News & Views

Well, things haven't changed since last year, so it's time for another of my long-winded rants on the wide-ranging evils inflicted on us by Big Media. They are at it again, so I'm stepping up on my soap box to spout my opinions about their behavior again.

Judge Marilyn Hall Patel recently granted the evil MPAA a preliminary injunction against RealDVD who created software which allowed consumers to copy their DVD collection onto their computers without removing the copy protection. This is a blow to consumers everywhere because it potentially eliminates one route to an amazing digital future where you could legally carry your entire movie collection around with you just like you carry your CD collection now.

But this decision isn't Judge Patel's fault. Her hands were tied by the actions of a Congress that is apparently wholly owned by rich "Big Media." The blame lies squarely with "Big Media" companies who essentially bribed and cajoled Congress into passing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) under the guise of protecting their copyrights. The law was passed with zero regard for how it would affect consumer rights, because that is exactly what Big Media wanted.

With the DMCA, Congress destroyed consumer rights. We already have the legal right to make a copy of media we buy (just Google "Fair Use"), but the DMCA made it illegal to remove copy protection from media. SO, the evil media companies just put copy protection on everything, which conveniently bypasses our right to copy our media. Sneaky, right?

Well, RealDVD figured out a way to copy the media to your hard drive and play it without removing the copy protection. The copy protection is still intact, so technically it doesn't break the DMCA. Making a copy is protected by Fair Use. So, this is completely legal. Yet, Big Media still went ballistic. They ostensibly sued RealDVD for breach of contract (which RealDVD technically DID do), but they sued with the main intent of preventing RealDVD from helping us exercise our Fair Use rights to copy our media. Big Media paid good money to get the DMCA passed. They don't want anyone finding a way around it and messing with their cash cow.

What should really happen is that somebody should challenge the legality of putting copy protection (Digital Rights Management - DRM) on media to begin with. It inhibits our Fair Use rights. After all, if they can't legally put the DRM on, then it doesn't matter if it's illegal to remove it. But that probably won't come out of this case. This case is about evil companies squeezing more money from paying consumers.

So why would Congress basically make it illegal to exercise a right we've had for a long time? Because they are crooks. Our lawmakers are bought and paid for by Big Media companies with deep pockets. Despite being OUR elected representatives, and working in a government we finance with our taxes, lawmakers care ZERO about consumers. That's because they get far more money from lobbyists than what we pay them. Yes, our system is severely messed up. Further, any time somebody proposes that we outlaw lobbyists, it gets voted down by Congress, who coincidentally are the primary people benefiting from the current arrangement. Big surprise.

If ANY of our lawmakers actually cared about voters, they would introduce a Digital Media Consumers Bill of Rights. That law would protect our right to use any piece of media we buy on any piece of equipment we own. It would make it illegal for ANYONE to infringe upon that right by using DRM or by tying media to specific hardware. Of course, if any of our lawmakers cared about voters, they would outlaw lobbying by special interests. That's not going to happen anytime soon. So, what can we do?

Big Media companies are squarely at the root of this evil being enacted upon consumers. The RIAA and the MPAA are organizations populated by evil companies who abuse the legal rights of their paying customers in a quest to milk more cash from us regardless of the morality of their tactics. DRM does NOT stop piracy. Piracy has escalated even as DRM has become more strict and more common. DRM only hurts legitimate paying customers. Yet, they continue to use DRM. It's obvious why they really use it and it has nothing to do with piracy. That's just a cover.

They use DRM (and the DMCA) to support a business model which makes zero sense in a digital world by turning our government into a media-owned private police force. They bypass our previously established "Fair Use" right to make a copy of media we already bought for our own personal use. Fair Use predates the DMCA. The DMCA doesn't even outlaw Fair Use. It just creates a sweet loophole for Big Media to screw law-abiding consumers. The DMCA makes it illegal to remove DRM. So, the evil studios simply put DRM on everything, which conveniently sidesteps our Fair Use rights. I believe that was their real intent from the start. In my opinion, their act of pushing through the DMCA never had anything to do with stopping piracy. That was just the reason they had to give publicly in order to push it through. The law was designed to sustain their failing business model and generate revenue through legislation.

How does the DMCA (and DRM) support Big Media's business model?

I'll explain. If we want to use our purchased media on more than one device, Big Media bought enough legislators to force us to buy multiple copies of the same product, when we already have the legal right to make a copy. They did this by basically authoring the DMCA without any input from consumer rights groups and pushing it through Congress by buying votes through their lobbyists. It is an evil and backhanded way to force legal, paying customers to give them more money for something we already bought. The DMCA is written to help them rip off paying customers by sidestepping our rights and has zero impact on real world piracy. DRM and the DMCA don't stop piracy and never have. Only the simple-minded would think this is about copyright theft.

This case is all about Big Media continuing to use the DMCA to obstruct our previously established right to make a copy of media, all so they can continue to milk us for far more cash than they should legally be entitled to get. RealDVD breached their contract because they believe the restrictions the MPAA placed on them should be illegal. I agree with them. RealDVD tried in good faith to obey the law, as it is written. They required your original copy-protected media in order to copy it to your hard drive. They also kept the copy protection intact, which means you can't just give copies to all your friends or sell copies on a street corner. So, any notion that this case is about preventing piracy is nuts.

It's about Big Media bypassing our Fair Use rights on media we already bought. It's about milking their paying customers, not inhibiting thieves. The fact that the MPAA is even pursuing this case shows they hate their paying customers. They abuse our rights only so they can rip us off. They put restrictions on RealDVD which should be illegal. That's why RealDVD is fighting and I support them in their fight.

My suggestion? I hate to say it, because I've bought more media than just about anybody I know (850+ movies, 600+ CDs, hundreds of books, hundreds of pieces of software), but the only solution that will work is we just need to stop buying their products. I've given these companies the benefit of the doubt for far too long. Do we really want these companies to keep doing this to us indefinitely? Do we really want to keep paying $14 for a CD which costs 18 cents to make? Do we really want to keep paying $20-25 for a DVD that costs $1.50 to make? Do we really want to buy 4 copies of a movie so we can put it on 3 iPods and watch one copy at home? Do we really want to give them more cash so they can buy more politicians and eliminate more of our rights? I sure don't.

These companies are doing things the same way they have for many decades. They don't want to move into the future. They like the huge money machine they have now. They are fat, lazy, bitter old men who hate change and want no part of it. These companies are the only thing holding us back from quickly moving into a far better future for all digital media. These companies are the real problem. The RIAA should be killed off first, with the MPAA to follow if they don't change their ways.

