Exhibit 2007
`Exhibit 2007
`
`

`
`09-91 SCI AMER WEISER *** 1
`
`Scientific American Ubicomp Paper after Sci Am editing
`
`one more final edit from me to go
`
`The Computer for the 21st Century
`
`Mark Weiser
`
`The most profound technologies are those that disappear. They weave themselves into the fabric of everyday life
`until they are indistinguishable from it.
`
`Consider writing, perhaps the first information technology: The ability to capture a symbolic representation of
`spoken language for long-term storage freed information from the limits of individual memory. Today this
`technology is ubiquitous in industrialized countries. Not only do books, magazines and newspapers convey
`written information, but so do street signs, billboards, shop signs and even graffiti. Candy wrappers are covered
`in writing. The constant background presence of these products of "literacy technology" does not require active
`attention, but the information to be conveyed is ready for use at a glance. It is difficult to imagine modern life
`otherwise.
`
`Silicon-based information technology, in contrast, is far from having become part of the environment. More than
`50 million personal computers have been sold, and nonetheless the computer remains largely in a world of its
`own. It is approachable only through complex jargon that has nothing to do with the tasks for which which
`people actually use computers. The state of the art is perhaps analogous to the period when scribes had to know
`as much about making ink or baking clay as they did about writing.
`
`The arcane aura that surrounds personal computers is not just a "user interface" problem. My colleagues and I at
`PARC think that the idea of a "personal" computer itself is misplaced, and that the vision of laptop machines,
`dynabooks and "knowledge navigators" is only a transitional step toward achieving the real potential of
`information technology. Such machines cannot truly make computing an integral, invisible part of the way
`people live their lives. Therefore we are trying to conceive a new way of thinking about computers in the world,
`one that takes into account the natural human environment and allows the computers themselves to vanish into
`the background.
`
`Such a disappearance is a fundamental consequence not of technology, but of human psychology. Whenever
`people learn something sufficiently well, they cease to be aware of it. When you look at a street sign, for
`example, you absorb its information without consciously performing the act of reading.. Computer scientist,
`economist, and Nobelist Herb Simon calls this phenomenon "compiling"; philosopher Michael Polanyi calls it
`the "tacit dimension"; psychologist TK Gibson calls it "visual invariants"; philosophers Georg Gadamer and
`Martin Heidegger call it "the horizon" and the "ready-to-hand", John Seely Brown at PARC calls it the
`"periphery". All say, in essence, that only when things disappear in this way are we freed to use them without
`thinking and so to focus beyond them on new goals.
`
`The idea of integrating computers seamlessly into the world at large runs counter to a number of present-day
`trends. "Ubiquitous computing" in this context does not just mean computers that can be carried to the beach,
`jungle or airport. Even the most powerful notebook computer, with access to a worldwide information network,
`still focuses attention on a single box. By analogy to writing, carrying a super-laptop is like owning just one
`very important book. Customizing this book, even writing millions of other books, does not begin to capture the
`real power of literacy.
`
`Furthermore, although ubiquitous computers may employ sound and video in addition to text and graphics, that
`
`

`
`does not make them "multimedia computers." Today's multimedia machine makes the computer screen into a
`demanding focus of attention rather than allowing it to fade into the background.
`
`Perhaps most diametrically opposed to our vision is the notion of "virtual reality," which attempts to make a
`world inside the computer. Users don special goggles that project an artificial scene on their eyes; they wear
`gloves or even body suits that sense their motions and gestures so that they can move about and manipulate
`virtual objects. Although it may have its purpose in allowing people to explore realms otherwise inaccessible --
`the insides of cells, the surfaces of distant planets, the information web of complex databases -- virtual reality is
`only a map, not a territory. It excludes desks, offices, other people not wearing goggles and body suits, weather,
`grass, trees, walks, chance encounters and in general the infinite richness of the universe. Virtual reality focuses
`an enormous apparatus on simulating the world rather than on invisibly enhancing the world that already exists.
`
`Indeed, the opposition between the notion of virtual reality and ubiquitous, invisible computing is so strong that
`some of us use the term "embodied virtuality" to refer to the process of drawing computers out of their
`electronic shells. The "virtuality" of computer-readable data -- all the different ways in which it can be altered,
`processed and analyzed -- is brought into the physical world.
