Exactly what did he do that has made him so talked about besides raise a lot of money from a bunch of rubes who thought that doing commerce on the internet was so, like, *totally* different than opening a store physically.
We're just gonna' have a web site! Oh yeah, we'll need to worry about the supply chain and inventory management and IT staff, too -- and uh, yeah we'll have to worry about packing and shipping and returns. That's okay though, because we're gonna' lose a ton of money by not learning *anything* from companies that have been doing these things with catalogs for decades!
C'mon. Commerce on the web was a forgone conclusion. He didn't invent *anything*. If anybody should get a commerce award it should be Tim Burners Lee -- he invented the web.
I'm not crazy about the idea, but also believe there's no stopping it. Fortuantele, one of the benefits might be television producers understanding more about their audience and producing better shows because of increased pressure. If television networks (ala Max Headroom 20 Minutes into the Future) are watching realtime response to their programming, they might be less inclined to put so much crap on.
Anyone who is driven in the software industry to create a situation in which everything is free simply does not understand human nature. Benefits arise from curiosity, whether those benefits are money or ego or status. And the production of energy and ideas in a human body is not free either (i.e. you need to eat and be able to afford your computers)
Money is not going to go away any time soon. It may turn into something that is no longer just faith, but it is not going anywhere. There are two problems that Marxists (of any color) can never seem to grasp:
Corporate Capitalism has caused major price *gaps*. The prices we use for things like CDs are way out of whack because of IP law. That does not mean that the MPAA is going to come crumbling down tomorrow and prices will go to zero. On the contrary, over time, prices will decrease to incredibly small amounts. The same goes for energy.
This is far-fetched, but I still think reasonable. Marxist never seem to understand that what Karl Marx considered the proliteriat lacking in the means of production would eventually become so stupid that they would be incapable of handling or even revolting to regain the rights to the means of production. Only I'm not talking about humans -- I'm talking about the mechanical proliteriats that are gradually replacing human proliteriats.
Things as complex as economies, countries, and even corporations just don't change overnight and they don't generally change in huge extremes. Most software might become open source, but most of it will never quite be free as the market redistributes itself. I've said that I'm more than willing to pay an independent programmer ten bucks for his widget but that I've never paid Adobe the hoards of money they want for their behemoths (most of the features of which I don't and can't use).
While I agree that this is true when dealing with media devices like videotapes, CDs and DVDs, I don't see why you would eventually want an all-in-one box when dealing with all digital media files. I mean, isn't that what most modern computers are anyway?
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.xprize.com
Xprize has a nice little $10,000,000 prize they're giving away to the first company or group who can build a ship that will travel to a sub-orbital level and be ready to run again in two weeks. I think there're over 18 teams competing and one of them has already had a sucessful launch. Most of the optomistic followers of the project that I've spoken to say that someone will succeed in the next 36 months. I can agree with that.
____________________
As an author, I'd like to see the market itself play more of role in copyrights and patents. I'd like to see them traded and sold, and I'd be very interested in seeing the public have the ability to retire a copyright by paying for it. Library associations or the government could put a work into the public domain by insuring that the author has a good amount of money for it.
Something like this system would accomplish several things at once. It would give the government a nice way to compensate artists for their art (like the National Endowment for the Arts, but less opinionated, since the money would come after the completion of a work). It's certainly more democratic. And MOST importantly, such a market would give artists a VERY good reason not to sell their rights to an industry.
Come to think of it, a market as such would be the perfect marketing vehicle for artists as well. "Say, that band Squidloaf has gone up five points in the last week -- maybe I'll check that out."
All the law needs to say is essentially, "respect copyright". After that, the market takes over and decides how long the copyright lasts, and the market allows anyone to retire a copyright, whenever, for the right price.
I'm just thinking off the top of my head, so I may not be seeing any inherent "bads" in such a system, but honestly, at first glance, it seems to be a natural way to value art in our culture and gives artists an option to release their work to the public domain and an incentive to keep it out of other people's hands (since they could make some money off of it).
Actually, the idea gets ridiculous when you start thinking about futures on copyrights, but that's a different story.