We need to replace these dinosaur companies with modern digital-age companies who put customers needs and desires first. If Google or Amazon were running these companies, we would see a total change in how we watch movies or listen to music within a very short time. Our media collection would be stored in a virtual library online, easily accessible anytime, anywhere, and on any device we own. The media would cost less to purchase and be far more versatile. Progress and innovation would be enhanced, not hindered. Old distribution models would be dumped in favor of purely digital transmissions. Every aspect of the industry would be better for consumers if Google or Amazon replaced Big Media companies. What we need are companies who can turn that dream into a reality.

Just as an example, can anyone explain to me why music CDs are EVER made in advance and shipped on trucks to a store? It's a freaking digital file. Transmit the CD to the store over the Internet, store it on a hard drive, and only burn it when customers actually buy it. At a minimum, this would save manufacturing and shipping all those really crappy CDs which never actually sell. It also saves tons of shipping costs for the ones which DO sell. It could also allow people the option of putting the CD on an SD card, iPod, or thumb drive instead of a disk.

Who needs CDs anyway? I bought CDs to avoid DRM. I also bought CDs so I had control over the quality of the digital file. But, want to know where all my CDs are now? They're stored. I put the files on my computer, threw away the bulky CD cases, and then stored the disks in binders. Every one of them was pressed in a factory, packaged, warehoused, and shipped through multiple distribution points to end up on a store shelf. Then, I bought it and drove it home where I copied the files onto my hard drive, threw the case in a landfill, and put the CD in storage never to be used again.

That's a huge waste of resources and money just to support an ancient distribution model that a bunch of old geezers at big media companies simply refuse to abandon. The CD started as digital files on hard drives and ended as digital files on my hard drive with a bunch of expensive, wasteful stupidity in between. All of it created just so those Big Media idiots could stay rich. My suggestion? Cut out all of that middle crap and pass the huge savings on to me and the original artist. I'd buy a lot more.

What about iTunes or Amazon, you ask? Well, one thing I hate is that I lose control over the quality. Yes, iTunes does let you cut out the middle distribution part (mostly), but instead of it being a lot cheaper, it's even more of a rip off than the CDs. There is no way that copying a dozen digital files from a server should cost nearly as much as pressing, shipping, warehousing, merchandising, and selling a real CD. Yet, they are priced far too similarly. Plus, the quality of what you get is worse.

This is because evil Big Media is inflating the price far beyond reasonable. Selling 50,000 copies of a digital file on a server costs only a tiny bit more than selling 1 copy. Their markup is insane, even if you spread out the initial production costs. There is no manufacturing, shipping, warehousing, or distribution channel. Plus, even with the vastly inflated price and vastly reduced cost to distribute, the original artist doesn't get any more money at all. I'm guessing it all goes into the pockets of Big Media, so they can buy more Congressmen.

Remember, I said they need to cut out the middle processes and pass the savings on to me and the artist, not hoard the savings. Using the immense cost savings of digital distribution to make themselves far richer isn't any better than keeping the price of new release CDs at $14 for the past 25 years despite the fact that the cost of making them has dropped to pennies compared to the high original cost decades ago (about $8 each originally?). Both practices are just plain wrong, but when you have an entire industry colluding on product pricing, and Congress in their pocket protecting them, the consumer gets hosed.

If the HUGE savings of digital distribution of media files was actually passed along to the consumer, media would become so cheap that piracy would simply disappear. If it's dirt cheap and extremely easy to obey the law, why break it? Plus, everyone would own more media. The door might even be open to keeping all of our media securely online and easily accessing it from all of the devices we own. All of the media files could be stored once and anyone who owns it could point to that same file, just like on Amazon's Kindle service for books. But if the Big Media companies have their way, this bright future will never happen. They want things to stay the way they've always been.

We basically need to kill off the root source of all these problems. If you don't kill the root, the wart just keeps coming back. "Big Media" is a major blight upon our digital media future. They are the worst sort of wart that just won't go away. We just need to put them out of business. So, think very carefully before you give them another dime of your money for ANY of their products. The only way things will change is if WE change them. If we stop buying, perhaps fear of bankruptcy will bring them to their senses before they die off completely. If not, then good riddance.

So, maybe it's time to stop buying their products. Personally, I think we should all hold hands and loudly wish every single one of those evil studio execs and their vast number of lawyers the worst possible life followed by a slow and painful death. What they are doing to their once loyal customers is just plain wrong and I can only hope karma makes it right.

For more information about evil Big Media companies see: 
http://www.boycott-riaa.com
http://riaasucks.com/
http://gizmodo.com/241595/even-foxtrot-thinks-the-riaa-sucks
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/09/10/riaa_keeps_12yearold_quiet/
http://w2.eff.org/IP/P2P/MPAA_v_ThePeople/
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/05/reminder-from-the-mpaa-drm-trumps-your-fair-use-rights.ars
http://kirksigmon.com/2009/05/thoughts-on-the-mpaa-lawsuits/

Labels: Congress, DMCA, EFF, Fair Use, Movies, MPAA, Music, Opinions, PRO IP, RIAA

I was reading one of the many arguments between Windows, OS X, and Linux fans online the other day and came to the realization that all of the current crop of desktop operating systems basically suck in one way or another. None of them are truly secure. None of them have file systems which are bullet proof. None of them can recover gracefully from power loss, hard drive failure, or other modern calamities. All of them suffer from hardware compatibility issues. None of them support multiple processor cores or even multiple threads of execution in any really meaningful way. They are all based on ideas, technologies, and even code bases that are literally decades old now.

Sure, most modern desktop operating systems have been updated regularly. Most have been patched up to support modern hardware as it appears. Most allow drivers to be created which give new hardware access to the system. Most have added on support for modern communication protocols and modern storage systems. But all of the current operating systems have had to add this functionality by tacking new code onto old sub-systems in ever more creative ways.

Perhaps it's time to cut our software links to the 70's and 80's and truly start over. Maybe it's time for a clean slate approach to a modern operating system. In a nutshell, we're still using 20th century desktop operating systems and it's time for a drastic change. Somebody needs to develop a completely new desktop operating system to take us well into the 21st century. It's time for a 21st century OS.

How would one start this process? What should it include?

I say, start with a clean slate. Cast a tiny kernel in stone. Make it read-only to everything. Hell, go one step further and put it in a quick-boot ROM. Boot speeds should never exceed 15 seconds. It's ridiculous to have 8 core processors running at 3+ GHz in modern computers and yet they take 2 full minutes to start up.