`
`How do technologies disappear into the background? The vanishing of electric motors may serve as an
`instructive example: At the turn of the century, a typical workshop or factory contained a single engine that
`drove dozens or hundreds of different machines through a system of shafts and pulleys. Cheap, small, efficient
`electric motors made it possible first to give each machine or tool its own source of motive force, then to put
`many motors into a single machine.
`
`A glance through the shop manual of a typical automobile, for example, reveals twenty-two motors and
`twenty-five more solenoids. They start the engine, clean the windshield, lock and unlock the doors, and so on.
`By paying careful attention it might be possible to know whenever one activated a motor, but there would be no
`point to it.
`
`Most of the computers that participate in embodied virtuality will be invisible in fact as well as in metaphor.
`Already computers in light switches, thermostats, stereos and ovens help to activate the world. These machines
`and more will be interconnected in a ubiquitous network. As computer scientists, however, my colleagues and I
`have focused on devices that transmit and display information more directly. We have found two issues of
`crucial importance: location and scale. Little is more basic to human perception than physical juxtaposition, and
`so ubiquitous computers must know where they are. (Today's computers, in contrast, have no idea of their
`location and surroundings.) If a computer merely knows what room it is in, it can adapt its behavior in
`significant ways without requiring even a hint of artificial intelligence.
`
`Ubiquitous computers will also come in different sizes, each suited to a particular task. My colleagues and I
`have built what we call tabs, pads and boards: inch-scale machines that approximate active Post-It notes,
`foot-scale ones that behave something like a sheet of paper (or a book or a magazine), and yard-scale displays
`that are the equivalent of a blackboard or bulletin board.
`
`How many tabs, pads, and board-sized writing and display surfaces are there in a typical room? Look around
`you: at the inch scale include wall notes, titles on book spines, labels on controls, thermostats and clocks, as well
`as small pieces of paper. Depending upon the room you may see more than a hundred tabs, ten or twenty pads,
`and one or two boards. This leads to our goals for initially deploying the hardware of embodied virtuality:
`hundreds of computers per room.
`
`Hundreds of computers in a room could seem intimidating at first, just as hundreds of volts coursing through
`wires in the walls did at one time. But like the wires in the walls, these hundreds of computers will come to be
`invisible to common awareness. People will simply use them unconsciously to accomplish everyday tasks.
`
`Tabs are the smallest components of embodied virtuality. Because they are interconnected, tabs will expand on
`
`

`
`the usefulness of existing inch-scale computers such as the pocket calculator and the pocket organizer. Tabs will
`also take on functions that no computer performs today. For example, Olivetti Cambridge Research Labs
`pioneered active badges, and now computer scientists at PARC and other research laboratories around the world
`are working with these clip-on computers roughly the size of an employee ID card. These badges can identify
`themselves to receivers placed throughout a building, thus making it possible to keep track of the people or
`objects to which they are attached.
`
`In our experimental embodied virtuality, doors open only to the right badge wearer, rooms greet people by
`name, telephone calls can be automatically forwarded to wherever the recipient may be, receptionists actually
`know where people are, computer terminals retrieve the preferences of whoever is sitting at them, and
`appointment diaries write themselves. No revolution in artificial intelligence is needed--just the proper
`imbedding of computers into the everday world. The automatic diary shows how such a simple thing as
`knowing where people are can yield complex dividends: meetings, for example, consist of several people
`spending time in the same room, and the subject of a meeting is most likely the files called up on that room's
`display screen while the people are there.
`
`My colleague Roy Want has designed a tab incorporating a small display that can serve simultaneously as an
`active badge, calendar and diary. It will also act as an extension to computer screens: instead of shrinking a
`program window down to a small icon on the screen, for example, a user will be able to shrink the window onto
`a tab display. This will leave the screen free for information and also let people arrange their computer-based
`projects in the area around their terminals, much as they now arrange paper-based projects in piles on desks and
`tables. Carrying a project to a different office for discussion is a simple as gathering up its tabs; the associated
`programs and files can be called up on any terminal.
`
`The next step up in size is the pad, something of a cross between a sheet of paper and current laptop and palmtop
`computers. Bob Krivacic at PARC has built a prototype pad that uses two microprocessors, a workstation-sized
`display, a multi-button stylus, and a radio network that can potentially handle hundreds of devices per person
`per room.
`
`Pads differ from conventional portable computers in one crucial way. Whereas portable computers go
`everywhere with their owners, the pad that must be carried from place to place is a failure. Pads are intended to
`be "scrap computers" (analogous to scrap paper) that can be grabbed and used anywhere; they have no
`individualized identity or importance.
