Tuesday, June 08, 2010
Pandora Working In The Background On iPhone 4. Awesome. [Video]
Pandora Working In The Background On iPhone 4. Awesome. [Video]
by MG Siegler on Jun 7, 2010
By now, you’ve undoubtedly heard about all the big features of both iPhone 4 and iOS 4 (the artist formerly known as iPhone OS 4, which we heard about previously). But something that Apple didn’t address too much today was a feature I’m most looking forward to: background tasks. I was pretty sure that being able to run apps like Pandora in the background while I do other things on the iPhone was going to be awesome. And I confirmed that today.
During the hands-on time after the keynote today at WWDC, I got a chance to play around with a new version of Pandora — one that runs in the background with iOS 4. As you can see in the video below, the way Apple does this is both smart and seamless.
There are a new set of music controls at the bottom of the screen when you double-click the home button and swipe once to the left. Normally, these controls are for the iPod app on the iPhone, but when you start a song on Pandora and then leave, Pandora is able to take over these controls. This means that not only can you listen to Pandora music in the background, but you can control it without having to go back into the Pandora app itself.
Simply put: this is a killer feature and will make one of the most popular apps of all time on the iPhone (Pandora) even more popular. Those new investors must be happy.
get widgetminimize
Pandora
by MG Siegler on Jun 7, 2010
By now, you’ve undoubtedly heard about all the big features of both iPhone 4 and iOS 4 (the artist formerly known as iPhone OS 4, which we heard about previously). But something that Apple didn’t address too much today was a feature I’m most looking forward to: background tasks. I was pretty sure that being able to run apps like Pandora in the background while I do other things on the iPhone was going to be awesome. And I confirmed that today.
During the hands-on time after the keynote today at WWDC, I got a chance to play around with a new version of Pandora — one that runs in the background with iOS 4. As you can see in the video below, the way Apple does this is both smart and seamless.
There are a new set of music controls at the bottom of the screen when you double-click the home button and swipe once to the left. Normally, these controls are for the iPod app on the iPhone, but when you start a song on Pandora and then leave, Pandora is able to take over these controls. This means that not only can you listen to Pandora music in the background, but you can control it without having to go back into the Pandora app itself.
Simply put: this is a killer feature and will make one of the most popular apps of all time on the iPhone (Pandora) even more popular. Those new investors must be happy.
get widgetminimize
Pandora
The Difference Engine
The Difference Engine Episode 6 from The Difference Engine on Vimeo.
The Difference Engine Episode 6.
Its the final episode of the Difference Engine tv - culminating in the teams pitching to Angel Investors and VCs at Microsoft London to continue the progress they have made over the last 13 weeks.
The Difference Engine Episode 5 from The Difference Engine on Vimeo.
The Difference Engine Episode 4 from The Difference Engine on Vimeo.
The Difference Engine Episode 3 from The Difference Engine on Vimeo.
Transit As A Catalyst For Community
Imagine KC from Arnold Imaging on Vimeo.
Imagine KC from Arnold Imaging on Vimeo.
Jonathan Arnold of Arnold Imaging submitted a lovely video with light rail as the protagonist, and catalyst, for positive (climate) change, spurring “pedestrian-friendly developments” and “walkable, smart growth communities” in Kansas City. The design team concepted, animated and edited this video for Kansas City Public Television as part of their Imagine KC series.
Beautiful work. Thanks for the contribution!
Climate Change: What’s All The Fuss About?
Innocent Drinks really has it figured out. On top of sustainable packaging, natural ingredients, and playful marketing copy, this UK juice company is leading the pack when it comes to resource efficiency. They’ve been focusing on reducing their carbon footprint for several years now, measuring their impact “from farm to fridge to recycling bin”; and they’ve succeeded so far at reducing the footprint of their 250ml smoothie by 21%.
Innocent’s efforts to do right by the consumer, and the environment, are carried out humbly, with the sort of attitude that builds brand loyalty. They say, “We sure aren’t perfect, but we’re trying to do the right thing.” Building on this, Jess, head of sustainability for Innocent Drinks, has created a video shout-out for COP15, asking viewers, “What’s all the fuss about?”
