I forgot to include my tags.
I work with enough unions to get the picture. Anyone you have to bribe to START working is probably going to set up the system to benefit a select few. My inference was that those regulations are on the books because unions won't work unless they are.
It's a shame because tradesmen need to have some sort of protection from predatory practices but they just end up with another organization that is for all intents and purposes self serving.
Something that would let me add CPUs and Memory up to some ridiculously high number. I do a lot of 3d rendering so number of processors pretty much aids me in a near linear fashion. I work on a small budget though so being able to increase my rendering capability incrementally is really the only way I can go. Right now I do this by buying an affordable machine and upgrading every 12-18 months and putting the old machine in a stripped down box on a network and using it to network render.
How much of this effort do you think is oriented around builind content managment and DRM like tools into the internet at the foundation. I say leave it as it is. If people need something better let them build it for themselves. The internet just isn't that broken that it couldn't be fixed by simple things like... browsers conforming to standards etc. When you get into all this talk about multimedia content delivery etc, that's just something you build new networks for which layer funtionality on top of the internet in a way that's invisible to end users.
Any effort to rethink the way the internet works has more potential to add even more problems than to fix anything.
He might understand it but just not be able to explain it yet. I know that sounds funny but when you've experienced it it doesn't seem so contradictory anymore.
Wait... Music execs are pissed at Apple for including DRM on their music when they insisted that Apple include DRM on their music in order to sell it? I am definately confused, who's to blame here? Was Apple supposed to say to the labels "No, we won't DRM your music to sell in our integrated iPod+iTunes experience and the consequences be damned." I'm pretty sure the labels really loved the iTunes music store first and formost because it included Fairplay protections on all the tracks sold. I'm sure Apple hates dealing with all the customer support issues DRM brings up. "Wait, I'm limited to how many computers?"
Perhaps the issue is more the Apple includes its own DRM protection scheme on the tracks it sells on it's own music store to the marketplace that it developed on its own dollar. For shame, not sharing the profits of the system that you developed, marketed, and brought to fruition on your own dollar just because that system sells content produced by someone else and now they want a larger cut. Let's be honest, the RIAA might just as well come right out and admit they hate antitrust legislation as well because it prevents them from completely manipulating the market to their hearts content just like they already try to.
What's next, the MPAA launching into theaters for showing movies on digital projectors because it "enhances the quality of bootleg copies?"
When will this story die... it's been duped all over the place multiple times. It's just not that interesting...
Homebrew hacker concocts device that saves 1000$s over commercial solution, ad infinitum.
To get people to buy the phone you absolutely need that same response. But what market are you looking at? The smartphone market? Are those people most likely to buy a smartphone going to look at the iPhone and say to themselves "THAT'S the smartphone I wanted to buy!"? The iPod introduced a number of new features and integrated software that changed and simplified the way people could interact with, use, and purchase music. I'm not convinced the iPhone does anything besides introducing a fantastic new interface which, by itself, is a significant contribution, but not something that is going to make people buy it. In short, the comparison to the Newton is entirely valid because like the Newton the iPhone introduces a great new concept but really lacks compelling features or reasons to motivate consumers to buy it. It will certainly change the way we view cell phones but will probably flop as a product.
I think as long as end users remain by and large ingnorant of the real benefits of third party applications on their cell phones no individual carrier is going to suffer from blocking access to their networks through third party apps. What with even the iphone not allowing for third party development, I seriously doubt we'll see any change in the cell network landscape in the near future. There's just too much money to be made offering second rate products over a closed network to open up and allow competition for all the services they like to charge exorbitant fees for.
I just spent the whole last week at a software training session for a BIM product my firm is attempting to move from AutoCAD to. This particular product is already in release 9 and has been around for years. In fact it's one of a number of different packages that do the same thing. I remember using the same program years ago and thinking "this is just frustrating" because there were so many restrictions and limitations on what you could do with it. Needless to say, at release 9 the product is still buggy, still a bit limited, and definitely only just now reaching a point at which I think a commercial firm can afford to invest in using. That said however, this is the only software package out of many that is usable in professional practice.