`
`One way to think of pads is as an antidote to windows. Windows were invented at PARC and popularized by
`Apple in the Macintosh as a way of fitting several different activities onto the small space of a computer screen
`at the same time. In twenty years computer screens have not grown much larger. Computer window systems are
`often said to be based on the desktop metaphor--but who would ever use a desk whose surface area is only 9" by
`11"?
`
`Pads, in contrast, use a real desk. Spread many electronic pads around on the desk, just as you spread out papers.
`Have many tasks in front of you and use the pads as reminders. Go beyond the desk to drawers, shelves, coffee
`tables. Spread the many parts of the many tasks of the day out in front of you to fit both the task and the reach of
`your arms and eyes, rather than to fit the limitations of CRT glass-blowing. Someday pads may even be as small
`and light as actual paper, but meanwhile they can fulfill many more of paper's functions than can computer
`screens.
`
`Yard-size displays (boards) serve a number of purposes: in the home, video screens and bulletin boards; in the
`office, bulletin boards, whiteboards or flip charts. A board might also serve as an electronic bookcase from
`which one might download texts to a pad or tab. For the time being, however, the ability to pull out a book and
`place it comfortably on one's lap remains one of the many attractions of paper. Similar objections apply to using
`a board as a desktop; people will have to get used to using pads and tabs on a desk as an adjunct to computer
`screens before taking embodied virtuality even further.
`
`

`
`Boards built by Richard Bruce and Scott Elrod at PARC currently measure about 40 by 60 inches and display
`1024x768 black-and-white pixels. To manipulate the display, users pick up a piece of wireless electronic "chalk"
`that can work either in contact with the surface or from a distance. Some researchers, using themselves and their
`coleagues as guinea pigs, can hold electronically mediated meetings or engage in other forms of collaboration
`around a liveboard. Others use the boards as testbeds for improved display hardware, new "chalk" and
`interactive software.
`
`For both obvious and subtle reasons, the software that animates a large, shared display and its electronic chalk is
`not the same as that for a workstation. Switching back and forth between chalk and keyboard may involve
`walking several steps, and so the act is qualitatively different from using a keyboard and mouse. In addition,
`body size is an issue -- not everyone can reach the top of the board, so a Macintosh-style menu bar may not be a
`good idea.
`
`We have built enough liveboards to permit casual use: they have been placed in ordinary conference rooms and
`open areas, and no one need sign up or give advance notice before using them. By building and using these
`boards, researchers start to experience and so understand a world in which computer interaction casually
`enhances every room. Liveboards can usefully be shared across rooms as well as within them. In experiments
`instigated by Paul Dourish of EuroPARC and Sara Bly and Frank Halasz of PARC, groups at widely separated
`sites gathered around boards -- each displaying the same image -- and jointly composed pictures and drawings.
`They have even shared two boards across the Atlantic.
`
`Liveboards can also be used as bulletin boards. There is already too much data for people to read and
`comprehend all of it, and so Marvin Theimer and David Nichols at PARC have built a prototype system that
`attunes its public information to the people reading it. Their "scoreboard" requires little or no interaction from
`the user other than to look and to wear an active badge.
`
`Prototype tabs, pads and boards are just the beginning of ubiquitous computing. The real power of the concept
`comes not from any one of these devices; it emerges from the interaction of all of them. The hundreds of
`processors and displays are not a "user interface" like a mouse and windows, just a pleasant and effective
`"place" to get things done.
`
`What will be most pleasant and effective is that tabs can animate objects previously inert. They can beep to help
`locate mislaid papers, books or other items. File drawers can open and show the desired folder -- no searching.
`Tabs in library catalogs can make active maps to any book and guide searchers to it, even if it is off the shelf and
`on a table from the last reader.
`
`In presentations, the size of text on overhead slides, the volume of the amplified voice, even the amount of
`ambient light, can be determined not by accident or guess but by the desires of the listeners in the room at that
`moment. Software tools for instant votes and consensus checking are already in specialized use in electronic
`meeting rooms of large corporations; tabs can make them widespread.
`
`The technology required for ubiquitous computing comes in three parts: cheap, low-power computers that
`include equally convenient displays, a network that ties them all together, and software systems implementing
`ubiquitous applications. Current trends suggest that the first requirement will easily be met. Flat-panel displays
`containing 640x480 black-and-white pixels are now common. This is the standard size for PC's and is also about
`right for television. As long as laptop, palmtop and notebook computers continue to grow in popularity, display
`prices will fall, and resolution and quality will rise. By the end of the decade, a 1000x800-pixel high-contrast
`display will be a fraction of a centimeter thick and weigh perhaps 100 grams. A small battery will provide
`several days of continuous use.
