Apple is a "Master's Workshop" set up in the spirit of some of the world's great architectural firms. There is a visionary who leads and provides the Passion that allows others in their roles to feel like they're doing the Lord's work. There are very capable lieutenants, but the vision of the master rules the day. The master knows he's beholden to the effort of his lieutenants, and makes sure they are motivated by the Passion and well-compensated for their effort.

Great things aren't made by committee, at least not in the crowdsourced sense. When you make your money providing a consistently great user experience, more is not better. Again, this goes back to the "Master's Workshop" structure. Great architecture is not made via the blended vision of 25 individuals; it was one person's vision, well-executed by a team of 25.

The reason for the one voice is also strategic. Fewer leaks = more hype. You'll notice the clamor for the Apple Tablet started over a year ago, and none of it came from Apple. It still doesn't, and we're a day from the likely announcement of the device. Unlike some companies who announce products with world-altering features and nebulous shipping dates, Apple doesn't announce until the vision of the product is perfect - and only then on their terms.

So people can whine about Apple's closed nature if they want. The company's restricted access and the use of Apple's products by creative, free-thinking individuals have nothing to do with each other. This is perhaps ironic in only the most cursory definition of the word. In order for them to create the products they want to create, on their schedule, this level of control is not just desirable, it's essential. Great products are visions, not zoo exhibits, regardless of how butthurt the people who don't have access to the vision feel about their roles outside the process.

Global warming and global cooling are phenomena that have cycled through the planet's history. Our ignorance of patterns that have preceeded our ability to detect them (or even eluded our ability, as much climate documentation, especially in the early 20th century, is absent or incomplete) have contributed to a state of attribution. If the technology that currently exists were around in the centuries before the last ice age, what would be its cause? Would earth's industrialization prevented it? I doubt it. Does it have a role the warming of parts of the globe (and the cooling of others, incidentially)? Possibly. The fact that scientists need to be authorized to speak to the media and are irked by an inability to do so freely should hardly come as a shock to anyone who has worked with 1. scientists 2. the media 3. anyone who is quoted in the media who isn't a former PR vice president. The media picks up on the most polarizing piece of research and is not shy about abusing it to pick up viewers and/or readers. And God forbid we dare to think that a research may "direct" her research towards an end that would support a prevailing climate theory. People with knowledge, especially when their voice is tied to current or future government policy. The image of scientists being "gagged" is ignorant. The image of an employer wanting to control the message communicated to a fickle media is a necessary evil.