In defense of application developers, you don't often find people who have extensive enough professional experience to really work on specific practice oriented software. To deal with my example, developers don't exactly know what architects need, in fact many architects don't really know what they need either. The process of figuring this out and how to turn it into software requires unique people. When attempting to provide software that redefines the way the industry designs and constructs buildings you can't exactly ask people what additional features they'd want in an existing software package. That's working too much "inside the box." So one approach is certainly to start a product with the fundamental application architecture philosophy that it's going to be modular and flexible and go from there accepting criticism and adding and removing features as you go. It might take 9 to 10 releases before you start to get widespread acceptance and reach a point at which your software is even usable.
I grew up in Germany in a rather rural area (Rheinland Pfalz). We lived in several different homes either in a town or in a smaller farming village. Essentially after living there for 20 years my parents have only just now gotten DSL because the cost of extending the service to a smaller population isn't worth it. They have a single phone line going into the village and only the person living on top of that line gets access (Just happens to be their landlord, we also had have a cell tower right next to the house on the attached barn). For years we would call and ask about ISDN simply to be told it won't happen. EVER.
As nice as it is to talk about other countries getting better broadband penetration this same scenario plays out everywhere. If you live in an isolated location with a low population density it just isn't worth providing high quality broadband service to you.
Maybe a wireless broadband distribution system with a much better range than currently available systems would lower the infrastructural costs and make broadband easier to extend and access to more rural areas anywhere. Maybe the government should seriously consider giving away spectrum licenses to small companies who can innovate a cheap / easily maintainable / low power / high bandwidth wireless solution for use in rural areas. I'd imagine such a solution would need to top the 512kb range, ideally sit in a 1mbs+ up and down range per connection and have a minimum range of 25miles. I bet there are a lot of corn farmers in Nebraska who'd love to get broadband but can't because they live so far apart that each one needs a dslam on property just to get a signal.
I think it's about time we revise the way that congressional representatives are elected. I think that congress could really benefit from a touch of reality.
At least one seat from each state should be occupied for a period of 2-4 weeks by someone chosen at random from the state. During that time they would receive a prorated portion of a congresscritter's salary and be provided with housing and a stipend to cover various expenses related to their congressional responsibilities. While in congress they would have the same power as any other congressmember to vote or introduce legislature. However at the end of their term they would be replaced by a new person chosen at random. Think of it as Jury duty... just more of a situation where you get to actually sit in congress and vote. Sure, we'd have nutjobs introducing crazy legislation all the time but we'd have a constant flow of new people and new ideas going through congress such that the whole entrenched culture of corruption could be replaced by a body that might have a little bit more integrity and a culture of openness and responsibility to it's constituents. Of course your elected 12 term congressperson would still be around to add a bit of reason, experience, corrupt corporate influence, etc... to the mix. If you can't get people to vote drag them out of their homes and throw them on the congress floor. At least it would serve better to represent the people of these united states rather than the corporations and special interest groups.
Personally I don't even care if it's a giant conspiracy by a global environmentalist cabal. Doing the things that we need to do to lower emission of greenhouse gases just makes sense in any context. Yes, up front the production of more energy efficient or sustainable forms of energy is more expensive and like all large initiatives requires extensive startup capital. But how can you argue with making transportation, heat and cooling for homes, and any other utility related expenditure less expensive? This seems to me to be once again another example of all industries being beholden to the interests of a single industry and in a global economy that is simpleminded and dangerous. Additional costs absolutely would slow economic growth but our own government has been depressing and slowing economic growth for years through the manipulation of a central interest rate. This is actually a federal policy. Why not slow the economy by turning that economic energy in to positive future investment rather than artificially inflating costs through raising interest rates?
Of course there's also this, what if there IS global warming. Do you want to err on the side of doing nothing and essentially destroy civilization as we know it? You think 9-11 was bad? Wait until the Manhattan is entirely under water. Who's going to be history's villain then?
We really need to stop expecting someone else to be responsible for the world and start to take on some responsibility ourselves, as individuals, corporations, and as countries. Whether global warming is really happening, or just a natural fluxuation in the earth's climate, there are simply no reasons not to pursue more efficient and sustainable sources of energy today. At least while we still have the economic and industrial capability to do so.
I'm no expert nor economist in any regard so please feel free to point out the fallacies in my post.