`
`Larger displays are a somewhat different issue. If an interactive computer screen is to match a whiteboard in
`usefulness, it must be viewable from arm's length as well as from across a room. For close viewing the density
`
`

`
`of picture elements should be no worse than on a standard computer screen, about 80 per inch. Maintaining a
`density of 80 pixels per inch over an area several feet on a side implies displaying tens of millions of pixels. The
`biggest computer screen made today has only about one fourth this capacity. Such large displays will probably
`be expensive, but they should certainly be available.
`
`Central-processing unit speeds, meanwhile, reached a million instructions per second in 1986 and continue to
`double each year. Some industry observers believe that this exponential growth in raw chip speed may begin to
`level off about 1994, but that other measures of performance, including power consumption and auxiliary
`functions, will still improve. The 100-gram flat-panel display, then, might be driven by a single microprocessor
`chip that executes a billion operations per second and contains 16 megabytes of onboard memory along with
`sound, video and network interfaces. Such a processor would draw, on average, a few percent of the power
`required by the display.
`
`Auxiliary storage devices will augment the memory capacity. Conservative extrapolation of current technology
`suggests that match-book size removable hard disks (or the equivalent nonvolatile memory chips) will store
`about 60 megabytes each. Larger disks containing several gigabytes of information will be standard, and
`terabyte storage -- roughly the capacity of the Library of Congress -- will be common. Such enormous stores
`will not necessarily be filled to capacity with usable information. Abundant space will, however, allow radically
`different strategies of information management. A terabyte of space makes deleting old files virtually
`unnecessary, for example.
`
`Although processors and displays should be capable of offering ubiquitous computing by the end of the decade,
`trends in software and network technology are more problematic. Software systems today barely take any
`advantage of the computer network. Trends in "distributed computing" are to make networks appear like disks,
`memory, or other non-networked devices, rather than to exploit the unique capabilities of physical dispersion.
`The challenges show up in the design of operating systems and window systems.
`
`Today's operating sytems, like DOS and Unix, assume a relatively fixed configuration of hardware and software
`at their core. This makes sense for both mainframes and personal computers, because hardware or operating
`system software cannot reasonably be added without shutting down the machine. But in an embodied virtuality,
`local devices come and go, and depend upon the room and the people in it. New software for new devices may
`be needed at any time, and you'll never be able to shut off everything in the room at once. Experimental
`"micro-kernel" operating systems, such as those developed by Rick Rashid at Carnegie-Mellon University and
`Andy Tanenbaum at Vrije University in Amsterdam, offer one solution. Future operating systems based around
`tiny kernels of functionality may automatically shrink and grow to fit the dynamically changing needs of
`ubiquitous computing.
`
`Today's window systems, like Windows 3.0 and the X Window System, assume a fixed base computer on which
`information will be displayed. Although they can handle multiple screens, they do not do well with applications
`that start out in one place (screen, computer, or room) and then move to another. For higher performance they
`assume a fixed screen and input mode and use the local computer to store information about the application--if
`any of these change, the window system stops working for that application. Even window systems like X that
`were designed for use over networks have this problem--X still assumes that an application once started stays
`put. The solutions to this problem are in their infancy. Systems for shared windows, such as those from Brown
`University and Hewlett-Packard Corporation, help with windows, but have problems of performance, and do not
`work for all applications. There are no systems that do well with the diversity of inputs to be found in an
`embodied virtuality. A more general solution will require changing the kinds of protocols by which application
`programs and windows interact.
`
`The network connecting these computers has its own challenges. On the one hand, data transmission rates for
`both wired and wireless networks are increasing rapidly. Access to gigabit-per-second wired nets is already
`possible, although expensive, and will become progressively cheaper. (Gigabit networks will seldom devote all
`of their bandwidth to a single data stream; instead, they will allow enormous numbers of lower-speed
`
`

`
`transmissions to proceed simultaneously.) Small wireless networks, based on digital cellular telephone
`principles, currently offer data rates between two and 10 megabits per second over a range of a few hundred
`meters. Low-power wireless networks transmitting 250,000 bits per second to each station will eventually be
`available commercially.