Next, virtualize and sandbox every non-kernel process in the entire system. Don't let ANYTHING at any level make changes to the core operating system. Ever. Also, don't let any process change the code or data of any other process. Both should just plain be forbidden and prevented. It should be impossible for little Bobby to do something to the computer that would require reinstalling or reconfiguring anything.

Weave in a secured version of a self-healing file system like ZFS from Sun. Build-in IPv6 with DES-level security from the ground up. Make file, hardware, system, and communications security a required part of the operating system rather than an optional add on. The only way somebody should be able to gain access to the computer is by having the security key in advance. In fact, maybe it's time to put our security keys into hardware, just like our house keys or car keys. Having your key should grant you secured access to your own system whether you are sitting in front of it or sitting at a public computer on the other side of the world.

Next, define a few very strict hardware device protocols, build in support for those few, and frankly don't allow any hardware which does not conform to the specification fully. The era of adding registry keys, installing drivers, and trying to get your devices to work is OVER. Develop one way to talk to devices and if a device doesn't follow the rules, just don't support it period. No drivers. No hacks. No way.

Make the OS both massively parallel and multi-threaded. Create tools which embrace and incorporate both ideas so our future generation 10,000 core CPUs just work from the start. Treat both, GPUs and CPUs as computing resources with a generic way of describing their capabilities to the operating system so that it can route tasks to whatever processor is available which can do the work. The kernel should simply use processors as processors. If you add another one, it should just use it.

Make the OS lean and fast. Make it boot in under 10 seconds, 15 maximum. Give the OS a hardware accelerated GUI and hardware accelerated media capabilities from the start. All media encoding and decoding should be open source and specified in hardware. Keep the GUI SIMPLE and intuitive. It shouldn't require tweaking to make things work. There should be no command line. There shouldn't NEED to be.

Make the OS dirt cheap or free by selling vendors a secure key, development kit, or license for developing compatible hardware. Maybe charge for software development kits. Either way, it needs to be free to end users and perhaps even free to computer makers for it to get adopted or offered as an option as quickly as possible. To ensure that the OS can be given away for free, avoid licensing old crap from the current crop of patent trolls who now sell 20th century OSes. There are great alternatives for everything, even media formats, from open, license-free sources.

Basically, write us a brand-new 21st century OS so we can all stop using the wide variety of crappy, antique, hacked-together, 20th century OSes we are currently stuck with. There really isn't a great OS to be found right now. They all have security issues. They all have hardware problems. They all have kernel panics, system crashes, malware, viruses, and more. A lot of people like me are ready for something totally different and brand new. It's time for a change.

Maybe there needs to be a 21sth Century OS X-Prize! Offer a million dollars to the first person, university, or company to develop an OS and C/C++ compiler which meets all the criteria I listed above. We badly need to find the Linus Torvalds, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Steve Wozniak of THIS generation. We're in a new century. We need the OS of the future and we need it now.

Labels: Apple, Microsoft, OSX, Predictions, Ubuntu, UI, User Interface, Virtual PC, Vista, Windows, Windows 7

The next version of the iPhone is receiving quite a "buzz" in the media. I think this is because it is rumored to finally fix some of the major omissions that have plagued the iPhone since version 1.0. Users are getting excited that the iPhone will finally live up to the promises made at the original introduction 2 years ago.

Anyone who reads this blog knows I've been quite vocal about the many shortcomings of the original iPhone. These opinions come from a person who has been using the iPhone as his only phone since day one of its original introduction. I like the phone a lot, but it always fell short of the Apple hype engine claims. It has never for a moment been a "revolutionary" communication device. Every feature the iPhone had at its introduction had been available for years from other smart phone makers. In fact, there were/still are a lot of basic features missing which those other phones have had for years. The primary difference was always the simple user interface. Apple made it easier to use those myriad functions. That's evolutionary progress, not revolutionary.

Fast forward two years from that over-hyped introduction and we're now looking forward to the release of the third version of the iPhone. It took two years, but it seems Apple has finally listened to owners and filled in the many missing features we've been requesting literally since day one. In my mind, this latest release finally makes the iPhone equal in features with all of the other smart phones on the market. The easy user interface pushes it over the top. If the rumored feature set of this third iPhone is true, I can finally put away my soap box and agree that this new iPhone will be the best smart phone out there. So, here are the details of what I have seen rumored. (mockup photo from http://www.iphone-ticker.de)

What can we reasonably expect in the third iPhone?

