Look for a book called "FingerMath." It teaches how to use your fingers like an abacus. After you get used to it you can stop moving your fingers and just kind of "feel" the calculations. No, I never practiced it enough to get good at it. But it is a pretty good book.
The issue of gene patents has long been a controversial and emotional one. Opponents say that genes are products of nature, not inventions, and should be the common heritage of mankind. They say that locking up basic genetic information in patents actually impedes medical progress. Proponents say genes isolated from the body are chemicals that are different from those found in the body and therefore are eligible for patents.
How would these "proponents" like it if someone took a sample of their blood and then claimed that since it was separate from their body that it could be patented, thus preventing them from ever using any of their own blood again without paying a licensing fee?
I know I will get a lot of flack for not offering a Linux, FOSS, or "cloud" based solution but I really feel OneNote is the best personal information organization tool out there. I keep all my class notes, personal records, everything in there. You can attach or link to external documents just by dragging and dropping. It automatically synchronizes between my laptop and desktop. My laptop is actually a Tablet PC so I can hand-write my class notes right on the page. Then I can search for words within that handwriting instantly. If you drag a picture onto the page then you can even search for words within that picture. So you can just take a picture of someone's card with your cell phone, drag that into OneNote anywhere you like and be able to find that instantly later. OneNote is basically an outlining program but it has a lot of features of a word processor. However, do not attempt to use it as a word processor because it is not designed for that. You can organize all your stuff into "Notebooks" which constitutes anything under a particular folder you simply designate as a notebook. Each Notebook can be anywhere you want to store it. Then you create "sections" within that notebook which are each an individual file. Then you create pages in that section. The pages can even be organized into a hierarchical structure with up to three levels. Then you put your data on the pages in an outline or table format. You can put just about anything you want onto those pages. You can copy web pages or embed pictures or other files. When you double click on those files they open up in their native application.
Believe me I am no Microsoft apologist. I use to have a poster on my wall that said "Bill Gates is the Devil." But I love OneNote. I have tried many other outlining, note-taking, document organizing programs in my life. None were anywhere near as good or as flexible as OneNote. You can check it out here: http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/onenote/
I have an invention to prevent the patenting of inventions. While that may sound onerous, I suspect that it will actually alleviate a lot of the trouble we have been having with patent trolls and return patents to the realm of real innovation. I invented it last July but it doesn't seem that anyone has actually taken me up on the idea.
I propose that we create a database of all possible discrete elements and limitations that have appeared in all existing patents and any other documentation anywhere. Heck, people could even add any additional elements or limitations as they see fit. Then use a simple computer program to generate and "publish" articles with every possible combination of element and limitation. I know, we are talking about trillions and trillions of articles. The program could never finish.
Therefore, I also propose the following additional, optional features:
Users of the system could vote on which would be the most important elements and limitations to make sure are covered in our "articles."
Users could add tags to elements indicating which fields they are most likely to be used in. This would reduce the number of "articles" about "Umbrellas with USB connectors sewn into the seats of their pants for control and monitoring of garage doors."
Users could then also vote on which tags are the most important to focus on.
I realize that this would likely require more web document storage space than is currently indexed by Google. Therefore, I also propose the following additional options for storing and "publishing" the "articles":
The web pages could actually be automatically generated by PHP or JSP scripts using variables to represent and insert the particular combination of elements and limitations specified for that "article." Each element and limitation in the database would necessarily have a unique code number or index key. The body of the web page could then simply list the codes as parameters and call the function to build the page. The script would then simply insert the appropriate text from the database in the appropriate location in the web page and send it out. Presto, we have a web page listing a specific set of elements and limitations. As far as the browser is concerned, the web page is static and has been "published."
It would also be possible to just use HTML server side includes and generate static web pages with various combinations of elements and limitations included. Naturally, this would require that all the elements and limitations be in separate.shtml files on the web server.
Here is an even more efficient, if ethereal proposition: Simply create one web page with some PHP or JSP in it to generate a page based on the codes given as parameters, just as before. However, the codes for the elements and limitations would actually be part of the URL and sent to the server in an HTML GET request. The script then takes the codes specified in the URL and automatically generates whatever combination of elements and limitations are specified in the URL. We get an actual web page sent back even though one never really existed before. Simply by posting that one web page and putting the elements and limitations in the database, we have statistically published all possible combinations at once. Anyone who wants to view an article with a particular combination of elements and limitations simply constructs the proper URL and they can see that the page is "there." It's like quantum computing without all those pesky sub-atomic particles. Like Schrodinger's Cat, every combination would "exist" simultaneously but only by observing it does it then become, well, observable. For prior art dating purposes, I suppose we would also have to list when each element and limitation was added to the database. Only if all the elements predate the offending patent would the "Schrodinger's Article" in question apply. Now, I don't know if the PTO would go for this reasoning but it would be worth a try. And it would ce
As I had said, it was several years ago when I discovered this. Perhaps, back then, all accounts automatically were "private." I don't know.