She stresses that climate change is not a future issue; it is already here and now: “When I was in India earlier this year visiting our mango farmers, they talked to me about the changes they were already seeing in the climate: warmer winters, hailstorms, and changes in the monsoon – when before you could set your clock by it.”
What are the implications of a continued trajectory of increased carbon emissions? Environmental consequences, for sure. But also financial. The current global economic crisis has nothing on what could be coming. So, says Jess, “We have to pull our heads out of the sand. We need countries all around the world to commit to ambitious emission reduction targets now. And to the investment that will be required to meet those targets. And protect those most vulnerable to the impacts.”
The time is now. And Copenhagen is the place. Cheers, Innocent!
Climate Win = Producing Consumers + Carbon-neutral Travel?
Munich 2030: 1 from IDEO on Vimeo.
Munich 2030: 1 from IDEO on Vimeo.
Ahoy, Cool Consumption Yachts! Step aboard the Transrapid Party Train! And get ready for the future of travel, brought to you by the IDEO Munich team, who decided to focus their video sketch on a family grappling with climate change by way of everyday decisions, such as how to spend money (or carbon credits) and where (and how) to travel, with the least amount of environmental harm.
In support of their vision, they consulted with Drs. Susanne Kadner and Timm Zwickel from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, and received an overview of the current situation, as well as the underlying science supporting predictions for the decades to come.
They looked into such things as the Smart Grid, which gives individuals the capacity to be both energy consumers and producers, and the Super Smart Grid, which interconnects a variety of energy production technologies while stabilizing the overall availability of power, even when natural sources, like wind and sunlight, are uncertain.
They learned about the complexity of managing the trade-offs when it comes to powering various modes of transport. (Using biofuels in jets, for instance, emits steam in the atmosphere, which contributes to the formation of cirrus clouds, which creates more greenhouse warming than CO2.) In a global move to electric power, it will be much easier to convert trains than cars, as many trains are already electric, where cars require a redesign of infrastructure.
Water use will also need to shift in response to availability and need, as so much of it is now unproportionally allocated to big industries like tourism and agriculture (in non-native growing regions). The water question becomes “How do we best use what we have for the greater good?”
On a human behavioral level, they discovered the hot debate between adaptation (changing our behavior in the future based on the climate changes that will happen) and mitigation (changing our behavior now to avoid future changes in climate). Only time will tell. However, they say Nicholas Stern, of the Stern Review, argues that mitigation not only achieves a better outcome, but it also costs less in the long run.
Maybe the father in the video sums it up best? “There are plenty of options to live big without destroying the world in the process. Life’s too short.” What do you think?
Strategy For A Climate Safe 2050
German actor Daniel Brühl helps WWF tackle climate change.
WWF Germany, with the help of Prognos, Öko-Institut and Dr. Zlesing, has released Blueprint Germany: A Strategy For A Climate Safe 2050 – a report that shows that the transformation from a high-carbon to a low-carbon economy is possible and affordable. By committing to this transformation path, the report states, “Germany could become a model for other countries.”
Like Living Climate Change, WWF Germany wants to trigger a discussion about the future. The study provides as many answers as questions. Main assumptions in the report, all of which are supported with suggestions on “how we can make it happen”:
1. A low carbon society is achievable!
2. A 95% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in Germany by the year 2050 is possible.
3. Renewable energy has a key role to play.
4. Low carbon products will bring about a new industrial revolution.
5. Electric appliances go low on power.
6. Buildings become more energy-saving.
7. Farmers work hard for the table and the climate.
8. Transport electrifies.
Key questions they leave us with: How must a highly industrialized and technology-based society be designed in order to reach the goal (of reducing greenhouse gases by around 95%)? Which political safeguards and technical preconditions are needed for this transformation if stability and prosperity are also to be warranted? How can we live well in 2050 without dangerously changing our climate?
The full length report is available hier. (Denken Sie, bevor Sie drucken.)
JWT Pinpoints Paper As Opportunity Area
JunkWasteTrash from John Reis on Vimeo.
JunkWasteTrash from John Reis on Vimeo.
Deborah Nall of J. Walter Thompson (JWT), the advertising powerhouse famous for stating that “We create ideas for our clients that people want to spend time with,” brought the above video to our attention.