Anytime I see biometrics and fingerprinting in the same sentence I stop reading. Talk about unreliable and pointless. How many times do people need to show how trivial it is to defeat a fingerprinting system before people stop spending millions of dollars on fingerprint biometrics. I'm sure there are better ways to fight the info war in Iraq against the insurgents. Or at least... ways that work.
Basically, what good is a device that can only identify an insurgent if he's already been identified and his finger is stuck in the device. I'm sure that's going to be really good at preventing IEDs and suicide bombings. Sure I'd love to be the guy who'd job it is to stand next to someone to determine the likelyhood that he's strapped up with an C4 jacket.
This is a good example of the "mobility" of small companies but not innovation. Innovation would require more than listening to exactly what some military type says they want in a device and rather listen to what some military type wants a device to accomplish for them. Take those specs and work on developing a device that accomplishes the mission rather than some hunk of useless tech that basically is some outgrowth of what some Major saw on 24 last night.
What does more harm? Paying scientists to create misleading reports that lead us to pursue more environmentally friendly and healthy alternatives to power and industry OR paying scientists to create misleading reports that lead us to continue to use environmentally destructive power sources and industrial practices. Personally, I'd rather pay more now for products and practices that are more sustainable and have less impact on the global ecology. There's more to be gained in caution that blind stubborness so I'd suggest that if one MUST err, that they attempt to err in the fashion that would be most beneficial to them.
Unfortunately, companies do not like things that hit the bottom line, and environmental consciousness definately hits the bottom line. Today's corporate culture hardly seems to consider sustainable business practices worth considering so why in the world should we trust them to educate us about sustainable envirnonmental practices. I'd have a very different view of this situation if it was BP involved since they have been actively pursuing alternative energy sources for year. But then, I doubt that BP would offer a bounty of contrairian propaganda to suit the needs of their PR department.
Honestly, I think that the naysayers just don't get it. So few people understand what it is that makes Apple so successful (including a couple past CEOs). Again, this is not a phone, it is a different kind of device that allows us to interact with our data and with eachother in new and revolutionary ways. People already pay this much for an ipod. With millions of ipods sold why would someone NOT guy the iphone at only a marginally higher price considering the incredible wealth of extra features. People are going to buy this just to get the touchscreen interface for their ipod. Even if they don't watch movies or tv on the iphone or even use it to make calls or connect to the internet people will still buy it. Once again, inserting the iphone into the present concept of Cell Phone is clearly exposes the complete lack of understand most people have for the potential market and uses the device has. The iphone redefines the Cell Phone, and yes, whether it's the iphone or not, in 10 years THIS is what your phone will look like and do (unless the telecoms can kill the concept by not comprehending the promise in the business model). Personally I think that if apple opens up the phone to third party applications (widgets) the device will be successful no matter what.
As far as I see it Apple made two mistakes here. 1. Calling it anything with "Phone" in the name (stupid stupid stupid... it isn't a phone, why call it that?) 2. Locking themselves into the "Wireless Provider" business model which for lack of a better way of saying this isn't about innovating it's about exploiting near monopoly status to make bucket loads of money at the expense of their customers and service quality. The iphone clearly relies on the availability of broadband wireless data access and wireless companies today clearly relish the opportunity to so overcharge these services that only companies and not individual customers can really think about paying for them.
Those two mistakes are going to hurt potential customer's ability to see the iphone for what it really is and prevent iphone owners from using it in the way it should really be used. People who want an awesome new ipod will go and buy a new ipod rather than the iphone because they won't perceive it as being an ipod. Those who want to use all the amazing communication features the phone offers will discover that those features are so prohibitively expensive that they can't afford to think about using them for fear of Cingular also charging for doing that. Quite honestly, I'm not concerned about the price (I'd buy one today at that price) but the astronomical costs for wireless service are going to kill people's willingness to adopt the new phone. I was hoping that Apple could use that magic ability they have had to whip the Content Providers into doing their bidding into turning the Wireless Providers towards a contructive and viable new business model for 21st century communications. But... we'll have to wait and see.