But I would certainly not want my domains to be registered with them now, regardless of what they say now. Anyone who would EVER even consider such a policy is not a place I would ever want to do business with.
What a lot of people don't seem to know about GoDaddy is that they don't actually register your domain in your name. They register the domain in their name and then "license" you to use it. At least this is the way they worked several years ago. I discovered this when I was helping a customer set up his web site hosting. He had gone online and registered the domain with GoDaddy - because they advertise a lot - but could not figure anything else out on his own. When I checked into things to help him get the rest set up, I discovered that he wasn't even listed as the owner of the domain. I called GoDaddy's "customer support" only to have them explain that this was for their customer's "protection." They said it was to prevent anyone from stealing someone else's domain but he couldn't explain how it was any different with GoDaddy owning the domain instead of the customer. Over and over again, the "customer service" person tried to hard sell me while ignoring my questions about how I could get my customer's domain actually put in his own name. After intense grilling, the representative admitted that GoDaddy policies do (did) allow for them to assert control of your domains for almost any reason at all, yet he assured me that they would never actually do that.... Ha!
If they still have the same policy in place (and I will leave it up to others to check on that, as I am certainly not going to try hassling with them ever again) then this could be a disaster for anyone with a valuable domain name that is registered with GoDaddy. This "Sale" could amount to a cashing in on all those domain names they have collected. Domain names that they claim to own while only "licensing" them to the person who registered them. The new owner could easily claim they had bought all those domains and begin auctioning them off to the highest bidder. I'm not saying that they would, but it seems entirely possible and not worth the risk for anyone with a valuable domain name.
Therefore, if anyone has any domain names registered with GoDaddy, then I highly suggest you get them moved to a different registrar ASAP.
Myers primary complaint was that Kurzweil used the number of genes in the genome and how many bits would be required to store that data as a predictor of how long it will take to completely understand the complexity of the human mind. Myers' post lays out a glimpse of the additional complexity involved and rightly points out the fallacy of making such a grand prediction based on such a small amount of information and understanding.
Of course Kurzweil's entire career and fame are now dependent on people continuing to fall for his dramatic generalizations and overreaching predictions that "Something Big" is right around the corner. I have watched Kurzweil talk and sometimes it seems as if he has a messianic complex.
I am sure it has been said already, but these shit-heads always "predict" what they want to happen at the time. Their "predictions" are nothing more than lame attempts to get people to believe and accept what the "predictors" want people to believe and accept.
Though I love my Fujitsu Tablet PC. The burn-a-backup-disk software was worthless. I made the disks, using four DVDs, and then tried to restore the software as a test. All it did is trash my hard drive. Fortunately, I had planned to reinstall Windows 7 Ultimate from a separate disk anyway.
Just now. I have a Tablet PC. It cost me about $1200 and was worth every penny to me. I have been using Tablet PCs for about seven years now and would never go back to a regular laptop.
In hard economic times, the best way to make money is to cater to the wealthy. Often, the easiest way to do that is to simply A) make it pretty, B) jack up the price, and C) build the perception of exclusivity. This fits the Apple model pretty well. In fact, by not including Flash they are actually enhancing that perception of exclusivity. Soon, the web sites will be jumping on the same bandwagon. By promoting themselves as catering to the special needs and desires of those who can afford an iPad they will, as you suggest, attract the visitors who have money to burn. And the funny thing is that so many people who think they are smarter than everyone just because they have money are taking the bait, hook line and sinker.
No, we never actually changed the name of the city. The mayor just signed a proclamation that we would "call" ourselves "Google" for the month of March.
Yep, I currently live in Topeka, KS, the capital city that seems to be the most famous for silly and embarrassing things. I am not one of those who believe all our problems will be solved by a Google branded fiber optic internet service, but I do still applaud what I believe Google is trying to do. In fact, I wrote a paper about it for English class. In it I explain the impact of the "Digital Divide" on poverty and argue that the major potential effect of Google's service would be to spur competition, which would then make broadband affordable to more poor people, thereby helping them rise out of poverty.