• Increased RAM size. The RAM used for executing programs in the current iPhone is 128MB. This is expected to be doubled to 256MB for the new version. That's a huge improvement.
• Increased performance. The main CPU in the new iPhone is expected to jump to 600MHz clock speed from 400MHz in the current version. There are also other optimizations which might give it an additional boost, so that the total performance gain will be more than 50%.
• Wider range of storage capacities. The new iPhone is expected to come in as many as 4 different storage capacities. They are 4GB, 8GB, 16GB, and 32GB. Folks like me with large audio libraries will finally be able to put their music collection on their iPhone! People who only use the phone for email and browsing will get a price break by buying the smallest capacity unit. Everyone wins.
• Cut and paste. This is a big one that has been missing and requested loudly since the beginning.
• MMS support. This is another one of the most requested missing features. Owners of the new iPhone will finally be able to exchange basic audio/video/photo messages with nearly every other cell phone owner out there. No more logging onto a web site to type in a bizarre code so you can view a message sent to you from a $29 phone. No more embarrassment that those $29 phones can do something your expensive phone can't do.
• Improved Bluetooth support. I think we'll finally see stereo headset support. I also think we'll see Bluetooth keyboard support and possibly Bluetooth printing. I think we'll likely also see tethering support with some artificial limitation attached. Probably the limitation will be that you pay extra for a tether-friendly data plan from AT&T.
• Video recording and simple editing. In order to fully-implement MMS, they needed to be able to record video. So, they wrapped this feature in a simple application to use any time.
• Audio recording. The same note applies for MMS audio recordings. They had to implement it anyway, so they made it available as a new application.
• Improved camera image quality. This comes in the form of better light sensitivity and auto focus functionality built-in. The camera will be less prone to image blur. I wonder if digital image stabilization isn't also an element of this equation. I'm betting on simple face recognition, as well.
• Improved camera resolution. This rumor is still the subject of debate. Many say the new camera will be 3.2MP. I'm not holding my breath on this one, but it does make sense. Frankly, if they just improve the quality of the images from the existing camera, that will go a long way toward making people happy.
• Digital compass. Being able to orient the device in 3D space will be a useful enhancement to GPS positioning abilities. The digital compass application looks pretty cool, too.
• Turn-by-turn navigation. With the digital compass added, all of the hardware is there to do real turn-by-turn navigation. If they use Google Maps, it should be fairly straightforward to implement this. I believe this rumor is true.
• Percentage indicator for battery life. This is a small thing that will be very handy. The existing indicator just isn't accurate enough to be useful. I really hope this one is true.
• Nike+ support and a built-in Nike+ application. This rumor looks like it may be true. I could easily see Nike making a deal with Apple to include it. It's a cool application and it could be a beneficial partnership - selling more product for both companies.
• Downloadable iTunes TV/Movies. This one is a tough call. On the one hand, you have AT&T whining about bandwidth usage. On the other, you have Apple trying to further pump up their highly-profitable iTunes sales. IF this happens, it will likely be limited to WiFi downloads only for a long time.
• Pseudo background application support. This will come in the form of push notifications being available to most applications. It will give applications the feel of background execution, without actually sucking up CPU and battery time. We'll have to wait and see how well this works in reality.
• Further enhancements to Exchange Server compatibility. By this, I mean slight tweaks, not drastic improvements. The iPhone will still lack the extensive configuration capabilities that the Blackberry enjoys, but for most people the iPhone will be more than adequate. Just don't try to change your auto-responder from your iPhone.
• Global search. This was another feature requested by many, but ignored by Steve Jobs. The iPhone owner will finally be able to do what Palm's have done for well over a decade - search through everything on the device from a single search box. It's about time.
• Positioning information will now be available within the browser, in the form of JavaScript classes. This will open up all kinds of cool online services based on where you are standing at that moment. Expect to hear about a lot of cool web sites which take advantage of this shortly after introduction. For example, you could watch your friends move around town in real time on a map at a social networking site. I think Google has already been working on exactly this type of thing.
• Apple logo that lights up. Seriously? Why waste the battery power? Perhaps they plan to simply let the LCD back light bleed through to the logo on the back, but it's supposedly a true rumor. We'll see.

What rumors are probably not true?

• Improved battery life. I'll believe this one when I see it. I don't see how they can add so much functionality, as well as new hardware, while reducing the battery load at the same time. They may claim longer battery life, but I don't think any of us will see it in real world usage. I'd be mostly happy if it just doesn't get any worse.
• Adobe Flash support. As much as people have been asking for this, I think Adobe would tell us if they were ready to introduce it. They haven't said a word. So, I don't think it's coming any time soon. It's a shame because so many web sites don't offer an alternative to their Flash menus. I'm sure not having Flash support will be the main thing I still complain about on this new iPhone.
• Apple TV functionality with HD video support. While I think they will take a stab at letting people download videos and TV to their iPhones using iTunes, I don't think the iPhone will support HD content. It's really pointless to do this until the display can at least come close to rendering it fully. I don't see HD or Apple TV functionality coming to the iPhone for at least a year, if not two.
• Built-in uploading of recorded videos to YouTube. I really think Apple only tolerates YouTube. If there is ANY built-in uploading of videos, it will probably be set to work exclusively with Apple's own (lame) online service. Apple is very inbred when it comes to forcing its products to only work with its services. I do think this ability will appear on the iPhone, just not from Apple.
• HD or FM radio receiver. I can't imagine Apple letting people listen to the radio instead of forcing them to buy songs from iTunes.
• Matte black and matte white finishes. Apple has always been tilted toward glossy and shiny, so I can't imagine they would offer anything in a matte finish. Then again, this is a phone. Maybe they will listen to the complaints of users about scratches and fingerprints and coat it with a protective finish of some sort. We can hope, but I'm not very optimistic about this one.
• Enhanced "super" 3G support. Some are calling it 3.5G+ or 3.75G. I don't think it will make it into this generation of iPhone, but all bets are off on the next version. AT&T is finally beefing up their high speed cellular support and the future looks brighter than it ever has. Now, if only we could get them to lighten up on bandwidth restrictions, we might see mobile to mobile video chat (which has existed forever in the Orient) in our lifetimes. Our communications systems in this country are so primitive in comparison to the rest of the world. It's sad, really.

What rumors are definitely not true?

• Full iChat support integrated. Sure this would be nice, but I doubt we'll see it anytime soon. AT&T has us all by the short hairs when it comes to guarding their bandwidth.
• WiFi draft N support. I don't believe we'll see this. They have only recently embraced draft N support in their desktops and laptops. I'm sure they don't think it's important enough for the iPhone.
• Built-in FM transmitter. Not likely either. There isn't enough space inside the device and it would eat up the battery quicker.
• Front facing camera for video chatting. Not happening because of bandwidth limitations set by AT&T. Maybe in two years, but no way it's happening in this version.
• OLED screen. That would push the price too high and this is one of their few devices where Apple grudgingly acknowledges that price is somewhat important. Until OLEDs are cheaper and being manufactured in sufficient quantities, we won't see them on iPhones. It just isn't realistic. We might see LED backlighting for the LCD display, though. That, I could see happening.
• Any drastic changes to the form factor. The 3rd iPhone will only have minor cosmetic tweaks if anything. It will retain the same basic layout, shape, and dimensions as prior versions.
• Carbon fiber casing. I can't see anyone using carbon fiber for a telephone casing. It is too brittle. The first drop would bust it open. I think the new iPhone will use the same plastic as the 3G with little change to anything.
• Editing of Word and Excel files. With third parties jumping in to fill this void, I don't see Apple wasting the resources to add this ability. There are already a couple of good applications for this task available from iTunes, so they'll make their money that way.

When will we see the new iPhone?

Some of the features mentioned above will appear in version 3.0 of the operating system, which is supposed to be introduced for existing iPhones on June 8, 2009. There are rumors that this upgrade will be sold, not free. Because some of the functions depend on new hardware, users of older iPhones simply won't see some of the new features.

The new iPhone device will appear over a month later, on July 17th, 2009. I'm sure we'll be able to tell what hardware/software made the final cut during the weeks between those two dates. I expect to hear about a lot of first generation iPhone owners finally trading in their phones once the new one hits the shelves. I'm certainly in that category.

