josh@klaatu.rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall) (01/03/90)
In predicting technology trends, look for the most rapid advances in areas where the new technology can be acquired incrementally. Thus, even though marvelous datacom networks are buildable right now, look for big growth in CD-rom first. Data network services will piggyback onto existing phone and cable; by 2000, there may be fiber ISDN everywhere, maybe not. Cellular wristphones will hinge on battery technology, which I'm not up to predicting; a cellular phone/datalink in your paperback-sized pocket computer will be a common option. The keyboard will go the way of the card reader. Voice-and-pointer will be standard; the pointer may be a dataglove or merely a camera pointed at your hand. You have to have something to do with that 100 mips, after all. Software for language comprehension will emerge from a synthesis of spelling and grammar correctors, OCR for scanned text input, and talkwriters. The typical user interface will be the image of a talking head with the comprehension of a dumb and literal-minded eighth-grader. 40% of total processing power will go into speech recognition and 50% into realtime graphics face generation. * BSG's (bullshit generators) will be the spreadsheet of the 90's, * taking outlines, collections of text fragments, previously written * documents, and background databases and producing finished reports. * One will be able to produce ten times the paperwork in the same amount * of time. BSF's (filters), programs that "read" reports and produce * outlines and summary fragments, will also be popular. Robotics will sneak in the back door. House control/entertainment systems will grow, vaccuum cleaners and lawn mowers will begin to operate autonomously, freezer/microwaves will waken you with the tempting aroma of a TV omelet. "The first true fully automatic home" will be announced several times. Robot butlers that greet visitors, take coats, and serve drinks will be feasible (though quite expensive) by the turn of the century, and may catch on in some circles if the fad falls right. * Drug traffickers will realize that automatic weapons can be mounted * on 1995's toy robots, which can be programmed to recognize policemen * with an accuracy of 85%. By the end of the decade, some major strides will have been made in life extension; the obvious ones are mass production by gene-spliced bacteria of the handful of critical proteins that the ageing process curtails the body's production of. As I understand it, this could alleviate many symptoms of ageing and extend lifespan by up to 50%. * Ronald Reagan will be the last president to have appointed anyone * to the Supreme Court. Each medical advance will newly bankrupt the * Social Security System, requiring massive tax increases. Back to computers, I agree with Barry that sometime in the 90's the information available in electronic form will catch and exceed that available on paper, but I intend to have a large personal library of data and programs, made possible by constantly improving storage technology. Already in the 80's electronic data storage surpassed paper in compactness and economy. The ability to access and manipulate our "social database" by computer will further accelerate the rate of technological advancement, as will CAD tools for an increasing number of areas and "computer aided X" for an increasing range of X. * Voice, text, and CAD systems will be pointed to both by AI researchers * and their critics as supporting their positions. --JoSH
bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (01/04/90)
Re: J Storrs Hall's predictions
Well done.
I think keyboards are here to stay, at least for the foreseeable
future. Once learned (and even if badly learned) they are still
efficient communications devices.
Voice &c will augment them just like the mouse has, but voice has two
major drawbacks. First, it's just not accurate even if well
understood, ever play the game "telephone"? There really is a lot of
bit loss due to slurring etc no matter what you do, raw facts get
miscommunicated. Second, and perhaps more importantly, you don't want
offices full of people talking to their computers, it would be chaos
or demand everyone have private offices, not likely.
The virtual reality crowd, as you mention (datagloves etc) should
start to have a big impact in the CAD/CAM and control areas soon (the
dataglove is being developed by NASA, among others, to create virtual
control rooms for the Space Station project.) Nintendo already has a
(primitive) one so that's coming fast and no doubt will find its way
into applications we're not yet even thinking of.
Perhaps we'll start to see some serious entries in the artifical
telepathy arena (barely noticeable devices allowing you to discretely
communicate with others.)
Robotics: I started this list lo so many years ago (about 3) with the
(somewhat humorous) prediction that the first major commercial success
of robotics would be as sex surrogates. I'll leave it at that.
Another important application of robotics waiting to happen is reading
things into computers. Specialized robots crawling about the stacks of
libraries or through office files. Turning pages and scanning is major
work, better to let a robot at it (these won't be terribly
anthropomorphic, of course.)
The common cold will not only still be a nuisance but will have been
found to be critical to good health as it stimulates the immune system
causing it to wipe out all sorts of other nasties in the process,
house cleaning as it were.