The thesis isn't written. I'm not even in graduate school yet. But that is likely what my thesis will be about when I finally write it. My head continuously swims with all the connections between information that need to be tracked. Maybe I'll get to be a pioneer. Woo hoo.
Perhaps there is a skillset worth defining here - some offshoot of library sciences?
That offshoot is called "Information Science." Most "Library Science" programs now call themselves "Library and Information Science" programs. There is now even a consortium of universities that call themselves "iSchools." In my preliminary research while looking for a graduate program in "Information Science" it seems as if the program at Berkeley has gone the farthest in getting away from the legacy "Library Science" and moving toward a pure "Information Science" program.
I personally think that the field of "Information Science" is really where we are going to find the next major improvements in the ability of computers to actually impact our daily lives. We need entirely new models of how to look at dynamic, "living" data and track changes not only to the data but to the schema and provenance of that data. That is how "data" becomes "information" and then "knowledge." I won't write my doctoral thesis here, but suffice it to say that simply squeezing data into a decades old model of software version control is not quite going to cut it. In software version control you don't have as much of a trust problem. Yes, you do care if someone inappropriately copies code from a proprietary or differently-licensed source. However, you don't have as much incentive for people to intentionally fudge the code/data one way or another. In addition, data can be legitimately manipulated, transformed, and summarized to harvest that "information" out of the raw numbers. This does not happen with code. Yes, there is refactoring, but with code it is not as necessary to document every minute change and how it was arrived at. With data, the equations and algorithms used for each transformation need to be recorded along with the new dataset. In addition, the reason for those transformations and the authority of those who did the transformation.
Throw into the mix that there will be many different sets of similar data gathered about the same phenomena but with slightly different schemas and different actual data points which will all have different provenances but will need to be manipulated in ways to bring their models into forms that are parallel to all the other data sets associated with those phenomena while still tracking how they are different... and you will see that we don't just need a different box to think outside of, we need an entirely different warehouse. (You know, the place where we store the boxes, outside of which we will do our thinking.)
Many of the suggestions posted here are a start, but only a start.
>> Don't build a computer that runs a windowed operating system without providing some physical means to point to those windows and move them around.
But the iPhone and the iPad do not run a "windowed operating system". It is an incarnation of the "object-oriented" interface, and some of the mechanisms to control these objects are analogous, but that's where the similarities end. The metaphor is different with regards as to how the user interface works. For one thing, there are no windows, there is no pointer or cursor; it depends on a completely different model of interaction based on finger gestures to control the environment.
In a way, this is exactly my point. While I understand that the OP was about i* products, my mental exercise here has grown to a more general topic of enabling hover on any possible device. Back to your point: The i* products are a perfect example of the hardware manufacturer being able to control the all the software allowed on the device such that no software ever expects more than the hardware can deliver. And this has been working great for Apple for quite a number of years. If you think it is cool to have a mouse with only one button, you force everyone to make software that only requires one button, regardless of whether that really serves the needs of the users.
However, this philosophy falls down as soon as you introduce a web browser, as pointed out by MacDork above. A web browser lets the real world leak in to the i* products' protected enclave. That real world of the world-wide-web includes many web-based interfaces that rely upon the hover metaphor. Web browsing is one of the primary activities on an i* according to Apple marketing. Therefore it is incumbent upon Apple to provide a means of fully interacting with all the metaphors available on the www.
I have faith, though, that Apple will rise to the occasion. Steve Jobs may say a lot of boneheaded things and talk out both sides of his head, but there are some frikkin' geniuses working there. They have done some amazing things with the whole touch sensitive surface and gesture thing. I saw a kid the other day using a Mac laptop with one of those extra large touchpads with multi-touch. It was like watching "The Minority Report"! He was flipping and flopping and dragging his fingers all over the place to swoop windows in and out like magic. Give it time and Apple will introduce a means to allow hovering on i* products; perhaps with a software upgrade. At that time Steve Jobs will inevitably claim it is now the best thing since bread itself (let alone the slicing) and his sycophants will behave as if Apple invented the whole concept. Oh, well. What are you gonna do? Let fanboys be fanboys.
See, now you are going all Slashdot on me. What is it with the straw-man arguments on this site? I thought it was supposed to be smart people here... not smart-alecs. I know, the facts will prove me wrong on this one.