`
`On the other hand, the transparent linking of wired and wireless networks is an unsolved problem. Although
`some stop-gap methods have been developed, engineers must develop new communication protocols that
`explicitly recognize the concept of machines that move in physical space. Furthermore the number of channels
`envisioned in most wireless network schemes is still very small, and the range large (50-100 meters), so that the
`total number of mobile devices is severely limited. The ability of such a system to support hundreds of machines
`in every room is out of the question. Single-room networks based on infrared or newer electromagnetic
`technologies have enough channel capacity for ubiquitous computers, but they can only work indoors.
`
`Present technologies would require a mobile device to have three different network connections: tiny range
`wireless, long range wireless, and very high speed wired. A single kind of network connection that can
`somehow serve all three functions has yet to be invented.
`
`Neither an explication of the principles of ubiquitous computing nor a list of the technologies involved really
`gives a sense of what it would be like to live in a world full of invisible widgets. To extrapolate from today's
`rudimentary fragments of embodied virtuality resembles an attempt to predict the publication of Finnegan's
`Wake after just having invented writing on clay tablets. Nevertheless the effort is probably worthwhile:
`
`Sal awakens: she smells coffee. A few minutes ago her alarm clock, alerted by her restless rolling before
`waking, had quietly asked "coffee?", and she had mumbled "yes." "Yes" and "no" are the only words it knows.
`
`Sal looks out her windows at her neighborhood. Sunlight and a fence are visible through one, but through others
`she sees electronic trails that have been kept for her of neighbors coming and going during the early morning.
`Privacy conventions and practical data rates prevent displaying video footage, but time markers and electronic
`tracks on the neighborhood map let Sal feel cozy in her street.
`
`Glancing at the windows to her kids' rooms she can see that they got up 15 and 20 minutes ago and are already
`in the kitchen. Noticing that she is up, they start making more noise.
`
`At breakfast Sal reads the news. She still prefers the paper form, as do most people. She spots an interesting
`quote from a columnist in the business section. She wipes her pen over the newspaper's name, date, section, and
`page number and then circles the quote. The pen sends a message to the paper, which transmits the quote to her
`office.
`
`Electronic mail arrives from the company that made her garage door opener. She lost the instruction manual, and
`asked them for help. They have sent her a new manual, and also something unexpected -- a way to find the old
`one. According to the note, she can press a code into the opener and the missing manual will find itself. In the
`garage, she tracks a beeping noise to where the oil-stained manual had fallen behind some boxes. Sure enough,
`there is the tiny tab the manufacturer had affixed in the cover to try to avoid E-mail requests like her own.
`
`On the way to work Sal glances in the foreview mirror to check the traffic. She spots a slowdown ahead, and
`also notices on a side street the telltale green in the foreview of a food shop, and a new one at that. She decides
`to take the next exit and get a cup of coffee while avoiding the jam.
`
`Once Sal arrives at work, the foreview helps her to quickly find a parking spot. As she walks into the building
`the machines in her office prepare to log her in, but don't complete the sequence until she actually enters her
`office. On her way, she stops by the offices of four or five colleagues to exchange greetings and news.
`
`Sal glances out her windows: a grey day in silicon valley, 75 percent humidity and 40 percent chance of
`
`

`
`afternoon showers; meanwhile, it has been a quiet morning at the East Coast office. Usually the activity
`indicator shows at least one spontaneous urgent meeting by now. She chooses not to shift the window on the
`home office back three hours -- too much chance of being caught by surprise. But she knows others who do,
`usually people who never get a call from the East but just want to feel involved.
`
`The telltale by the door that Sal programmed her first day on the job is blinking: fresh coffee. She heads for the
`coffee machine.
`
`Coming back to her office, Sal picks up a tab and "waves" it to her friend Joe in the design group, with whom
`she is sharing a virtual office for a few weeks. They have a joint assignment on her latest project. Virtual office
`sharing can take many forms--in this case the two have given each other access to their location detectors and to
`each other's screen contents and location. Sal chooses to keep miniature versions of all Joe's tabs and pads in
`view and 3-dimensionally correct in a little suite of tabs in the back corner of her desk. She can't see what
`anything says, but she feels more in touch with his work when noticing the displays change out of the corner of
`her eye, and she can easily enlarge anything if necessary.
`
`A blank tab on Sal's desk beeps, and displays the word "Joe" on it. She picks it up and gestures with it towards
`her liveboard. Joe wants to discuss a document with her, and now it shows up on the wall as she hears Joe's
`voice:
`
`"I've been wrestling with this third paragraph all morning and it still has the wrong tone. Would you mind
`reading it?"