_________________
First of all, you did this in 1996. I think banks understand a lot more about the important issues like accessibility, security and ease-of-use than they did in 1996 (at least ATMs have improved). I can only imagine how primetive their software was in 96.
However, to your second point, being able to access your bank account securely from any platform without proprietary software does not preclude banks using open source software to develop new cross-platform applications that get around the quirkiness of web-based interfaces. If it stinks, don't use it -- it'll give them incentive to make it better.
I'll put it this way: You buy and use software and services from software companies. Most companies that are not software companies now have IT divisions to deal with technology in their industry. Why wouldn't you buy software (or download it for free) from a non-software company that was guarunteed to be more secure than your browser (especially MS Internet Explorer) and easier to use. God knows an application like that could interact with the rest of your system a little better and wouldn't be the size of Internet Explorer or Netscape (both of them FAR too huge for web browsers).
Maybe you don't want Citibank developing software for your PC. Fine. Would you be adverse to Sun developing it? Would you be adverse to Microsoft developing it? How about the open source community?
It's only a matter of time before companies like Microsoft and *most notably* AOL figure out how to make an end run around the web so that average users don't have simple access to the rest of the net. Why not beat them to it?
________________
I didn't mean for my argument to come across as a complete dismissal of the web. It should and will (probably) always be used for content delivery. Really, that's what the web is -- a hypertext document delivery system. It's great for that.
In many ways software really isn't as accesible as the web -- agreed. But what companies and developers should be concerned with is the benefit to the user. Users should come first and I don't think HTML provides much of a base for good interface design.
______________________
Here's the whole shebang:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.05
They claim that this flywheel device should be able to store 10 times what conventional batteries can.
______________________
Why can't corporations see past the web? It's the protocol stupid! Didn't the popularity of Napster teach anyone anything?
So businesses claim they want more control over their user's interface. They want it to be easier to use and more reliable. It sounds to me like they should just create software instead of continually trying to use the web as a development platform -- something it's not good at and was never intended to be used as.
If Etrade or Citibank or eBay *really* want to make any progress, they should skip the web browser and get to the desktop. They beat Microsoft that way. They beat Macromedia that way. They get as close to the customer as they can and they can use http or https for whatever data transactions they like.
What the open source community needs to do is come up with a simple set of tools for building thin clients -- a development kit ( like a visual Java) that would allow lots of developers to go to lots of companies and say, "Screw flash. For that matter screw Internet Explorer. If you want to get close to your customers and own the user experience, make a thin client."
Personally, I would just like the way that would put Microsoft pretty much out of the picture.
____________________
It is also interesting to note that once some form of electronic cash exists on the internet, it becomes a real possibility for experts in the game (heroes, lords, whatever) to actually make money off the game.
Clearly games like Ever Quest possess all the necessary elements for establishing an economy (albeit a fantasy virtual one). Namely, if there is a channel for information exchange, then there is a channel for experts to sell their expertise within the context of the game.
That of course would bring about the also real possibility that over time some people might pretty much decide to only exist in the game as opposed to RL. But is that such a bad thing if you can make a living off it?
__________________
Napster did more than create a file-sharing community and force the music industry's hand. I think it is fair to say that Napster is responsible for copy-protected CD formats, sloppily created music software standards (created by a desperate music industry) and probably higher CD prices. I agree with you that these high paid executives should have to come up with creative solutions but they shouldn't have to do it with a gun to their head.
Replay and Tivo (and especially customized desktops) are going to create a whole new Napster scenario. The result: copy protected television streams overpriced and incredibly restrictive (read: paranoid) subscription services and probably the death of some good entertainment because commercial prices will drop through the floor as ratings dive. Maybe none of this is unavoidable, but one would hope that the public has learned that copyright is a right within the law and unless you *change the law* what you are doing is wrong. But more importantly, sharing files like this forces these industries into nasty positions that cause them to overeact and generally make things harder and more complicated.
PVRs are great. Watch the show when you want. But the public should refrain from rebroadcasting television shows by file sharing over the internet and let these companies come up with good solutions that will allow them to make some money so they can provide new entertainment. If we put them out of business by disrespecting the rights of the creators we haven't done anyone any good.