I never said it is the responsibility of the of the hardware manufacturer to ensure that the user was well educated on using all the web sites or applications. However, all of those web sites and applications do have a common set of basic user-interface metaphors. And an even more common set of physical interaction methods associated with those metaphors. Click, hold, drag, hover, etc. In most programming languages, these are referred to as "events." If a manufacturer makes a device that is supposed to run an OS which has a collection of compatible applications, then I think that manufacturer is responsible to ensure that its hardware can provide all the physical inputs that the UI metaphors used within that OS might reasonably expect. Is that too much to ask? Don't build a computer that runs a windowed operating system without providing some physical means to point to those windows and move them around.
So - and as I have said - since this is just a mental exercise - although one I hope some hardware manufacturers take to heart - I feel it is good to look to the future and discuss what might be the best possible form for this particular connection between a physical action and a UI metaphor. Just because some hardware made by a manufacturer that happens to be worshiped by some people does not happen to have these features at this time is no reason to disparage the motivation driving the exercise.
Since this is all just a mental exercise: I say that it would be best to design this user interface "metaphor" in such a way that it could be used on all possible known platforms. The "platform" being the underlying operating system and the capabilities of that OS and the apps that can run on it. This then makes it the hardware's responsibility to ensure the necessary inputs are available. For instance: One would not design a mouse that can't be clicked. Because the software is expecting a click the hardware must deliver it.
One must also think of what the users are used to as well as what metaphors currently exist, and at least parallel those metaphors in some way.
Therefore, the Storm (2 is it?) system of touching the screen to move the "cursor" - even if one cannot see the cursor - then pressing harder to "click" seems to be the most appropriate. It parallels the action of holding the mouse with your finger resting lightly on the mouse button to move the pointer then pressing harder on the mouse button to actually click. This allows all standard "pointing-device user-input" to be accomplished. Even the second mouse button can be emulated with a long-press.
Even without the physical switch of the Storm 2, it would be possible for most of these devices to sense a harder push because it makes the impression of the finger on the screen suddenly larger. In addition, most user interfaces where the user just taps what they want would work as normal because those taps are usually harder than the light touching that would be used for hovering. So, when they didn't need to hover, users could just use the system as they were used to. Perhaps tapping just a little more forcefully.
A purely capacitive touch screen would not be as reliable as one with a physical switch and might have problems in a bumpy car ride if the user did not stabilize their pointing finger. I can hold my Droid with my left hand and rest the pinky and thumb of my right hand on the fingers and heel of my left hand, thus giving my right hand adequate support to prevent over-pressing the screen with my right index finger in case of bumps. People could easily get used to that technique when using their touch screens during a bumpy ride. Besides, not many people expect to be able to do precision mousing in a bumpy car ride anyway.
The first works, and is apparently what the Storm 2 does. However, think about your last option. That would mean once you touched the screen you had to either click on something or move your finger over to some neutral area before releasing it. People would hate that.
Slashdot Mirror
Look for a book called "FingerMath." It teaches how to use your fingers like an abacus. After you get used to it you can stop moving your fingers and just kind of "feel" the calculations. No, I never practiced it enough to get good at it. But it is a pretty good book.
Thank you so much for introducing some actual verifiable facts into an otherwise entirely speculative argument.
Sometimes I think Slashdot should rename itself to "I think, maybe. But I'm definitely adamant about it."
I would add to that: Project Management and "Software Engineering" skills.
Can someone please explain to me when, exactly, it became legal to patent a general idea rather than a specific implementation of an idea?
How would these "proponents" like it if someone took a sample of their blood and then claimed that since it was separate from their body that it could be patented, thus preventing them from ever using any of their own blood again without paying a licensing fee?
I know I will get a lot of flack for not offering a Linux, FOSS, or "cloud" based solution but I really feel OneNote is the best personal information organization tool out there. I keep all my class notes, personal records, everything in there. You can attach or link to external documents just by dragging and dropping. It automatically synchronizes between my laptop and desktop. My laptop is actually a Tablet PC so I can hand-write my class notes right on the page. Then I can search for words within that handwriting instantly. If you drag a picture onto the page then you can even search for words within that picture. So you can just take a picture of someone's card with your cell phone, drag that into OneNote anywhere you like and be able to find that instantly later. OneNote is basically an outlining program but it has a lot of features of a word processor. However, do not attempt to use it as a word processor because it is not designed for that. You can organize all your stuff into "Notebooks" which constitutes anything under a particular folder you simply designate as a notebook. Each Notebook can be anywhere you want to store it. Then you create "sections" within that notebook which are each an individual file. Then you create pages in that section. The pages can even be organized into a hierarchical structure with up to three levels. Then you put your data on the pages in an outline or table format. You can put just about anything you want onto those pages. You can copy web pages or embed pictures or other files. When you double click on those files they open up in their native application.