You can go ahead and join the apple naysayer club but they've introduced an astounding number of innovative new products over the years. Some have failed, others haven't, but almost all those concepts are tremendously popular today in some shape or another. In most cases Apple simply jumped the gun by a year or two. Hopefully the iphone isn't another similar case. People have been saying Apple is going to fail this year for almost two decades. It's getting ridiculous, Apple is one of the few companies that get that innovating can actually be profitable. Now if only they can clone Steve Jobs and keep him on for the next few centuries they'll be fine.
As a former architecture major and current architect I'm pretty sure those same architecture majors would STILL like to have one of these. Those 10 minute renders are now probably closer to 30 minute renders what with the boss wanting a high poly version of his car in every rendering you do.
I think they should try the approach where you make a creative commercial people will want to watch. Not only are you more likely to get people's attention but people probably distribute your commercial for you if they like it (free advertising). Of course there's the whole issue of actually making programming worth paying attention to... something most networks seem to be struggling with these days.
I don't see why this can't be automated to a certain extent. A random selection of votes could be audited manually while all votes could be audited automatically. Essentially a real paper trail is necessary. Print the vote, unique transaction id, and date and time onto paper where the voter can clearly see and approve their vote. Along with text, this information could be printed in an easily scannable format (like a bar code). All this ends up on a big paper roll of votes which are run through a seperate machine which scans and verifies the paper record to the digital record for each vote. In addition voting officials can make a random check comparing the paper record to the digital record.
What's really the problem is not the "electronic" part it's the notion that you are essentially putting all your eggs in one basket. We lack any ability to verify that the vote is being recorded in current systems. If you have seperate machines produced by seperate vendors, all of which comply with a standard protocol, auditing a voting trail shouldn't be that hard. You can still allow closed source proprietary systems while maintaining the ability to send your data through open "gateways" at which you can always observe and verify that data. Voting has never been a one step process for good reason and the current thinking isn't wrong because we're trying to automate it, it's just wrong because we're automating it the wrong way.
Slashdot Mirror
I forgot to include my tags. I work with enough unions to get the picture. Anyone you have to bribe to START working is probably going to set up the system to benefit a select few. My inference was that those regulations are on the books because unions won't work unless they are. It's a shame because tradesmen need to have some sort of protection from predatory practices but they just end up with another organization that is for all intents and purposes self serving.
Contact your local Union Rep to find out why those regulations are in place. The answer might be enlightening.
Slashdot, what have you done to me. I just read that post without even slowing down to figure out what it said.
All of the ones that I use all day at my job.
How about the "MuPhone" so small you're guaranteed to lose it at least twice as much as your old phone.
Something that would let me add CPUs and Memory up to some ridiculously high number. I do a lot of 3d rendering so number of processors pretty much aids me in a near linear fashion. I work on a small budget though so being able to increase my rendering capability incrementally is really the only way I can go. Right now I do this by buying an affordable machine and upgrading every 12-18 months and putting the old machine in a stripped down box on a network and using it to network render.
How much of this effort do you think is oriented around builind content managment and DRM like tools into the internet at the foundation. I say leave it as it is. If people need something better let them build it for themselves. The internet just isn't that broken that it couldn't be fixed by simple things like... browsers conforming to standards etc. When you get into all this talk about multimedia content delivery etc, that's just something you build new networks for which layer funtionality on top of the internet in a way that's invisible to end users. Any effort to rethink the way the internet works has more potential to add even more problems than to fix anything.
He might understand it but just not be able to explain it yet. I know that sounds funny but when you've experienced it it doesn't seem so contradictory anymore.
Wait... Music execs are pissed at Apple for including DRM on their music when they insisted that Apple include DRM on their music in order to sell it? I am definately confused, who's to blame here? Was Apple supposed to say to the labels "No, we won't DRM your music to sell in our integrated iPod+iTunes experience and the consequences be damned." I'm pretty sure the labels really loved the iTunes music store first and formost because it included Fairplay protections on all the tracks sold. I'm sure Apple hates dealing with all the customer support issues DRM brings up. "Wait, I'm limited to how many computers?" Perhaps the issue is more the Apple includes its own DRM protection scheme on the tracks it sells on it's own music store to the marketplace that it developed on its own dollar. For shame, not sharing the profits of the system that you developed, marketed, and brought to fruition on your own dollar just because that system sells content produced by someone else and now they want a larger cut. Let's be honest, the RIAA might just as well come right out and admit they hate antitrust legislation as well because it prevents them from completely manipulating the market to their hearts content just like they already try to. What's next, the MPAA launching into theaters for showing movies on digital projectors because it "enhances the quality of bootleg copies?"