Yes, it's a great update. The feature set will finally be mostly complete. But before you start thinking I'm completely content with the rumored abilities of this new iPhone, let me reassure you with the following section:

What would I like to see added next?

• Flash support is the one blindingly obvious item which needs to happen sooner rather than later. Flash may not be an open standard, but it is a de facto standard used on a large number of commercial web sites. Deal with it Apple! Help Adobe create it.
• LED backlighting on the display. It's brighter for sunny days and displays much better color. Even OLED wouldn't be a big improvement if they put LED backlighting on the display.
• WiFi draft N. If they are going to keep limiting large downloads to WiFi only, at least give us decent speed on the WiFi.
• Increased display resolution - but only if it doesn't make everything harder to read for those of us who are getting old. In other words, give us a way to keep the font sizes big enough to see while displaying images or video at the increased resolution.
• Higher resolution camera - but only if the picture quality doesn't suffer in the process. More pixels are useless if the picture is blurry.
• Switch-able LED lighting for video and photo recording in darkened rooms like clubs or restaurants.
• HD video playback. Sure, 720p would be the logical first step, but eventually I'd like to see full 1080p output. Of course, this is probably a long-term goal. More and more hotel rooms have flat panels with HDMI connections. Just add a micro-HDMI port and let me watch my iPhone videos on my hotel room TV in full high definition. Let me display presentations on conference room flat panels, too. Is that a presentation in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?
• An SD or even micro SD expansion slot. Sometimes you just want more space for your stuff. Downloading videos will make that even more critical.
• A user-replaceable battery. Even if it's just a back that opens more easily and a battery cable which unplugs, make it replaceable by the end user damn it. NOBODY wants to be without their phone while it gets shipped in for a new battery to be installed. That's retarded.
• Add the ability to edit calendar events, alarms, and contacts from inside iTunes. This is another thing Palm's have had for over a decade. Get with the program Apple.
• Add the ability to drag songs or albums onto your iPhone without creating a damned play list first. Sometimes I just want the music on there to listen to on a whim. I don't need it to be part of a play list.

Yes, you're right. I'm a picky bloke who can always come up with a wish list for any device. The new iPhone will absolutely be a big improvement over previous generations. In fact, if the rumors are true, this could be the best phone out there. But there is always room for improvement.

Summing it up.

In a nutshell, the 3rd iPhone version looks like it will finally fulfill the promise of the original iPhone introduction two years ago. The wide variety of feature shortcomings which held the device back from widespread acceptance will finally be addressed. With these feature and hardware additions, the feature set required to call itself a modern smart phone will finally be nearly complete. Unlike the 3G introduction, which only increased download speed and added a GPS radio, this third version looks like the real "second coming" of the iPhone. It actually looks to be an upgrade worth buying for those of us with first generation iPhones. I'm excited to see how the rumors pan out.

I fully expect iPhone 3 will take off like a rocket after introduction. By this time next year, I'm predicting the already large installed base of iPhones will have tripled and Apple will be doing quite well, indeed, thanks to iPhone and iTunes sales. Currently, if you remove the iPhone, iPod Touch, and their associated iTunes sales increases from Apple's financial numbers, Apple would have done as poorly as the rest of the tech sector or worse. Instead, they have been relatively untouched by the floundering economy. This new version of the iPhone looks like it will further boost Apple's numbers to amazing levels of health. If you have Apple stock, hold onto it. The iPhone's future looks very bright.

Labels: Apple, iPhone, Music, Opinions, OSX, Predictions, UI, User Interface

Hybrids are currently about 1% of the total market in the U.S. I've seen predictions that say hybrids will reach about 10% within 10 years. I personally don't agree with those predictions. In fact, I see hybrids being completely replaced by Extended Range Electric Vehicles (X-REVs) within that same time period. Let me explain why.

First, why do we need to switch from gasoline at all? Most experts will agree that in the long term, we are headed for purely electric drive cars. One big reason is, we have a limited supply of petroleum and it is used in MANY other products (plastics, for example) which we really need to keep making because we don't have good replacements. Another reason is the fact that burning petroleum is just a horrible thing to do to the planet we live on. Plus, electricity can (and should) be generated from renewable sources. The bottom line is, switching to electric drive for our vehicles is really an eventuality, not simply a possibility.

So, let's just agree we're eventually headed for purely electric vehicles. Why can't we just start switching now and get it over with? Why not make all new cars electric? Well, we can't. The reason is simple. The technology just isn't there, and won't be for a very long time to come.

Sure, we have decent electric motors already. In fact, electric motors are really powerful and produce instantaneous, flat, and extreme levels of torque. Freight trains have been pulled by electric motors running off diesel generators for many years. One of the fastest and most responsive cars on the market is a pure electric vehicle called the Tesla Roadster. It goes from 0-60 in 3.9 seconds. The electric motor is also much more energy efficient than the gasoline engine. More of the energy consumed actually makes it to the pavement. You get more power for less energy. The bottom line is, the electric motor is really great for driving the wheels on a car.

The reason we can't all switch to electric cars now is the batteries. While every other technology has advanced very quickly, batteries have proceeded at a virtual snail's pace. Batteries have always been and still are a horrible way to store energy. You get far less out than you put in. Further, there is only so much space available for batteries in a vehicle, in order to still leave room for passengers and their stuff.

Unfortunately, filling the available space with even our best current battery technology stores only enough energy to take a car about 40-60 miles on a charge. If you have a 20 mile commute, one way, that means you MUST remember to plug in your car every single night or it will be dead and useless in the morning. Plus, our current battery technology generates a lot of heat (wasted energy) and takes much too long to charge after it is drained.

Then there is the fact that almost nobody wants a purely electric car. Yeah, I said it. I'm sure I'll hear from the few who NEVER take a trip longer than 20 miles, and who have the discipline to plug it in every night, but the vast majority of us aren't like those people. We are forgetful people who like flexibility and dependability because our lives are chaos and our transportation needs change daily.

The hard reality is, mass acceptance of purely electric vehicles is a LONG way off. Maybe 30 years or more. Why? Two reasons - People are far more afraid of their batteries going dead than they ever were of running out of gas. This because a battery recharge takes HOURS of sitting at a few specific locations and filling the tank takes minutes at tons of convenient locations. What if you forget to plug your car in overnight? You have no car. That's unacceptable.

People also want to be able to take long driving trips without stopping for many hours of recharge sessions every 40 miles. You can't do that with current purely electric cars, and it doesn't look like that level of technology is going to appear for a very long time. Purely electric vehicles will not become the norm until the battery technology allows people to drive all day (or commute all week), only stopping for quickie food, fuel, and restroom breaks. People can do that now with gasoline cars. They won't give it up without a fight.