She writes, “The green group at JWT, known as JunkWasteTrash, put together a video about utilizing both sides of a piece of paper when we switched to duplex printing.” And the memo that went along with it went something like this:
Just like the song says, you “don’t gotta do nothing.” From here on out, your computer will automatically default to double-sided printing (aka duplex printing). If yours don’t work, call IT (x7157) tomorrow.
Why all the fuss? After a year, our carbon footprint will have shrunk by 24 tons of greenhouse gases, 80 thousand gallons of waste water, 4.2 tons of landfill waste and almost 4 tons of paper. Yee haw!
Way to go, JWT. Thanks for doubling up!
Climate Fail = Expensive Engineering + Underground Economy?
Munich 2030: 2 from IDEO on Vimeo.
Munich 2030: 2 from IDEO on Vimeo.
What might happen if we fail to reach a global climate accord in Copenhagen? The IDEO Munich team responds with their second video, reuniting us with the same characters and scenario, but immersing us in a much dimmer view of the future. There’s no sight of Cool Consumption Yachts or Transrapid Party Trains. Sulfair replaces Greenwash Air, with a patented sulfur-shaded technology that cools the planet while passengers soar through the skies at exorbitant prices.
In order to cover the fares (and “supplemental fuel spike insurance”), we see bored but clever Leander resorting to black market trading, while his parents discuss other forms of creative financing. It seems, in this future scenario, there are no other options. No carbon credits built into the financial system. No alternative modes of transportation. And very little in the way of proactivity.
As the climate talks draw nearer, does this vision motivate you to get involved? How might we creatively engage now to ensure a more positive outcome in the years to come?
City Limits + Connected Communities
Sam and Dave Save the World from IDEO on Vimeo.
Sam and Dave Save the World from IDEO on Vimeo.
In “Sam and Dave Save the World,” the IDEO Chicago team elected to explore climate change through the constraints of a typical American city. Conceptually, they felt that if a city were a place to escape to (or from), or a place within which one could live without limits, then it would not be a workable city. So they decided to portray a city with limits, as a contained space, by way of a “single house” (as illustrated by the Foam core prototypes in the piece).
You’ll see two side-by-side stories about two neighbors who respond very differently to climate change. Sam reacts; Dave responds. Sam adapts; Dave searches for solutions. The split-screen storytelling technique is effective for calling out these distinctions.
As you watch the video, what do you think the best choices are for stop-motion Sam and Dave? How might they be better informed, or inspired to change their ways? Can the distribution of meaningful information make a difference? And what about the network effect of a connected community?
Our Invitation To You from IDEO on Vimeo. Directed by Roshi Givechi
Our Invitation To You from IDEO on Vimeo.
As climate change touches every aspect of our lives, how will it change us? How will we adapt? Living Climate Change is a devoted space for the most defining design challenge of our time. It’s also a place to support fresh thinking and share provocative ideas about the future.
Hosted by IDEO, a global design and innovation company, Living Climate Change aims to support conversations beyond policy and national sacrifice in order to point toward new possibilities. Moving the debate away from what we have to give up toward what we can create, this site is born from the conviction that design has a role to play in addressing the global issue of climate change. We aspire to support the conversation by asking good questions and exploring creative solutions in an optimistic and real-world way.
Living Climate Change invites you to imagine what life will be like in 20 or 30 years, as we move along a path toward reduced carbon emissions. Will the targets be reached? Which behaviors will need to change? Which will we choose to preserve?
Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? Episode 04: "THIS LAND IS MY LAND"
PART ONE: THIS LAND IS MY LAND
The philosopher John Locke believes that individuals have certain rights so fundamental that no government can ever take them away. These rights—to life, liberty and property—were given to us as human beings in the the state of nature, a time before government and laws were created. According to Locke, our natural rights are governed by the law of nature, known by reason, which says that we can neither give them up nor take them away from anyone else. Sandel wraps up the lecture by raising a question: what happens to our natural rights once we enter society and consent to a system of laws?
PART TWO: CONSENTING ADULTS
If we all have unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property, how can a government enforce tax laws passed by the representatives of a mere majority? Doesnt that amount to taking some peoples property without their consent? Lockes response is that we give our tacit consent to obey the tax laws passed by a majority when we choose to live in a society. Therefore, taxation is legitimate and compatible with individual rights, as long as it applies to everyone and does not arbitrarily single anyone out.
