Couple of days ago I read an IEEE journal article about Google's "NaCl" (Native Client), which was published in the beginning of 2010 (and in a first version of that in 2009). Now, meaning two days ago, David Springer talked at Google I/O 2011 about it:
After reading the article I thought this is quite useless, nevertheless interesting, because it would be yet another browser plugin people need to install. And since there is already this debate about Flash and that it's all dispensable nowadays because we got HTML5 now, I felt this won't have a big future.
Micheal Nielsen has the idea that science should become more open than it is nowadays. He argues that scientists horde their knowledge without noticing that it would be of greater value (for themselves and especially for others) to make that knowledge available to the community.
The main problem, Nielsen claims, is that scientists don't have enough time to do what is obviously the right thing to do. So instead of contributing to a (open) project, they are forced by the current scientific nature to write as many publications as possible in order to gain their value and to get well paid jobs.
Well, I don't see myself as a real scientist (at least not yet), but I can clearly understand the problem here. With that little insight I have to the scientific world, I already noticed that papers seem to be the most important things scientist need to do. Since writing reports or papers is not my favourite leisure activity, I somehow that this situation will change quickly -- I don't want to sit all day long in my room typing boring papers nobody understands (or even wants to read) just because I am supposed to do so to get enough money out of my (future) job.