Believe me I am no Microsoft apologist. I use to have a poster on my wall that said "Bill Gates is the Devil." But I love OneNote. I have tried many other outlining, note-taking, document organizing programs in my life. None were anywhere near as good or as flexible as OneNote. You can check it out here: http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/onenote/
So will the multi-touch work on my Fujitsu T4310 Lifebook? It has a multi-touch capacitive touch screen which works great in Windows 7.
I have an invention to prevent the patenting of inventions. While that may sound onerous, I suspect that it will actually alleviate a lot of the trouble we have been having with patent trolls and return patents to the realm of real innovation. I invented it last July but it doesn't seem that anyone has actually taken me up on the idea.
I propose that we create a database of all possible discrete elements and limitations that have appeared in all existing patents and any other documentation anywhere. Heck, people could even add any additional elements or limitations as they see fit. Then use a simple computer program to generate and "publish" articles with every possible combination of element and limitation. I know, we are talking about trillions and trillions of articles. The program could never finish.
Therefore, I also propose the following additional, optional features:
I realize that this would likely require more web document storage space than is currently indexed by Google. Therefore, I also propose the following additional options for storing and "publishing" the "articles":
Yup. Me too.
So I guess octopi and squid had better watch out.
As I had said, it was several years ago when I discovered this. Perhaps, back then, all accounts automatically were "private." I don't know.
But I would certainly not want my domains to be registered with them now, regardless of what they say now. Anyone who would EVER even consider such a policy is not a place I would ever want to do business with.
What a lot of people don't seem to know about GoDaddy is that they don't actually register your domain in your name. They register the domain in their name and then "license" you to use it. At least this is the way they worked several years ago. I discovered this when I was helping a customer set up his web site hosting. He had gone online and registered the domain with GoDaddy - because they advertise a lot - but could not figure anything else out on his own. When I checked into things to help him get the rest set up, I discovered that he wasn't even listed as the owner of the domain. I called GoDaddy's "customer support" only to have them explain that this was for their customer's "protection." They said it was to prevent anyone from stealing someone else's domain but he couldn't explain how it was any different with GoDaddy owning the domain instead of the customer. Over and over again, the "customer service" person tried to hard sell me while ignoring my questions about how I could get my customer's domain actually put in his own name. After intense grilling, the representative admitted that GoDaddy policies do (did) allow for them to assert control of your domains for almost any reason at all, yet he assured me that they would never actually do that. ... Ha!
If they still have the same policy in place (and I will leave it up to others to check on that, as I am certainly not going to try hassling with them ever again) then this could be a disaster for anyone with a valuable domain name that is registered with GoDaddy. This "Sale" could amount to a cashing in on all those domain names they have collected. Domain names that they claim to own while only "licensing" them to the person who registered them. The new owner could easily claim they had bought all those domains and begin auctioning them off to the highest bidder. I'm not saying that they would, but it seems entirely possible and not worth the risk for anyone with a valuable domain name.
Therefore, if anyone has any domain names registered with GoDaddy, then I highly suggest you get them moved to a different registrar ASAP.
Myers primary complaint was that Kurzweil used the number of genes in the genome and how many bits would be required to store that data as a predictor of how long it will take to completely understand the complexity of the human mind. Myers' post lays out a glimpse of the additional complexity involved and rightly points out the fallacy of making such a grand prediction based on such a small amount of information and understanding. Of course Kurzweil's entire career and fame are now dependent on people continuing to fall for his dramatic generalizations and overreaching predictions that "Something Big" is right around the corner. I have watched Kurzweil talk and sometimes it seems as if he has a messianic complex.
I am sure it has been said already, but these shit-heads always "predict" what they want to happen at the time. Their "predictions" are nothing more than lame attempts to get people to believe and accept what the "predictors" want people to believe and accept.
