I think by "beat" they may mean Apple will be the first to market. It won't necessarily be more open, or a better service, but it will be first.

I always thought Apple should buy TiVo's patents and tech and rebrand the failed AppleTV. Apple has the cash, marketing position, and design gurus to make an amazingly elegant, easy to use device integrated with beautiful TVs and screens, with all the backend apps to add value (iTunes integration, iMovie, etc.), and TiVo has the all the original patents that Apple could afford to defend. And Apple could turn into the big bullies themselves against the cable companies, especially if they can lobby for net neutrality legislation.

Seems like a perfect marriage to me.

That's what you get when you give a large, disorganized group the right to make a decision. They will likely make the one choice you didn't want. Frankly, they're lucky not to have the thing named with some sort of phallic euphemism one would expect from a classroom full of 12-year-old boys.

Stop asking the "interwebs" their useless opinion on something, and use it as an opportunity for raising the funds necessary to do what they want to do. This is a perfect opportunity for product placement and naming rights.

Sell the naming rights to, say, AIG or General Motors or Chrysler, for several billion dollars they have lying around, and allow them to install some sort of immensely powerful, solar-charged LED signage viewable on the planet's surface by anyone with a cheap pair of binoculars. They could, in turn, sell advertising on the sign to others, creating the first space-based branding/advertising medium.

Goodyear would likely jump on this in a heartbeat.

I deal with this on a daily basis. From a complete documentation point of view, the real need is to document overall goals, processes that work to achieve those goals, and procedures that support each of your processes.

The difficulty is, even in a reasonably small organization, this fans out to an enormous number of documents. The idea of Folding + Wiki is interesting, but of real value would be a system that allows you to declare a procedure (a step-by-step description of a function) that maps to a corresponding process (more general or conceptual description of the hows or whys), which in turn easily maps to the overall goal.

Example:
I can set a Goal that is a 99.99% SLA for applications I have to support. The goal document would describe the SLA and possible exceptions, who requires it, etc.

I can set up Process that state that each system in each of the applications will be monitored every 5 minutes, and notification of problems will be communicated to OPS staff immediately. The Process would describe any tools used to do this.

Then, I would have a series of Procedures describing what to do in case of a problem with any individual hardware or software component within any of the applications. These would be step-by-step, and would not necessarily require the user to have any special knowledge.

Problem is - I have yet to find a system that allows me to put these together and easily link them, allowing a user to understand what to do, and why it's being done, all by looking through the Goal-Process-Procedure linkage. If they can understand what, how, and why, they can better deal with problems that arise that we haven't accounted for, and assist in making procedures for those as they arise.

Guess I need to start writing one...

First steps are to see if the hypothesis produces valid results. If it does, then you need to perform a risk assessment based on side affects like other gene alterations or perhaps the creation of a super-virus (see I Am Legend).

If those issues can be overcome, then you can look at the practicality of providing this therapy to a) everyone with drug-resistant strains, b) everyone infected at all, and/or c) everyone, for use as a vaccine (if viable).

Still a LONG way away from looking at the price tag. This is at least 10 years away from that stage assuming no problems arise.

I agree, however, that people should be given the option of participation in more extreme experiments given few to no other options. There isn't a whole lot to lose for them, in many cases.

Actually, you can lose space due to the requirements of making the thing User-Proof.
It's not just an aesthetics issue with a seam in the case. When making the battery compartment accessible to the user, you must design, install, and test a whole suite of physical mechanisms and electronics that hold the battery securely, allow for easy removal/replacement, and keeps it safe from users doing things like getting dirt in the cavity and in the connectors, or incorrectly installing the battery,...all sorts of usability and safety issues.
When making the battery removable, there are even MORE issues with safety, portability, etc. that come in to play. This requires the manufacturers to put safeguards in place that aren't necessarily required if the user will never be touching the thing. Building it in can make the battery cheaper to make, and possibly allow them to build it with more juice capacity in a smaller, lighter form.
Don't get me wrong - I'd love the ability to change my battery when I like, and have a spare or two available for long sessions without a power outlet. But if I can double the life of the battery right off the bat, I might be willing to compromise.