Hybrids are really the first of two steps needed to get us from petroleum to electric. Hybrids still drive the wheels with a gasoline motor and use the electric motor as a performance "boost" when needed. For this reason, they only need a small amount of battery capacity. Because they still use a gasoline engine as the primary motive power, they operate and refuel just like the cars people use now. They require no change in behavior.

I believe the next step in this evolution is extended range electric vehicles (X-REVs). In an X-REV, the small gasoline motor always idles. It only drives a generator. The gas generator basically charges the batteries constantly in what is essentially an electric car. The X-REV's wheels are driven by an electric motor. There is no kinetic connection at all between the gas motor and the wheels. Yes, you can still plug X-REVs in every night to charge it and save a fortune on fuel, but it won't make the car unusable if you forget occasionally.

That's really a key feature. X-REVs are the next step because they provide that one critical ability. Your battery can run out after 40 miles and you can keep on driving for as long as your conventional fuel allows - 300 miles or even more. Fill your tank whenever it's low and keep driving. You could forget to plug it in half the time and still get to work  every day just fine. That's peace of mind people absolutely need when making the transition.

Plus, swapping to better batteries as technology progresses will also improve your fuel savings allowing you to travel further before using any gas at all. If replacement batteries get good enough sooner than expected, you might eventually stop putting gas into the car at all. That makes it the perfect transition vehicle. You can slowly shift into the habit of charging your car regularly without being severely punished if you forget.

Plus, the conventional fuel used to extend the range could be nearly anything, from gasoline, to compressed natural gas, to hydrogen or diesel. Anything that can run the generator, works. In fact, if the manufacturers design the generator and fuel storage in a modular way, the fuel you use to extend the range could even change over the years without replacing your vehicle. This is yet another advantage.

Imagine when gasoline hits $10 a gallon in 5 years. You simply pop in a compressed natural gas (CNG) generator module which you refill from a compressor installed in your garage. Hook the compressor to your natural gas line and bingo, you can fill your own tank at home. If you are running low, you could use the CNG compressors at friends' or relatives' houses. Even gas stations would start installing CNG pumps.

Or imagine something drastic happens which suddenly cuts off our oil supply. (Can you say "embargo?") If the only fuel available is an electrical outlet and you are one of the smart ones who drives an X-REV, you can still use your car for 40 miles a day while all those gasoline cars sit around useless or wait in long lines for gasoline. You win!

In fact, if we develop future-fuel generators which put out more energy than needed by the electric drive motor, you wouldn't even need the batteries. That would mean your X-REV is suddenly a fully electric car with minimal modification. Replace the generator "module" and it's an electric car. Keep the car you love longer and just swap out one module.

Heck, imagine someday eventually putting in a tiny nuclear generator that would allow you to drive non-stop for 5,000 years without ever recharging. You could drive it until it is a pile of dust and never refuel again. At the rate we're going with batteries we might have tiny reactors long before we have decent batteries, anyway. Even glacial-paced solar technology is progressing faster than batteries and that's just plain sad.

So, for long-term flexibility and dependability, the X-REV would be the perfect choice as our long term transition vehicle to get us off our addiction to oil and move us toward an electric future. In an oil crisis, X-REVs could save us. If fuel technology changes quickly, they could save us. If we forget to plug it in, they could save us. For those long drives to grandma's house, they could save us. X-REVs are the best of all worlds. So in my opinion, they really should replace hybrids as the car of choice while we wait for the distant promise of purely electric vehicles. They deliver the benefits of electric for your daily commute while giving you the flexibility of gasoline cars for any other situation that comes up.

If you want to see what I'm talking about, the Chevy Volt is the first shining star in what I hope will be a very bright future for X-REVs. "TIME.com" was very impressed with this technology. Personally, I can't wait to see what other car companies come out with to compete with the Volt. If the development rumors are true, our automotive future looks brighter than ever. In these times of rampant bad news, it's nice to realize we might have a better future just around the bend.

Labels: automobiles, Climage Change, Energy, Environment, Opinions, Predictions

I'm an old fart, technologically speaking. The first computer I ever got to use was a desk-sized monstrosity which was programmed in hex codes using a numeric keypad and displayed the results on paper tape. It had a massive 4K of RAM. Despite this incredible limitation, we were able to make it do useful work.

That was way back in 1976. The PC didn't exist yet. Even the original Apple-1 was just appearing. The few arcades were filled with purely mechanical pinball machines. Even the vector graphics arcade game, "Space Wars" hadn't made it's way into arcades, yet. Magazines like the Popular Science published articles about cool kit computers you could assemble yourself. It was really the dawn of computers as we know them today.

Having used computers for this long gives one a lot of perspective on the current state of computer technology. I was thinking about all of this the other day and realized, we did most of the same things in the early days of computers that we do now. In fact, I used a graphics-based word processor with multiple fonts on a hacked up TRS-80 Color Computer running OS-9 back in late 1982. I ran spreadsheets. I played games. I logged onto CompuServe as a gateway into the text-based Internet before most modern ISP's or the World Wide Web existed. I did all of that in only 64KB of RAM. Yes, it was slower. But it worked.

So, why am I sitting here typing on a machine with 12GB of RAM now and noticing the memory is already half full? I have 187,500 times as much memory on this machine as I had then and somehow I'm still in the position of sitting here wondering if I have enough. Granted, I have two browsers running with lots of tabs open, Windows Mail, Windows Live Writer, Vista Sidebar with half a dozen gadgets, and a couple of smaller programs all running at once, but holy crap. How did those things eat up half of my RAM when I have 187,500 times as much RAM? In those days, I wrote a lot. I programmed. I emailed. I worked on spreadsheets. I chatted online. I played games. The basic tasks I do haven't changed all that much over the years.

Yes, the applications have become fancier, more capable applications, but are they 187,500 times as fancy and capable? What has changed about those programs that requires so much RAM? True, rendering imagery is RAM intensive, but even at 2560x1680, that's only 16MB of RAM to bitmap my entire screen display at 32 bits per pixel. Each of my graphics cards has 1GB of RAM to hold that display, so there should be plenty of overkill there and it shouldn't be eating up my RAM. So, if it's not the display eating up my RAM, what could it be?

I guess the real question I'm asking is, what additional functions are being performed on this machine that weren't being performed in my 64KB machine booting OS-9 back then? And why are those additional functions using 187,500 times as much RAM?