Though I love my Fujitsu Tablet PC. The burn-a-backup-disk software was worthless. I made the disks, using four DVDs, and then tried to restore the software as a test. All it did is trash my hard drive. Fortunately, I had planned to reinstall Windows 7 Ultimate from a separate disk anyway.
non-existence-of-God-denialists
Awesome. I have been calling them "myth-believers" but I like your term better.
Just now. I have a Tablet PC. It cost me about $1200 and was worth every penny to me. I have been using Tablet PCs for about seven years now and would never go back to a regular laptop.
In hard economic times, the best way to make money is to cater to the wealthy. Often, the easiest way to do that is to simply A) make it pretty, B) jack up the price, and C) build the perception of exclusivity. This fits the Apple model pretty well. In fact, by not including Flash they are actually enhancing that perception of exclusivity. Soon, the web sites will be jumping on the same bandwagon. By promoting themselves as catering to the special needs and desires of those who can afford an iPad they will, as you suggest, attract the visitors who have money to burn. And the funny thing is that so many people who think they are smarter than everyone just because they have money are taking the bait, hook line and sinker.
We stopped calling Topeka "Google" yesterday.
No, we never actually changed the name of the city. The mayor just signed a proclamation that we would "call" ourselves "Google" for the month of March.
Yep, I currently live in Topeka, KS, the capital city that seems to be the most famous for silly and embarrassing things. I am not one of those who believe all our problems will be solved by a Google branded fiber optic internet service, but I do still applaud what I believe Google is trying to do. In fact, I wrote a paper about it for English class. In it I explain the impact of the "Digital Divide" on poverty and argue that the major potential effect of Google's service would be to spur competition, which would then make broadband affordable to more poor people, thereby helping them rise out of poverty.
The thesis isn't written. I'm not even in graduate school yet. But that is likely what my thesis will be about when I finally write it. My head continuously swims with all the connections between information that need to be tracked. Maybe I'll get to be a pioneer. Woo hoo.
You can find information about many of my ideas at www.ideationizing.com.
Perhaps there is a skillset worth defining here - some offshoot of library sciences?
That offshoot is called "Information Science." Most "Library Science" programs now call themselves "Library and Information Science" programs. There is now even a consortium of universities that call themselves "iSchools." In my preliminary research while looking for a graduate program in "Information Science" it seems as if the program at Berkeley has gone the farthest in getting away from the legacy "Library Science" and moving toward a pure "Information Science" program.
I personally think that the field of "Information Science" is really where we are going to find the next major improvements in the ability of computers to actually impact our daily lives. We need entirely new models of how to look at dynamic, "living" data and track changes not only to the data but to the schema and provenance of that data. That is how "data" becomes "information" and then "knowledge." I won't write my doctoral thesis here, but suffice it to say that simply squeezing data into a decades old model of software version control is not quite going to cut it. In software version control you don't have as much of a trust problem. Yes, you do care if someone inappropriately copies code from a proprietary or differently-licensed source. However, you don't have as much incentive for people to intentionally fudge the code/data one way or another. In addition, data can be legitimately manipulated, transformed, and summarized to harvest that "information" out of the raw numbers. This does not happen with code. Yes, there is refactoring, but with code it is not as necessary to document every minute change and how it was arrived at. With data, the equations and algorithms used for each transformation need to be recorded along with the new dataset. In addition, the reason for those transformations and the authority of those who did the transformation.
Throw into the mix that there will be many different sets of similar data gathered about the same phenomena but with slightly different schemas and different actual data points which will all have different provenances but will need to be manipulated in ways to bring their models into forms that are parallel to all the other data sets associated with those phenomena while still tracking how they are different ... and you will see that we don't just need a different box to think outside of, we need an entirely different warehouse. (You know, the place where we store the boxes, outside of which we will do our thinking.)
Many of the suggestions posted here are a start, but only a start.
>> Don't build a computer that runs a windowed operating system without providing some physical means to point to those windows and move them around.
But the iPhone and the iPad do not run a "windowed operating system". It is an incarnation of the "object-oriented" interface, and some of the mechanisms to control these objects are analogous, but that's where the similarities end. The metaphor is different with regards as to how the user interface works. For one thing, there are no windows, there is no pointer or cursor; it depends on a completely different model of interaction based on finger gestures to control the environment.
In a way, this is exactly my point. While I understand that the OP was about i* products, my mental exercise here has grown to a more general topic of enabling hover on any possible device. Back to your point: The i* products are a perfect example of the hardware manufacturer being able to control the all the software allowed on the device such that no software ever expects more than the hardware can deliver. And this has been working great for Apple for quite a number of years. If you think it is cool to have a mouse with only one button, you force everyone to make software that only requires one button, regardless of whether that really serves the needs of the users.