______________
I don't advocate criminal activity in the name of protest. Our gorvernment is a carefully built system that DOES allow for public protest and change.
However, I don't entirely disagree with this guy's ideas. I don't like corporate control, don't like invasions of third world countries under certain guises and abhor inhumane treatment of any "citizen of the world". Does anyone here on slashdot know of an organization that tracks this kind of development and news but holds a less violent point of view?
______________
That definitely wouldn't make any sense -- buying new G4s to build one of these; however, a lot of universities have everything from old Centris Macs ('member those?) to just old PowerPCs that have been replaced in the lab but not thrown in the garbage yet. A good use for these machines is to recycle them and one way to recycle is to create a bigger faster machine with them.
_______________________________
I love it when writers and academics sit around arguing about what history will be twenty years from now. Everyone's concern with the web for business, its social impact and how it changes our lives is very short-sighted. Who was arguing this about Gopher or FTP? It's just a protocol on the Internet. It's good for some things and not good for others.
However, the internet is evolving. Information will be transmitted wirelessly and it will be transmitting back and forth between microchips in everyday objects. Sooner or later VR will become common place and someone will want a way to operate in VR across the internet.
The internet *will* have a major impact on our lives -- the web was about 10% of the impact. Think of it as just the equivalent of the printing press -- it was revolutionary, but there was still a lot of important development yet to occur.
Regardless, talking about the effect of something like the web (which is 8? years old) is silly. We won't -- can't -- know where all the cards will fall for some time. The real *problem* (if there is one) doesn't have anything to do with the technology. It has to do with the ridiculous hype machine that modern journalism has become. it either REALLY SUCKS or is INSANELY GREAT. No journalist that I've read recently has said anything like, "The web is a useful tool for sharing information over long distances and should have a decent impact on information distribution, much like email." All they write is: "The web is going to change EVERYTHING!"
"Ginger is going to change EVERYTHING!"
"Wireless technology is going to change EVERYTHING!"
"G3 -- any day now -- is going to change EVERYTHING!"
on and on and on.
I know we all turn a deaf ear to it and have a rational sense of the actual change that is occurring on the ground level, but the public doesn't and the business men don't and it is going to take things like the Dotcom Panic to get everyone to realize what is hype and what is real. Ebay is a great site. It is one survivor of several hundred infant deaths.
Technology is useful and wonderful and has been providing people with better ways of life for hundreds of years. The hype machine is what is out of control.
__________________________
Moreover, you don't have to be an ergonomic engineering genius to figure out that the design they have is not going to stay where you put it. Even one ounce eyeglasses need to have nose braces to keep them from falling off. Besides that, without semi-transparency (like these guys), the device just blinds you -- fine for a desk but it can't help mobility any. (Ever tried working on an old style microscope for several hours?)
Incidentally, according to an old CNN article, Xybernaut cut a deal with microvision to distribute head-mounted laser displays within the year. Since the article is old, maybe its not happening anymore, but it would seem to be a good reason to wait on these devices improving a little.
_________________
In Neal Stephenson's version of the future, he says that everyone pretty much makes the same wages and has the same standard of living, provided you don't mind making the rough equivalent of a west indies brickmaker. The only people who have the "opportunity" to move about are those that are well educated and have significant and rare skills.
He's not the only one who has a monopoly on that belief either. I don't think you need to read books like this to get a pretty clear picture of the future -- try the Unabomber's Manifesto (I'm not kidding -- I don't respect for one moment his use of violence to make his point -- but I won't say he was entirely wrong in his beliefs)
I mean, we're discussing in another post how programming may become menial by 2015. Programming!? How long do you think it will take Burger King or McDonald's to figure out that they can turn their cash registers around if people can use ATMs? Having certain "service" jobs is about as demeaning as welfare -- we just call it "work".
If you've got a PhD, life looks fantastic. If you don't know what PhD stands for, life looks pretty bleak.