It's not just the multi-tasking, because OS-9 was a multi-tasking OS, too. I often ran a few programs at once. It's not just the fact that I'm running a lot more applications and services at once now, either. Even if I ran 1,000 applications at once on that old system, I still would have been far under the 187,500 times as much RAM I'm using now. So, what's going on here?

Well, for one thing, each computer operation and data chunk are bigger. The computer I was using back then had a 16 bit processor. A few years later, they advanced to 32 bit (double the size). Now, I'm running a 64 bit CPU and OS. So, that quadruples the RAM size of running the same sequence of instructions. I'll oversimplify it a little to explain what I mean. If it took 200 operations to complete a process back then, let's say the sequence took up 200 x 2 bytes (16 bits), which was 400 bytes. Under 32 bit, the same 200 operations took up 200 x 4 bytes (32 bits) 800 bytes.  Under 64 bit, it would expand to 200 x 8 bytes or 1600 bytes. So, the same 200 operations went from 400 to 1600 bytes in size. If you multiplied this out for programs with hundreds of thousands of operations, the difference becomes big.

But quadrupling the program code size still doesn't come close to explaining a difference of 187,500 times as much. Given the same 64KB of original space, that should only mean you would need 256KB to move to 64 bit computing with that same OS, right? And remember, we're still talking about KB here. We haven't even made it up to MB yet in our discussion, much less the many GB available in modern PCs. The main people really aware of this massive code-bloat trend are folks like me who have used computers at home for decades, people who also use a few of the leaner operating systems now, and computer programmers. Considering that until a few years ago I fell into all of those categories (I only do non-profit web programming now), it is trebly apparent to me that something is going drastically wrong somewhere.

Perhaps it's the data? Well, yeah some data is truly huge. Video files. Image files. Music. Databases. Our data files have definitely grown much larger over the years and that is a legitimate reason to need more RAM. BUT - Even if you load a program like Word into memory without opening ANY data files, it still takes up massive amounts of RAM. In fact, just starting the computer up in the operating system uses up a huge chunk of RAM. That's without running any programs at all. The OS is one of the biggest code-bloat offenders.

Back in the old days, (LOL) OS-9 ran the entire operating system in perhaps 20-30KB of RAM, leaving up to 2/3 of my 64KB for my programs and data. By the time Windows Vista 64 Ultimate finally gets me to the desktop, my RAM display shows that 20% of my 12GB of RAM is already used. That's 2.4GB being taken away by the OS. We're talking gigabytes here. That's 120,000 times as much RAM as OS-9 used! Granted, some of that is being used for cache. And yes, a graphics user interface uses more RAM, but holy crap Batman! Even if half of that amount is cache and GUI functions, that's still 60,000 times as much RAM for the OS. Does it do 60,000 times as much? I don't think so. It does maybe 20 or even 100 times as much, but not 60,000. That's just nuts.

So what do I think is going on?

To be honest, I think programmers don't care about craftsmanship in coding anymore. They know RAM space is relatively cheap, so they don't pay any attention to how much they use. They don't spend time designing the code to be compact and efficient. They don't work to break the code up into smaller reusable pieces in order to avoid duplication of functionality. They keep devising new ways to do things, but they also retain the full code from all of the old ways within the OS, just in case somebody doesn't want to do it the new way. They layer on feature after feature without reusing or adjusting any of the stuff previously written. The code turns into what I call "a rotten onion." Something with lots of layers that nobody wants to touch.

Before you think I'm just pounding on programmers, let me tell you why they don't care. Managers force it on them. The buck really does stop there. It all trickles down from upper management who have an accountant on one shoulder and a marketing head on the other. These two devils are constantly whispering enticing projections of the profits they could make by pushing up release dates, maintaining backward compatibility, and reducing costs. Dreams of large bonuses drive management to ride the programmers until they have to cut corners in every way possible in order to meet unrealistic deadlines. This means programmers NEVER get the opportunity to revisit or eliminate old code. They don't get proper time to design and craft their new code. They barely even have time to write the code.

In other words, programmers don't care because they don't have time to care. They're already working far more hours than they want. There is always a fast approaching deadline they have to meet, so they add more layers of code and pray the existing code doesn't break. When the existing code does break, it takes forever to find the problem because there is layer after layer of crap piled on other crap. It's a nightmare to sift through, particularly when you didn't write any of it. Eventually, after numerous development cycles and patches, you end up with a vast mess of code which is held together with string and duct tape and is at least 500 times larger than it needs to be in order to perform the functions it does. You end up with code-bloat. Function creep, backward compatibility, and poor management are directly to blame for the bloated masses of buggy code we are now running in our machines.

Does it ever stop?  Yes, but it's never pretty or pleasant when it does.

Like any continuously growing object, there comes a time when an OS or program collapses under its own weight. Eventually, the massive bloated mess becomes so buggy, that people start avoiding it by droves. Sales plummet. Programmer scapegoats are found. Heads roll. Then, they start over. Smart companies start development on a replacement before the bloated mess gets completely out of control. For example, by the time the original Mac OS was starting to fall apart under its own weight, they had a nice, lean, well-engineered replacement waiting on a shelf in the form of OS X. Sure, it had some bugs initially (like any software), but it was a solid foundation to rebuild on. It was also a painful transition for users, because it wasn't compatible with older stuff, but it was the right thing to do, and kudos to Apple for doing it. If only Microsoft had the balls to do the same.

When your OS or software finally does collapse, I guess the trick is to learn from the previous bloat cycle. When you start up your replacement, design new processes, as well. Create ways to make smaller portions completely replaceable. Change practices so that each of the parts is evaluated and rewritten in an ongoing fashion. Put standards in place to make debugging easier down the road.

But most importantly, give the programmers the opportunity to bring craftsmanship back to software development. Give them the time to produce something of which they can be proud. Allow them to engineer a set of code which is leaner, more modular, and less resource intensive. Reward them when they do. Set the planned features in stone prior to development. Don't ask them to hit a moving target. There are lots of things that can be done to reduce software bloat, but it all has to come from the management at software development companies. The programmers are completely at their mercy.