However, this philosophy falls down as soon as you introduce a web browser, as pointed out by MacDork above. A web browser lets the real world leak in to the i* products' protected enclave. That real world of the world-wide-web includes many web-based interfaces that rely upon the hover metaphor. Web browsing is one of the primary activities on an i* according to Apple marketing. Therefore it is incumbent upon Apple to provide a means of fully interacting with all the metaphors available on the www.
I have faith, though, that Apple will rise to the occasion. Steve Jobs may say a lot of boneheaded things and talk out both sides of his head, but there are some frikkin' geniuses working there. They have done some amazing things with the whole touch sensitive surface and gesture thing. I saw a kid the other day using a Mac laptop with one of those extra large touchpads with multi-touch. It was like watching "The Minority Report"! He was flipping and flopping and dragging his fingers all over the place to swoop windows in and out like magic. Give it time and Apple will introduce a means to allow hovering on i* products; perhaps with a software upgrade. At that time Steve Jobs will inevitably claim it is now the best thing since bread itself (let alone the slicing) and his sycophants will behave as if Apple invented the whole concept. Oh, well. What are you gonna do? Let fanboys be fanboys.
See, now you are going all Slashdot on me. What is it with the straw-man arguments on this site? I thought it was supposed to be smart people here ... not smart-alecs. I know, the facts will prove me wrong on this one.
I never said it is the responsibility of the of the hardware manufacturer to ensure that the user was well educated on using all the web sites or applications. However, all of those web sites and applications do have a common set of basic user-interface metaphors. And an even more common set of physical interaction methods associated with those metaphors. Click, hold, drag, hover, etc. In most programming languages, these are referred to as "events." If a manufacturer makes a device that is supposed to run an OS which has a collection of compatible applications, then I think that manufacturer is responsible to ensure that its hardware can provide all the physical inputs that the UI metaphors used within that OS might reasonably expect. Is that too much to ask? Don't build a computer that runs a windowed operating system without providing some physical means to point to those windows and move them around.
So - and as I have said - since this is just a mental exercise - although one I hope some hardware manufacturers take to heart - I feel it is good to look to the future and discuss what might be the best possible form for this particular connection between a physical action and a UI metaphor. Just because some hardware made by a manufacturer that happens to be worshiped by some people does not happen to have these features at this time is no reason to disparage the motivation driving the exercise.
Since this is all just a mental exercise: I say that it would be best to design this user interface "metaphor" in such a way that it could be used on all possible known platforms. The "platform" being the underlying operating system and the capabilities of that OS and the apps that can run on it. This then makes it the hardware's responsibility to ensure the necessary inputs are available. For instance: One would not design a mouse that can't be clicked. Because the software is expecting a click the hardware must deliver it.
One must also think of what the users are used to as well as what metaphors currently exist, and at least parallel those metaphors in some way.
Therefore, the Storm (2 is it?) system of touching the screen to move the "cursor" - even if one cannot see the cursor - then pressing harder to "click" seems to be the most appropriate. It parallels the action of holding the mouse with your finger resting lightly on the mouse button to move the pointer then pressing harder on the mouse button to actually click. This allows all standard "pointing-device user-input" to be accomplished. Even the second mouse button can be emulated with a long-press.
Even without the physical switch of the Storm 2, it would be possible for most of these devices to sense a harder push because it makes the impression of the finger on the screen suddenly larger. In addition, most user interfaces where the user just taps what they want would work as normal because those taps are usually harder than the light touching that would be used for hovering. So, when they didn't need to hover, users could just use the system as they were used to. Perhaps tapping just a little more forcefully.
A purely capacitive touch screen would not be as reliable as one with a physical switch and might have problems in a bumpy car ride if the user did not stabilize their pointing finger. I can hold my Droid with my left hand and rest the pinky and thumb of my right hand on the fingers and heel of my left hand, thus giving my right hand adequate support to prevent over-pressing the screen with my right index finger in case of bumps. People could easily get used to that technique when using their touch screens during a bumpy ride. Besides, not many people expect to be able to do precision mousing in a bumpy car ride anyway.
The first works, and is apparently what the Storm 2 does. However, think about your last option. That would mean once you touched the screen you had to either click on something or move your finger over to some neutral area before releasing it. People would hate that.