When will this story die... it's been duped all over the place multiple times. It's just not that interesting... Homebrew hacker concocts device that saves 1000$s over commercial solution, ad infinitum.
To get people to buy the phone you absolutely need that same response. But what market are you looking at? The smartphone market? Are those people most likely to buy a smartphone going to look at the iPhone and say to themselves "THAT'S the smartphone I wanted to buy!"? The iPod introduced a number of new features and integrated software that changed and simplified the way people could interact with, use, and purchase music. I'm not convinced the iPhone does anything besides introducing a fantastic new interface which, by itself, is a significant contribution, but not something that is going to make people buy it. In short, the comparison to the Newton is entirely valid because like the Newton the iPhone introduces a great new concept but really lacks compelling features or reasons to motivate consumers to buy it. It will certainly change the way we view cell phones but will probably flop as a product.
I think as long as end users remain by and large ingnorant of the real benefits of third party applications on their cell phones no individual carrier is going to suffer from blocking access to their networks through third party apps. What with even the iphone not allowing for third party development, I seriously doubt we'll see any change in the cell network landscape in the near future. There's just too much money to be made offering second rate products over a closed network to open up and allow competition for all the services they like to charge exorbitant fees for.
I just spent the whole last week at a software training session for a BIM product my firm is attempting to move from AutoCAD to. This particular product is already in release 9 and has been around for years. In fact it's one of a number of different packages that do the same thing. I remember using the same program years ago and thinking "this is just frustrating" because there were so many restrictions and limitations on what you could do with it. Needless to say, at release 9 the product is still buggy, still a bit limited, and definitely only just now reaching a point at which I think a commercial firm can afford to invest in using. That said however, this is the only software package out of many that is usable in professional practice. In defense of application developers, you don't often find people who have extensive enough professional experience to really work on specific practice oriented software. To deal with my example, developers don't exactly know what architects need, in fact many architects don't really know what they need either. The process of figuring this out and how to turn it into software requires unique people. When attempting to provide software that redefines the way the industry designs and constructs buildings you can't exactly ask people what additional features they'd want in an existing software package. That's working too much "inside the box." So one approach is certainly to start a product with the fundamental application architecture philosophy that it's going to be modular and flexible and go from there accepting criticism and adding and removing features as you go. It might take 9 to 10 releases before you start to get widespread acceptance and reach a point at which your software is even usable.
I grew up in Germany in a rather rural area (Rheinland Pfalz). We lived in several different homes either in a town or in a smaller farming village. Essentially after living there for 20 years my parents have only just now gotten DSL because the cost of extending the service to a smaller population isn't worth it. They have a single phone line going into the village and only the person living on top of that line gets access (Just happens to be their landlord, we also had have a cell tower right next to the house on the attached barn). For years we would call and ask about ISDN simply to be told it won't happen. EVER.
As nice as it is to talk about other countries getting better broadband penetration this same scenario plays out everywhere. If you live in an isolated location with a low population density it just isn't worth providing high quality broadband service to you.
Maybe a wireless broadband distribution system with a much better range than currently available systems would lower the infrastructural costs and make broadband easier to extend and access to more rural areas anywhere. Maybe the government should seriously consider giving away spectrum licenses to small companies who can innovate a cheap / easily maintainable / low power / high bandwidth wireless solution for use in rural areas. I'd imagine such a solution would need to top the 512kb range, ideally sit in a 1mbs+ up and down range per connection and have a minimum range of 25miles. I bet there are a lot of corn farmers in Nebraska who'd love to get broadband but can't because they live so far apart that each one needs a dslam on property just to get a signal.
I think it's about time we revise the way that congressional representatives are elected. I think that congress could really benefit from a touch of reality.