Wouldn't it be great to hear about a new word processor that does everything Word does and takes up 95% less RAM? Or what about an OS that only uses 10MB of your RAM, leaving the rest usable by your software and data? The reality is, good programmers can create immense amounts of functionality in only 10MB of RAM, if they are given a clean slate and the time to do it right. If you don't believe me, just look at what they had running in under 20KB in the early days of personal computers. The word processor I used then could easily do 85% of what Open Office does now. Thinking about it now, I'm just amazed at what we did in those days with such limited hardware. Even the Gemini Guidance Computer had less RAM and CPU power than a modern digital wristwatch.

The bottom line? If we're going to be forced to buy more RAM, it should be for the right reasons. It should be because our data is larger, we want to run more tasks, or we need more speed while running more tasks. It shouldn't be because the OS and software we use on our systems have expanded far beyond the point where they should have been killed off and replaced. Let's start to recognize efficient code when we see it and reward those who write it. Just say "No!" to code bloat. Let's throw out the rotten onions of the software world.

My blog site now located here at www.oilpainterbill.com!

Welcome to my new combined web site!

I previously had my paintings located at this web site. Now, it is a combined site, displaying both my blog and my paintings. Development will continue on this new site in the future so be sure to bookmark this location. Thanks for stopping by!

Google recently swung a deal where old orphaned works would be scanned onto its servers and made accessible via the Internet. This could make millions of previously out-of-print works instantly accessible to the entire world via web browsers. The works would comprise every type of creative work man produces, from the written word to recordings and films. This may not sound like an Earth-shaking deal to many, but it stirred up an old dream I had about the future of human knowledge on planet Earth.

In the future, I always saw the world using NetSlates. What is a NetSlate? Imagine this. Your personal NetSlate can run for weeks without charging. It has virtually unlimited bandwidth for displaying any type of media. The connection is bi-directional allowing interaction between an unlimited number of these devices in real-time. It has an ultra-high resolution, wide-color gamut display. It has incredible audio capabilities built-in, too. Perhaps it can even project full-color imagery or interfaces in 3 dimensions when it lies flat on a table surface. The device is incredibly thin, perhaps even flexible and weighs next-to-nothing.

Sounds great right? It's like a cross between the most powerful supercomputers, the best graphics workstations, and the lightest, thinnest, tablet PC's available today. Think nuclear-powered Kindle on steroids. Also, think unlimited cheap wireless bandwidth. Ok got the picture?

Now, imagine literally everyone can own a NetSlate because they are dirt cheap. In fact, they're free in many cases because advertisers give ad-supported versions away constantly. They all display basically the same information and media. Our NetSlates are totally compatible with one another because they all feed from open format, world-standard files stored on insanely fast servers connected to the wireless super Internet of the future. This is an idealist future I've babbled on about for a couple of decades to my wife, family, and friends (started thinking about this device back in the pre-WWW "CompuServe" days). I believe this is where we are finally headed now.

For proof, simply put that Google media-scanning deal in the early development context of that not-too-distant future vision of NetSlates. Everyone owns a NetSlate and all the information ever created by mankind is available instantly to all  of us. These early scanning efforts and other efforts by Google to put literally everything online are the baby steps needed to reach that admittedly idealistic NetSlate future.

In fact, the Amazon Kindle could be seen as another of those baby steps toward ubiquitous access to knowledge and the ideal of a futuristic NetSlate. Amazon has 250,000 publications available for the Kindle. Imagine if the device were also a high-speed, non-DRM, unlimited-bandwidth, browsing device pointed directly at Google's scanned-information storehouses. Adding millions more creative works which are currently out of print would make the Kindle vastly more useful than it already is. If Google and Amazon were to combine their future efforts and stick to open worldwide standards, the significance of their separate baby steps would become even more important toward the long-term future of human knowledge.

Imagine a future where bulky books, magazines, cables, and plastic discs are replaced by slim personal devices with always-on, unlimited, wireless connections to limitless media and information. Imagine there literally being no limitations to the information you could explore on your device. The barriers between us would fade as we all gain equal access to all knowledge and information.  Now, that's an exciting future, right? We will absolutely have the technology to do all of this in the not-too-distant future.

Unfortunately, my NetSlate dream will likely never fully happen. Why not? Didn't I just say we'll have the technology? Yes, I did. But technology won't be the limiting aspect of this ideal future. The NetSlate future won't happen because we'll never be given access to the total of human knowledge, no matter how far technology progresses. Knowledge is power, so it just won't happen.

The rich and powerful control the masses by throttling information. They monitor and control the sources, the quantity, the quality, and the accessibility of all information and that is largely how they maintain their power over the middle and lower classes who far out-number them. The NSA and HSA now routinely monitor all information flow, thanks to the laws passed by the scared old men sitting in Congress. Their regular efforts to regulate the Internet are another demonstration. If literally everyone had access to all human knowledge, the most powerful would lose one of their best tools in controlling us. So they will do their best to prevent this ideal future from ever happening. Just watch the news and you'll see it.

For example, those same scared old men in Congress created laws which legalize the extortion of children and grandmothers by rich media companies (like Sony, EMI, Universal, Warner, Disney, Viacom, and others). Those rich media companies now get insane amounts of control over what we do with the products we purchase from them. They take gestapo-like actions against completely innocent individuals and then are not held accountable for their extortion attempts. They aren't even required to provide proof that a law was broken before they begin their extortion and harassment process. In this way, they have more power than the local police.

These rich media companies amuse themselves by bankrupting poor college students who didn't cost them a dime of profit because they couldn't afford the media product to begin with. This tactic often takes a potential college graduate, who would have later purchased products from them for decades, bankrupts them, and puts them out on the street. So, in place of a high-earning college graduate, the rich media companies create a college dropout who hates them and will never purchase another product from them. Why would these media companies do something so stupid? It's all about control. They are blinded by their hunger for power and control, so they shoot themselves in the foot over and over.

Yes, the technology will someday exist to create NetSlates we can all afford. The technology will someday exist to create high-bandwidth wireless connections for those NetSlates which will allow all of us equal access to vast stores of online information. The question is: What information will be available to us when that full-blown technology finally arrives? That's where the bright future of the "NetSlates ideology" falls apart.

It will be the rich and powerful who will kill my dream of "widespread access to all knowledge via NetSlates." It will be the evil efforts of greedy media companies which will kill our future ubiquitous wireless knowledge and media access. Yes, we may get some useful subset of my NetSlate dream, but we will never realize its full-blown potential. We will never be allowed full access to all of human knowledge and creative works. That is the bittersweet reality we live in. Those in power will always control our access.

Labels: Congress, DMCA, EFF, Fair Use, MPAA, Music, Opinions, Predictions, PRO IP, RIAA, UI, User Interface