The philosopher John Locke believes that individuals have certain rights so fundamental that no government can ever take them away. These rights—to life, liberty and property—were given to us as human beings in the the state of nature, a time before government and laws were created. According to Locke, our natural rights are governed by the law of nature, known by reason, which says that we can neither give them up nor take them away from anyone else. Sandel wraps up the lecture by raising a question: what happens to our natural rights once we enter society and consent to a system of laws?
PART TWO: CONSENTING ADULTS
If we all have unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property, how can a government enforce tax laws passed by the representatives of a mere majority? Doesnt that amount to taking some peoples property without their consent? Lockes response is that we give our tacit consent to obey the tax laws passed by a majority when we choose to live in a society. Therefore, taxation is legitimate and compatible with individual rights, as long as it applies to everyone and does not arbitrarily single anyone out.
Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? Episode 03: "FREE TO CHOSE"
ART ONE: FREE TO CHOOSE
Sandel introduces the libertarian conception of individual rights, according to which only a minimal state is justified. Libertarians argue that government shouldnt have the power to enact laws that 1) protect people from themselves, such as seat belt laws, 2) impose some peoples moral values on society as a whole, or 3) redistribute income from the rich to the poor. Sandel explains the libertarian notion that redistributive taxation is akin to forced labor with references to Bill Gates and Michael Jordan.
PART TWO: WHO OWNS ME?
Libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick makes the case that taxing the wealthy—to pay for housing, health care, and education for the poor—is a form of coercion. Students first discuss the arguments behind redistributive taxation. Dont most poor people need the social services they receive in order to survive? If you live in a society that has a system of progressive taxation, arent you obligated to pay your taxes? Dont many rich people often acquire their wealth through sheer luck or family fortune? A group of students dubbed Team Libertarian volunteers to defend the libertarian philosophy against these objections.
Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? Episode 02: "PUTTING A PRICE TAG ON LIFE"
PART ONE: PUTTING A PRICE TAG ON LIFE
Today, companies and governments often use Jeremy Benthams utilitarian logic under the name of cost-benefit analysis. Sandel presents some contemporary cases in which cost-benefit analysis was used to put a dollar value on human life. The cases give rise to several objections to the utilitarian logic of seeking the greatest good for the greatest number. Should we always give more weight to the happiness of a majority, even if the majority is cruel or ignoble? Is it possible to sum up and compare all values using a common measure like money?
PART TWO: HOW TO MEASURE PLEASURE
Sandel introduces J.S. Mill, a utilitarian philosopher who attempts to defend utilitarianism against the objections raised by critics of the doctrine. Mill argues that seeking the greatest good for the greatest number is compatible with protecting individual rights, and that utilitarianism can make room for a distinction between higher and lower pleasures. Mills idea is that the higher pleasure is always the pleasure preferred by a well-informed majority. Sandel tests this theory by playing video clips from three very different forms of entertainment: Shakespeares Hamlet, the reality show Fear Factor, and The Simpsons. Students debate which experience provides the higher pleasure, and whether Mills defense of utilitarianism is successful.
PART ONE: THE MORAL SIDE OF MURDER
PART ONE: THE MORAL SIDE OF MURDER
If you had to choose between (1) killing one person to save the lives of five others and (2) doing nothing even though you knew that five people would die right before your eyes if you did nothing—what would you do? What would be the right thing to do? Thats the hypothetical scenario Professor Michael Sandel uses to launch his course on moral reasoning. After the majority of students votes for killing the one person in order to save the lives of five others, Sandel presents three similar moral conundrums—each one artfully designed to make the decision more difficult. As students stand up to defend their conflicting choices, it becomes clear that the assumptions behind our moral reasoning are often contradictory, and the question of what is right and what is wrong is not always black and white.
PART TWO: THE CASE FOR CANNIBALISM
Sandel introduces the principles of utilitarian philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, with a famous nineteenth century legal case involving a shipwrecked crew of four. After nineteen days lost at sea, the captain decides to kill the weakest amongst them, the young cabin boy, so that the rest can feed on his blood and body to survive. The case sets up a classroom debate about the moral validity of utilitarianism—and its doctrine that the right thing to do is whatever produces "the greatest good for the greatest number."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