At least one seat from each state should be occupied for a period of 2-4 weeks by someone chosen at random from the state. During that time they would receive a prorated portion of a congresscritter's salary and be provided with housing and a stipend to cover various expenses related to their congressional responsibilities. While in congress they would have the same power as any other congressmember to vote or introduce legislature. However at the end of their term they would be replaced by a new person chosen at random. Think of it as Jury duty... just more of a situation where you get to actually sit in congress and vote. Sure, we'd have nutjobs introducing crazy legislation all the time but we'd have a constant flow of new people and new ideas going through congress such that the whole entrenched culture of corruption could be replaced by a body that might have a little bit more integrity and a culture of openness and responsibility to it's constituents. Of course your elected 12 term congressperson would still be around to add a bit of reason, experience, corrupt corporate influence, etc... to the mix. If you can't get people to vote drag them out of their homes and throw them on the congress floor. At least it would serve better to represent the people of these united states rather than the corporations and special interest groups.
Why? You got something to hide?
Personally I don't even care if it's a giant conspiracy by a global environmentalist cabal. Doing the things that we need to do to lower emission of greenhouse gases just makes sense in any context. Yes, up front the production of more energy efficient or sustainable forms of energy is more expensive and like all large initiatives requires extensive startup capital. But how can you argue with making transportation, heat and cooling for homes, and any other utility related expenditure less expensive? This seems to me to be once again another example of all industries being beholden to the interests of a single industry and in a global economy that is simpleminded and dangerous. Additional costs absolutely would slow economic growth but our own government has been depressing and slowing economic growth for years through the manipulation of a central interest rate. This is actually a federal policy. Why not slow the economy by turning that economic energy in to positive future investment rather than artificially inflating costs through raising interest rates?
Of course there's also this, what if there IS global warming. Do you want to err on the side of doing nothing and essentially destroy civilization as we know it? You think 9-11 was bad? Wait until the Manhattan is entirely under water. Who's going to be history's villain then?
We really need to stop expecting someone else to be responsible for the world and start to take on some responsibility ourselves, as individuals, corporations, and as countries. Whether global warming is really happening, or just a natural fluxuation in the earth's climate, there are simply no reasons not to pursue more efficient and sustainable sources of energy today. At least while we still have the economic and industrial capability to do so.
I'm no expert nor economist in any regard so please feel free to point out the fallacies in my post.
Anytime I see biometrics and fingerprinting in the same sentence I stop reading. Talk about unreliable and pointless. How many times do people need to show how trivial it is to defeat a fingerprinting system before people stop spending millions of dollars on fingerprint biometrics. I'm sure there are better ways to fight the info war in Iraq against the insurgents. Or at least... ways that work. Basically, what good is a device that can only identify an insurgent if he's already been identified and his finger is stuck in the device. I'm sure that's going to be really good at preventing IEDs and suicide bombings. Sure I'd love to be the guy who'd job it is to stand next to someone to determine the likelyhood that he's strapped up with an C4 jacket. This is a good example of the "mobility" of small companies but not innovation. Innovation would require more than listening to exactly what some military type says they want in a device and rather listen to what some military type wants a device to accomplish for them. Take those specs and work on developing a device that accomplishes the mission rather than some hunk of useless tech that basically is some outgrowth of what some Major saw on 24 last night.
How do you get money from the financial people?
Tell them you are building a machine to solve their financial problems of course.
What does more harm? Paying scientists to create misleading reports that lead us to pursue more environmentally friendly and healthy alternatives to power and industry OR paying scientists to create misleading reports that lead us to continue to use environmentally destructive power sources and industrial practices. Personally, I'd rather pay more now for products and practices that are more sustainable and have less impact on the global ecology. There's more to be gained in caution that blind stubborness so I'd suggest that if one MUST err, that they attempt to err in the fashion that would be most beneficial to them.
Unfortunately, companies do not like things that hit the bottom line, and environmental consciousness definately hits the bottom line. Today's corporate culture hardly seems to consider sustainable business practices worth considering so why in the world should we trust them to educate us about sustainable envirnonmental practices. I'd have a very different view of this situation if it was BP involved since they have been actively pursuing alternative energy sources for year. But then, I doubt that BP would offer a bounty of contrairian propaganda to suit the needs of their PR department.