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die, Purveyors to the Trade | bzs@world.std.com
1330 Beacon St, Brookline, MA 02146, (617) 739-0202 | {xylogics,uunet}world!bzssullivan@aqdata.uucp (Michael T. Sullivan) (01/04/90)
From article <Jan.3.01.24.55.1990.2689@klaatu.rutgers.edu>, by josh@klaatu.rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall): > > The keyboard will go the way of the card reader. Voice-and-pointer > will be standard; the pointer may be a dataglove or merely a camera > pointed at your hand. You have to have something to do with that > 100 mips, after all. We'll lose keyboards about the same time we have paperless offices. -- Michael Sullivan uunet!jarthur.uucp!aqdata!sullivan aQdata, Inc. San Dimas, CA
steve@arc.UUCP (Steve Savitzky) (01/04/90)
In article <Jan.3.01.24.55.1990.2689@klaatu.rutgers.edu> josh@klaatu.rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall) writes: >The keyboard will go the way of the card reader. Voice-and-pointer >will be standard; the pointer may be a dataglove or merely a camera >pointed at your hand. You have to have something to do with that >100 mips, after all. I just have to respond to this. WRONG. Think what it would be like on an airplane with everyone muttering to their pocket computer. Think what office cubicles would be like. Try editing a program over the phone (I've done it). o Voice I/O will be useful only where keyboards and screens are not. Voice will be used by children and other illiterates, and where both hands are needed for something else, as when operating a vehicle or other machinery. o Voice mail will largely be replaced by text-oriented email, not the other way around. o Pocket computers will generally use handwriting recognition on their touch-sensitive screens, rather than voice inputs. o Full-sized keyboards will be a ubiquitous accessory. People will try to "type" using datagloves, but the lack of tactile feedback will make this unsatisfactory in most cases. Deaf people fluent in sign language will have an advantage in cyberspace. Here are a few more random predictions: o Pocket computers will have a full-sized, touch-sensitive screen. They will approximate a smart pad of paper, at which point almost everyone who now carries a notebook around will want one. o The standard lap/desk-top computer will be 8.5x11x.5 inches. The display will go all the way to the edge, so larger displays can be built up by tiling. o Pocket computers + _partially_transparent_ eyephones + locators + cellular networks will permit cyberspace to be overlaid on the real world. This will permit virtual nametags (title bars for people), virtual costumes, virtual street signs, and the like. o High-quality multi-media or hypermedia documents will prove to be as expensive to produce as movies or grand operas. Only a few will be produced before interactive virtual realities make them obsolete. o Virtual realities will become a major form of entertainment. o There will never be a standard representation for hypertext documents. Instead, there will be a standardized library of _access_routines_ that permit _anything_ to be viewed as a collection of object-attribute associations. o Books stored in centralized repositories (e.g. Library of Congress) will be downloaded once and cached locally by each user, so as to avoid repeat access fees and to take advantage of bulk data rates. o The copyright laws will be overhauled, probably more than once. o Attempts will be made to license and/or certify programmers and/or software. At least one will probably succeed. Entertainment software will remain unregulated, with the result that CAD packages, word processors, spreadsheets, and the like will end up being packaged as games. o Attempts will be made to prevent the development of artificial intelligences. Opponents will be in the amusing position of trying to legislate against something they claim is impossible in the first place. -- \ Steve Savitzky \ ADVANsoft Research Corp \ REAL hackers use an AXE! \ steve@arc.UUCP \ 4301 Great America Pkwy \ #include<std_disclaimer.h> \ arc!steve@apple.COM \ Santa Clara, CA 95954 \ 408-727-3357 \__________________________________________________________________________
josh@klaatu.rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall) (01/04/90)
I wrote: >The keyboard will go the way of the card reader. Voice-and-pointer >will be standard; ... Steve Savitzky replies: >I just have to respond to this. WRONG. Think what it would be like >on an airplane with everyone muttering to their pocket computer. >Think what office cubicles would be like. Try editing a program over >the phone (I've done it). A better model is looking over the shoulder of a hotshot editor wizard, pointing at the screen occasionally, and telling him what to do. Over the phone, you can't see the screen, and you can't point. Also realize that there will be a whole new generation of verbally- oriented command languages, with idiomatic (and idiosyncratic) contractions for commonly used operations. Imagine sitting on an airplane and having people talking to their neighbors in conversational tones. This is quite common in my experience; the air conditioning and engine noise is louder than the conversational background, and it's still easy to be understood. Telephone operators work in open rooms on consoles much closer together and with fewer partitions than the average programmer; there is not significant crosstalk. Steve continues: o Voice I/O will be useful only where keyboards and screens are not. I didn't intend to imply that voice would preclude a screen. o Voice mail will largely