I think forcing people to conform to computer systems is mistaken, mainly because it means reducing the creativity and thought processes of a human to the more limited input for the computer. It also means that new people always have to learn the systems.

If we were to stop being so lazy and make the computer systems flexible and adaptable to what people need then not only will they be received better, they will require less learning, because they will be able to adapt to new people.

I would really like to see that come to market. 

I would readily welcome the possibility of having my commute to work reduced to an opportunity to catch a longer wink in the morning, and in the evening I would happily read a book.

I vote for a double system, one for those who can't be bothered thinking and one for the other people, it already works with the mac, let idiots use macs and let the rest use PC's, but DON'T make PC's into macs (the vista experiment).
Same applies for other systems/appliances/car in the world, keep a choice.
I don't need a thing in my car tracking me at all times so it can automatically call help when I drive off a cliff for instance, thanks.
And perhaps there should be a choice in the political arena too, let's divide all the countries in 2, one for who wants some dumbass to tell them what to do and what's right and wrong, the kind of people who argue "if you didn't do anything wrong you don't mind complete tracking and control by the holy dorks", and the other half for the rest, also one half for religious soandso's, the other for atheist.

Human error is still the rate limiting factor. As systems continue to be dumbed down to peacefully coexist with the lowest common denominator, they encounter more stupid. Systems are made more complex to eliminate human errors. Predictably, the system is blamed instead of the dysfunctional boob who should have stuck to using something simpler.

ScottJ