My argument is that better much better does not necessarily cost the earth.

Its is about a new literacy and logic in how we make stuff. This is a key part of the No Straight Lines Story.

Some interesting key points highlighted over at the p2p Foundation

1. Designed and manufactured a 4-passenger street-legal car that gets 100 mpg
2. The car was constructed using off-the-shelf parts
3. The car is entirely modular in design
4. They innovated a new process for carbon-fiber body construction that costs 1/360th the traditional process
5. You can pre-order cars now for less than $29,000
6. This is not just a one-off prototype. Currently they are manufacturing one car per week (yes, that’s the low volume manufacturing retail price). They are targeting a future price of under $20,000.
7. With no capital investment
8. Though accept donations
9. Everything is done through volunteers

Also read:

• The No Straight Lines challenge: be realistic imagine the impossible
• 6 challenges for a non-linear world
• The NEXT Silicon Valley is not a place it’s a platform
• LEGO CUUSOO – the WHAT’S NEXT for business in a non-linear world
• Patients Know Best: a new literacy for healthcare

Some people struggle to reconcile Apple as a company with the idea of Open, one of the principles of No Straight Lines.

Apple is not open, it is in fact the complete opposite is the pushback – and so we go into big discussion. Which is good as part of the process of No Straight Lines process is to really challenge our perceptions, so we can move beyond them, where we can imagine and then create our best possible future.

For me, Open as relates to Apple, is about the curiosity of the craftsman – tinkering, learning through the felt fingering space of play.

In this way as Arthur C. Clarke wrote,

The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible

So one has to be open to new ideas, tools, technologies, process and organisational capability. And we have wonderful products like the iPhone because Apple were prepared to play in the closed eco-system that was the old Telco world. (I know, as I was there).

Apple created for the first time a phone that was relevant to the world it lived in – whereas before then it was the carriers that played Nero to its empire. Consequently the products were dull. It was Jobs that ruthlessly forced that market to change.

Jobs also went to Nokia, and I am sure a few others, offering a mutual relationship with the iTunes eco-system and was shown the door. And I also know of plenty of innovative Japanese companies innovating over a decade ago in mobile/web who were also shown the same revolving mechanism. Whilst these behemoths went back to counting their ducets.

So my challenge is – who was open and who was closed? Who saw the best future potential for us, as users of products and services and who only saw “the money”, and were only motivated by how much money they could extract from our wallets whilst giving back as little as humanly possible.

Apple built an eco-system and a platform. It has created great products because it was OPEN – it may not operate under a cc licence, and it may come across as über controlling. But, there is much more to this story than rejecting Apple as a closed, tight lipped organisation.

Apple thrives on diversity, and to accommodate diversity one has to live in open knowledge eco-systems. The story of many organisations and even industries that die is because they lived in a closed knowledge system. Unable to change their perspectives of how they saw the world, and operated in it and so became disrupted – to the point of catastrophic failure. Open is about learning philosophically, instinctively, new literacies to create new and novel products and services that create value.

Now how many companies do that?

First off less than 2% of Congress totaling 535 members, have professional backgrounds in science, whereas there are 222 lawyers.

When in 1987 the Federal Communications Commission removed the fairness doctrine of how difficult or controversial news was reported it open the door to more extreme punditry, take a bow Rush Limbaugh. And we have witnessed an increasing line of anti-science perspectives from Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, with the whip held by Newt Gringrich.

And Otto argues right now science is under threat by anti-climate change organisations – between 2009 and June 2010 the energy industry spent half a billion dollars fighting climate change legislation. He writes that 96 of the 100 newly elected Republican members of Congress deny outright that climate change is real or are voting against it in one form or another.

That said Otto argues there are complex forces that are shaping the debate on public perceptions towards science, ‘the moral ambiguity createdafter the dropping of the Atom bomb and living in a nuclear MAD world’, or some of the terrible excesses of toxic pollution that killed and maimed ordinary people – coupled with the culpability of government, the effects of postmodernism on the one hand and the rise of fundamentalist religion on the other smashing into each other. A deep distrust arouse around government and science.

This is the volatile cocktail that combines – commerce, science, truth and politics and results says Otto on an assault on American science that is unprecedented. Though the Barack Obama administration does not get away with it scott free

President Obama’s not much better. Running strong on climate change in 2008, he has since totally de-prioritized it, apparently marginalizing his scientist appointees like Chu, Holdren and Lubchenco, all of them outspoken on climate change, and now appears to be moving ahead with offshore oil drilling, lower air pollution standards, poor carbon standards, and the Keystone XL oil pipeline. In a time when the science has only advanced further and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences says anthropogenic global warming should be “regarded as settled facts” — a time when China’s leapfrogging ahead on clean energy investments in the next economy, that’s not going to take America where we need to go.

Finally Otto refers to ScienceDebate2012 as he describes it, ‘a grassroots campaign for a presidential debate on science, technology, health, medicine and the environment’. Which was born out of Science Debate 2008 which was the largest political initiative in the history of American science.

We are on a journey from a linear world to a non-linear one (click here for more information) and we need good science to come with us. To attempt to shout down science, diminishes us all and limits the possibilities of our world.

For more information on Otto’s perspective read New Scientist October 27th 2011 (subscription required) or the Huffington Post- The un-American war on Science.

Shawn Otto has written book called Fool Me Twice: fighting thee assault on science in America

Existing models of crowd behaviour  treat moving masses of humanity as though they were fluids. This works, up to a point. But it often fails to predict the changes that happen as a crowd’s density increases and its movement becomes chaotic.

Apparently marching soldiers will automatically break step on a suspension bridge – and over the last 5 years or so I have been fascinated by all sorts of participatory cultures – here is a selection of posts that explores such a fascinating and increasingly important area of investigation

This was never a tech revolution in the same way Gutenberg’s printing press was a tech rev – it was like in Tunisia, Egypt, Libiya, and throughout the western world; a revolt against power, corporate power, political power who has it and who wields it – its interesting to note that Umar Haque although working for Havas struggles with the ethics of living in a world which is unfair. He is I believe representative of many. But the powerful are now beginning the pinch of the powerless, where people sick and tired of the same shit, are learning to get what they need from each other – institutionally American Government has failed, business are failing and we need a new literacy in which people know how to create new and better things. The fact was nobody was really prepared to listen not until it was too late.

Communities Dominate Brands is six years old and yet people still tell me from RIM, to Disney, to startups that it is still mandatory reading. I don’t do it very often but hurrah for us.

You can buy it HERE

Over a matter of days, the code was hacked and made open. As a consequence, (Inside the race to hack the Kinect)

The hackers’ success has unlocked what promises to be a revolution in robotics research. At robotics company Willow Garage in Palo Alto, California, researchers have bought around 20 Kinects. “We’re losing count,” says engineer Ken Conley. He and colleagues have shown that multiple Kinects can be combined without generating interference and are currently integrating the device into the company’s PR2 robot.

At the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, engineer Philipp Robbel has already run a proof-of-concept experiment in which he used the Kinect to provide vision for a robot. He says the Kinect could one day help produce cheap robots that could scour disaster areas for victims.

All amazing stuff – of course the story questions orthodox issues around IP, the nature of value creation, innovation and entrepreneurship – what is shared or what be shared to kickstart innovation and what is not. Commonwealth in the networked society [3] Big Pharma

As this video shows Kinect controlling Windows 7

And body dysmorphic disorder

Body Dysmorphic Disorder from flight404 on Vimeo.