________________The idea that all programmers are the same is about as ludicrous as assuming that all construction workers are the same. Some of them sweep up the construction site and some of them install specialized glass plates in high rise buildings. Some them make no money and some of them make boatloads -- guess which is which.
Programming as a career is just the same as most other careers. If you spend your time doing general work and not educating yourself about what you do then you become a liability to the company you work for. If you study and learn and stay on the edge of technology then you are an asset.
You are confusing maleability and control with ease of use. Ease of use means the interface is transparent -- the user does not have to make choices about the interface; the designer/programmer/computer does that.
A command line is not easy to use practically by definition. If you sit down to the command line of an OS you have never seen before you have to look something up to figure out what to do. That is not ease of use.
Being "open" is not ease of use either. The vast majority of people (not us) want a computer that they can use without having to know anything about computers. They don't want to know what's in the box, they don't want to know how it works, and they don't want a bunch of confusing options that costs them too much time to use anyway. Apple gets this. Always has. Just click this button and it will work. There are power-users of the macintosh platform, but the macintosh is not a power user platform.
Up here in NYC, we're hearing *a lot* about accountability. Tell your potential constituents that it is time for the government to be held accountable. How can it be accountable when it relies on other institutions to provide its services? How can it be accountable when its very records may become unavailable in the future because the company that created the software/protocol/files has gone under?
Moreover, accountability means a government should be run like a business and any business has to find ways to cut costs. Using open source software cuts costs. Only, if you're going into government, don't call it open source -- call it "publicly developed".
Good luck!
Not to jump to harshly on a simple grammatical error, but "easy of use" is precisely the problem. There is nothing about MS Windows nor has there ever been anything about windows (or DOS for that matter) that is easy to do. The middle class wants the "status quo" -- not ease of use.
Personally, the way the RIAA runs the government, I'd like to call it taxation without representation.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Apple sue Microsoft a few years back for stealing their look and feel? They lost and now Microsoft is suing somebody for stealing their look and feel. C'mon.
Hello, Pot? It's the kettle calling. You're black.
Commerce
1. Mr Jeffrey Bezos, Founder, Amazon, USA.
I am so tired of hearing about Jeff Bezos. Give me a break! He's the number one finalist in commerce? Exactly what did he do that has made him so talked about besides raise a lot of money from a bunch of rubes who thought that doing commerce on the internet was so, like, *totally* different than opening a store physically.
We're just gonna' have a web site! Oh yeah, we'll need to worry about the supply chain and inventory management and IT staff, too -- and uh, yeah we'll have to worry about packing and shipping and returns. That's okay though, because we're gonna' lose a ton of money by not learning *anything* from companies that have been doing these things with catalogs for decades!
C'mon. Commerce on the web was a forgone conclusion. He didn't invent *anything*. If anybody should get a commerce award it should be Tim Burners Lee -- he invented the web.
I'm not crazy about the idea, but also believe there's no stopping it. Fortuantele, one of the benefits might be television producers understanding more about their audience and producing better shows because of increased pressure. If television networks (ala Max Headroom 20 Minutes into the Future) are watching realtime response to their programming, they might be less inclined to put so much crap on.
_____________________
Anyone who is driven in the software industry to create a situation in which everything is free simply does not understand human nature. Benefits arise from curiosity, whether those benefits are money or ego or status. And the production of energy and ideas in a human body is not free either (i.e. you need to eat and be able to afford your computers)
Money is not going to go away any time soon. It may turn into something that is no longer just faith, but it is not going anywhere. There are two problems that Marxists (of any color) can never seem to grasp:
Things as complex as economies, countries, and even corporations just don't change overnight and they don't generally change in huge extremes. Most software might become open source, but most of it will never quite be free as the market redistributes itself. I've said that I'm more than willing to pay an independent programmer ten bucks for his widget but that I've never paid Adobe the hoards of money they want for their behemoths (most of the features of which I don't and can't use).
========While I agree that this is true when dealing with media devices like videotapes, CDs and DVDs, I don't see why you would eventually want an all-in-one box when dealing with all digital media files. I mean, isn't that what most modern computers are anyway?