Honestly, I think that the naysayers just don't get it. So few people understand what it is that makes Apple so successful (including a couple past CEOs). Again, this is not a phone, it is a different kind of device that allows us to interact with our data and with eachother in new and revolutionary ways. People already pay this much for an ipod. With millions of ipods sold why would someone NOT guy the iphone at only a marginally higher price considering the incredible wealth of extra features. People are going to buy this just to get the touchscreen interface for their ipod. Even if they don't watch movies or tv on the iphone or even use it to make calls or connect to the internet people will still buy it. Once again, inserting the iphone into the present concept of Cell Phone is clearly exposes the complete lack of understand most people have for the potential market and uses the device has. The iphone redefines the Cell Phone, and yes, whether it's the iphone or not, in 10 years THIS is what your phone will look like and do (unless the telecoms can kill the concept by not comprehending the promise in the business model). Personally I think that if apple opens up the phone to third party applications (widgets) the device will be successful no matter what.
As far as I see it Apple made two mistakes here.
1. Calling it anything with "Phone" in the name (stupid stupid stupid... it isn't a phone, why call it that?)
2. Locking themselves into the "Wireless Provider" business model which for lack of a better way of saying this isn't about innovating it's about exploiting near monopoly status to make bucket loads of money at the expense of their customers and service quality. The iphone clearly relies on the availability of broadband wireless data access and wireless companies today clearly relish the opportunity to so overcharge these services that only companies and not individual customers can really think about paying for them.
Those two mistakes are going to hurt potential customer's ability to see the iphone for what it really is and prevent iphone owners from using it in the way it should really be used. People who want an awesome new ipod will go and buy a new ipod rather than the iphone because they won't perceive it as being an ipod. Those who want to use all the amazing communication features the phone offers will discover that those features are so prohibitively expensive that they can't afford to think about using them for fear of Cingular also charging for doing that. Quite honestly, I'm not concerned about the price (I'd buy one today at that price) but the astronomical costs for wireless service are going to kill people's willingness to adopt the new phone. I was hoping that Apple could use that magic ability they have had to whip the Content Providers into doing their bidding into turning the Wireless Providers towards a contructive and viable new business model for 21st century communications. But... we'll have to wait and see.
You can go ahead and join the apple naysayer club but they've introduced an astounding number of innovative new products over the years. Some have failed, others haven't, but almost all those concepts are tremendously popular today in some shape or another. In most cases Apple simply jumped the gun by a year or two. Hopefully the iphone isn't another similar case. People have been saying Apple is going to fail this year for almost two decades. It's getting ridiculous, Apple is one of the few companies that get that innovating can actually be profitable. Now if only they can clone Steve Jobs and keep him on for the next few centuries they'll be fine.
As a former architecture major and current architect I'm pretty sure those same architecture majors would STILL like to have one of these. Those 10 minute renders are now probably closer to 30 minute renders what with the boss wanting a high poly version of his car in every rendering you do.
I think they should try the approach where you make a creative commercial people will want to watch. Not only are you more likely to get people's attention but people probably distribute your commercial for you if they like it (free advertising). Of course there's the whole issue of actually making programming worth paying attention to... something most networks seem to be struggling with these days.
Sure... But local.live.com (microsoft) does.9 3~-121.189757&style=h&lvl=14&scene=175626
http://local.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=45.6166
I don't see why this can't be automated to a certain extent. A random selection of votes could be audited manually while all votes could be audited automatically. Essentially a real paper trail is necessary. Print the vote, unique transaction id, and date and time onto paper where the voter can clearly see and approve their vote. Along with text, this information could be printed in an easily scannable format (like a bar code). All this ends up on a big paper roll of votes which are run through a seperate machine which scans and verifies the paper record to the digital record for each vote. In addition voting officials can make a random check comparing the paper record to the digital record.
What's really the problem is not the "electronic" part it's the notion that you are essentially putting all your eggs in one basket. We lack any ability to verify that the vote is being recorded in current systems. If you have seperate machines produced by seperate vendors, all of which comply with a standard protocol, auditing a voting trail shouldn't be that hard. You can still allow closed source proprietary systems while maintaining the ability to send your data through open "gateways" at which you can always observe and verify that data. Voting has never been a one step process for good reason and the current thinking isn't wrong because we're trying to automate it, it's just wrong because we're automating it the wrong way.