be replaced by text-oriented email, not the other way around. I agree halfway--mail will be sent as voice, received as text. o Pocket computers will generally use handwriting recognition on their touch-sensitive screens, rather than voice inputs. I would expect both at once. When trying to get a technical idea across to a person, I talk and draw figures (on blackboard or napkin). Entering text will almost surely be voice; editing may well be by drawing standard proofreaders marks on the screen. ... o The standard lap/desk-top computer will be 8.5x11x.5 inches. The display will go all the way to the edge, so larger displays can be built up by tiling. This isn't a technological question, obviously, but I would also expect pocket-sized (3.5"x5+") and computers built into a briefcase (complete with screen-image projector for making sales presentations). o Pocket computers + _partially_transparent_ eyephones + locators + cellular networks will permit cyberspace to be overlaid on the real world. This will permit virtual nametags (title bars for people), virtual costumes, virtual street signs, and the like. One of my fondest hopes, but it won't happen before 2000. There's still too big a technological gap in front of a wearable (eyeglasses weight < 1 oz) display device, and a usable system would require too much integration from too many people at once. By 2000, expect game arcades, high-tech work areas, and so forth to offer local indoor versions with helmet-weight (>1 lb) technology--but nothing on the streets. o High-quality multi-media or hypermedia documents will prove to be as expensive to produce as movies or grand operas. Only a few will be produced before interactive virtual realities make them obsolete. Rather, expect them to be produced as commonly as movies, distributed as widely, and be in the same price range. I think hypermedia and VR don't compete head to head. HM is like books and lectures, VR like games and conversation. They complement each other. --JoSH
jsloan@handies.ucar.edu (John Sloan,8292,X1243,ML44E) (01/04/90)
From article <752@arc.UUCP>, by steve@arc.UUCP (Steve Savitzky): > In article <Jan.3.01.24.55.1990.2689@klaatu.rutgers.edu> josh@klaatu.rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall) writes: >>The keyboard will go the way of the card reader. Voice-and-pointer >>will be standard; : > I just have to respond to this. WRONG. : > o Pocket computers will generally use handwriting recognition on their > touch-sensitive screens, rather than voice inputs. Similar to the pocket computers portrayed in _The Mote in God's Eye_, the SF novel by Niven and Pournelle. The computers were apparently about the size of a pocket calculator with their entire front surface covered with a touch sensitive LCD-like display screen. We already see on the market at least one calculator with a touch sensitive LCD display on which you can write and store diagrams. My JVC stereo receiver has a touch sensitive LCD screen on its universal remote control; depending on what you want to do, it redraws a new control panel with different buttons and labels. The technology that Steve describes above appears to be limited mainly by handwriting recognition, which _is_ a difficult problem. I must point out, though, that there are a lot of folks like me who can type faster than they can write by hand, and with less fatigue. For pocket computers, a writing interface is acceptable (probably preferred) but in general will not replace a standard sized keyboard for text-intensive applications. > o Full-sized keyboards will be a ubiquitous accessory. People will > try to "type" using datagloves, but the lack of tactile feedback > will make this unsatisfactory in most cases. Deaf people fluent in > sign language will have an advantage in cyberspace. One of my wife's hobbies is learning AMSLAN (sp?) and we were discussing this just the other day. The dataglove is an obvious interface for either teaching sign language (offering graphical feedback to the wearer), or for interpretation (the deaf user wears two datagloves... on the screen or perhaps though a speaker comes natural language text; with sufficient bandwidth you could use this technique for a deaf user to communicate over a network). > o Pocket computers will have a full-sized, touch-sensitive screen. > They will approximate a smart pad of paper, at which point almost > everyone who now carries a notebook around will want one. Similar to the newspads portrayed in the movie _2001: A Space Oddesy_ by Kubrick. > o The standard lap/desk-top computer will be 8.5x11x.5 inches. The > display will go all the way to the edge, so larger displays can be > built up by tiling. Just setting the computers side by side against one another will be enough to integrate their displays and data paths. Connections will be made optically. > o Pocket computers + _partially_transparent_ eyephones + locators + > cellular networks will permit cyberspace to be overlaid on the real > world. This will permit virtual nametags (title bars for people), > virtual costumes, virtual street signs, and the like. Poor folks like me will wear data glasses. The wealthy will have the necessary hardware wired into their skulls, integrated into contact lenses that offer an "eyes-up" display across their entire visual field. A favorite prank will be to integrate a virtual object into their visual field as if it were real. Again, similar technology exists in the instruments integrated into the helmets of military chopper pilots, who see a virtual reality when flying with limited visibility. > o Attempts will be made to prevent the development