`
`"No problem."
`
`Sitting back and reading the paragraph, Sal wants to point to a word. She gestures again with the "Joe" tab onto
`a nearby pad, and then uses the stylus to circle the word she wants:
`
`"I think it's this term 'ubiquitous'. Its just not in common enough use, and makes the whole thing sound a little
`formal. Can we rephrase the sentence to get rid of it?"
`
`"I'll try that. Say, by the way Sal, did you ever hear from Mary Hausdorf?"
`
`"No. Who's that?"
`
`"You remember, she was at the meeting last week. She told me she was going to get in touch with you."
`
`Sal doesn't remember Mary, but she does vaguely remember the meeting. She quickly starts a search for
`meetings in the past two weeks with more than 6 people not previously in meetings with her, and finds the one.
`The attendees' names pop up, and she sees Mary. As is common in meetings, Mary made some biographical
`information about herself available to the other attendees, and Sal sees some common background. She'll just
`send Mary a note and see what's up. Sal is glad Mary did not make the biography available only during the time
`of the meeting, as many people do...
`
`In addition to showing some of the ways that computers can find their way invisibly into people's lives, this
`speculation points up some of the social issues that embodied virtuality will engender. Perhaps key among them
`is privacy: hundreds of computers in every room, all capable of sensing people near them and linked by
`high-speed networks, have the potential to make totalitarianism up to now seem like sheerest anarchy. Just as a
`workstation on a local-area network can be programmed to intercept messages meant for others, a single rogue
`tab in a room could potentially record everything that happened there.
`
`Even today, although active badges and self-writing appointment diaries offer all kinds of convenience, in the
`wrong hands their information could be stifling. Not only corporate superiors or underlings, but overzealous
`
`

`
`government officials and even marketing firms could make unpleasant use of the same information that makes
`invisible computers so convenient.
`
`Fortunately, cryptographic techniques already exist to secure messages from one ubiquitous computer to another
`and to safeguard private information stored in networked systems. If designed into systems from the outset,
`these techniques can ensure that private data does not become public. A well-implemented version of ubiquitous
`computing could even afford better privacy protection than exists today. For example, schemes based on "digital
`pseudonyms" could eliminate the need to give out items of personal information that are routinely entrusted to
`the wires today, such as credit card number, social security number and address.
`
`Jim Morris of Carnegie-Mellon University has proposed an appealing general method for approaching these
`issues: build computer systems to have the same privacy safeguards as the real world, but no more, so that
`ethical conventions will apply regardless of setting. In the physical world, for example, burglars can break
`through a locked door, but they leave evidence in doing so. Computers built according to Morris's rule would
`not attempt to be utterly proof against cracker, but they would be impossible to enter without leaving the digital
`equivalent of fingerprints.
`
`By pushing computers into the background, embodied virtuality will make individuals more aware of the people
`on the other ends of their computer links. This development carries the potential to reverse the unhealthy
`centripetal forces that conventional personal computers have introduced into life and the workplace. Even today,
`people holed up in windowless offices before glowing computer screens may not see their fellows for the better
`part of each day. And in virtual reality, the outside world and all its inhabitant effectively ceases to exist.
`Ubiquitous computers, in contrast, reside in the human world and pose no barrier to personal interactions. If
`anything, the transparent connections that they offer between different locations and times may tend to bring
`communities closer together.
`
`My colleagues and I at PARC believe that what we call ubiquitous computing will gradually emerge as the
`dominant mode of computer access over the next twenty years. Like the personal computer, ubiquitous
`computing will enable nothing fundamentally new, but by making everything faster and easier to do, with less
`strain and mental gymnastics, it will transform what is apparently possible. Desktop publishing, for example, is
`fundamentally not different from computer typesetting, which dates back to the mid 1960's at least. But ease of
`use makes an enormous difference.
`
`When almost every object either contains a computer or can have a tab attached to it, obtaining information will
`be trivial: "Who made that dress? Are there any more in the store? What was the name of the designer of that
`suit I liked last week?" The computing environment knows the suit you looked at for a long time last week
`because it knows both of your locations, and, it can retroactively find the designer's name even if it did not
`interest you at the time.
`
`Sociologically, ubiquitous computing may mean the decline of the computer addict. In the 1910's and 1920's
`many people "hacked" on crystal sets to take advantage of the new high tech world of radio. Now
`cr