of artificial > intelligences. Opponents will be in the amusing position of trying > to legislate against something they claim is impossible in the first > place. As artificial intelligences grow smarter and smarter, our definition of intelligence will change, making this a moving target. For example, no one now believes that playing grand master chess is _necessarily_ a sign of intelligence. Twenty years ago this was not the case. It may be that the definition of intelligence will be "that which machines cannot do"... which may come to be those essential human qualities such as love, sacrifice, artistry, etc. or simply those cognitive activities that we haven't yet learned to program. On a darker note: People will be cryogenically stored for two reasons: so that they may be restored should a cure for their disease be found, AND so that they may provide a supply of tissue-compatible body parts to their heirs. Cryo-stored corpses will become part of their own estate, and law suits will result when a person with a terminal illness knows that they have a relative in cryo-suspension (waiting for a cure) with the needed body parts. Laws will be established to determine the priority of organ-ownership. Hacking with virtual realities will become a major problem. Computer generated graphics (both stills and animation) indistinguishable from reality will be a major source of abuse in the advertising industry and in politics (see films of Congressman X in bed with Y!). The ability to confirm what is real and what is not will become an important issue. If folks think these dramatical reinactments on the news are a problem now, wait until the "actors" are computer generated reconstructions of the real people. John Sloan NCAR/SCD NSFnet: jsloan@ncar.ucar.edu P.O. Box 27588 P.O. Box 3000 +1 303 497 1243 AMA#515306 Lakewood CO 80227 Boulder CO 80307 +1 303 232 8678 DoD#000011 Logical Disclaimer: belong(opinions,jsloan).belong(opinions,_):-!,fail.
sewilco@datapg.MN.ORG (Scot E Wilcoxon) (01/05/90)
In article <Jan.3.01.24.55.1990.2689@klaatu.rutgers.edu> josh@klaatu.rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall) writes: >The keyboard will go the way of the card reader. I hope so. There isn't a "cure" for repetitive motion injuries. -- Scot E. Wilcoxon sewilco@DataPg.MN.ORG {amdahl|hpda}!bungia!datapg!sewilco Data Progress UNIX masts & rigging +1 612-825-2607 uunet!datapg!sewilco I'm just reversing entropy while waiting for the Big Crunch.
msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) (01/05/90)
> o The standard lap/desk-top computer will be 8.5x11x.5 inches. The > display will go all the way to the edge ... Non-American models will of course be A4 size* by 1 cm. See signature quote. * 2^-1.75 x 2^-2.25 m (^ denoting exponentiation), about 8.3 x 11.7 in. -- Mark Brader "Thus the metric system did not really catch on in SoftQuad Inc., Toronto the States, unless you count the increasing popu- utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com larity of the 9 mm bullet." -- Dave Barry This article is in the public domain.
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (01/05/90)
I am not sure that text mail will stay as it is forever. I think instead that voice mail will become like E-mail. And later, video mail will become like E-mail. And eventually, mutli-media will become like E-mail, although I would guess that text will still be one of the more popular forms. There will certainly be an experiment with E-mail where you type the address and subject, but speak the body of the message. This is easy and quick, both to dictate and to listen to, and it doesn't require much typing skill. And you can compress the voice down nice and small that this will be cheap. There are disadvantages -- clearly you don't use this to send things you might want to print or machine-read, such as figures or phone numbers. It's more for personal notes. Worst of all, a lot of people are uncomfortable just sitting talking into a microphone -- but they are also uncomfortable writing a letter at a keyboard, or even typing. Which will win, I don't know. The advantages however -- it's quick, easy for many, and much more personal and communicative than text -- will make sure this is given a try at least. Next stage we get voice-recognition that eliminates the need for you to type the address and subject. You speak it, but it's turned into text. In most cases, you don't need this, as most mail messages are replies, with automatic generation of To, From and Subject. After that we can go through the same stages, but your message is video. Some people will talk to video cameras when they won't talk to answering machines. One reason is you get to see yourself on-screen as you do it. And it's easier to edit out the bad parts than with sound. Advantages: Even better, more full bandwidth communication form than audio or text. Disadvantages: Some people don't want to be seen, or have to comb their hair to send a memo. As above, you have to talk to send the message, which doesn't work in some places. These will be tried because they bring E-mail -- which is highly useful -- to the non typing public. And to the public that prefers to cues of sound and video to smiley faces. You will still always want machine readable classification info so you can search and select your mail, of course. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
jsloan@handies.ucar.edu (John Sloan,8292,X1243,ML44E) (01/06/90)
From article <72168@looking.on.ca>, by brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton):
> I am not sure that text mail will stay as it is forever.
Another forecast: electronic information (video, text, sound,
multimedia, etc.) will be sent in executable form, similar to
PostScript. We'll transmit programs, that when interpreted, will
produce the information on the other end. Like PS raster output, the
programs may be little more than an executable word or two followed by
scads of data, but for many applications, the likely data compression
and device independance advantage of sending an executable program
(which is interpreted locally by receipient-specific systems) will be a
a big win. In this case, the same message may produce voice for the
blind, text for the deaf, or video for the rest, all depending upon
what hardware is available at the destination, and how its configured.
John Sloan NCAR/SCD NSFnet: jsloan@ncar.ucar.edu
P.O. Box 27588 P.O. Box 3000 +1 303 497 1243 AMA#515306
Lakewood CO 80227 Boulder CO 80307 +1 303 232 8678 DoD#000011
Logical Disclaimer: belong(opinions,jsloan).belong(opinions,_):-!,fail.unccab@calico.med.unc.edu (Charles Balan) (01/06/90)
In article <72168@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >I am not sure that text mail will stay as it is forever. {A message bout how video-mail will replace the current e-mail deleted} >Advantages: Even better, more full bandwidth communication form than >audio or text. > >Disadvantages: Some people don't want to be seen, or have to comb their >hair to send a memo. As above, you have to talk to send the message, >which doesn't work in some places. But pre-formed video images will be available that allow you to send your message without "sprucing up" yet will alter your broadcast image to one of an impeccably groomed businessperson. Programmable variables for more sexy, more "power-image", with glasses, more/less make-up, hair, hair color, etc. will be available. Isn't this fun! :-) . Charles Balan UNCCAB@med.unc.edu , UNCCAB@uncmed.uucp , UNCCAB@unc.bitnet %%%%%%%%%%%%% A Witty Saying Proves Nothing - Voltaire %%%%%%%%%%%%
zvs@bby.oz.au (Zev Sero) (01/08/90)
In article <1990Jan5.065546.777@sq.sq.com> msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) writes: > o The standard lap/desk-top computer will be 8.5x11x.5 inches. The > display will go all the way to the edge ... Non-American models will of course be A4 size* by 1 cm. See signature quote. [extolling the metric system] * 2^-1.75 x 2^-2.25 m (^ denoting exponentiation), about 8.3 x 11.7 in. If you're so keen on the metric system, why don't you use standard SI units? The A4 size paper is (according to a packet of Reflex photocopying paper) 210 x 297 mm. -- Zev Sero - zvs@bby.oz.au Fault, n. One of my offenses, as opposed to one of yours, the latter being crimes. -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
chastain@netcom.UUCP (Michael Chastain) (01/08/90)
[I apologize in advance if I've messed up posting to a moderate group. If I made a mistake, tell me how to do it RIGHT, ok?] In article <Jan.3.17.26.13.1990.2742@klaatu.rutgers.edu> josh@klaatu.rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall) writes: >A better model is looking over the shoulder of a hotshot editor >wizard, pointing at the screen occasionally, and telling him what to >do. Over the phone, you can't see the screen, and you can't point. >Also realize that there will be a whole new generation of verbally- >oriented command languages, with idiomatic (and idiosyncratic) >contractions for commonly used operations. Here's what happens when I look over someone's shoulder now: "That assignment is wrong." "No -- THAT one." "You shouldn't be accessing that data structure." "That won't work, either." "Can I type? Move over." I can type vi commands faster than I can tell people what to do to text. What I would like is: two keyboards connected to the same workstation. The other person and I work out who is currently "active" by ordinary human body language / verbal communication. I.e., when I take my hands off my keyboard, it's his turn to type. No mechanism for indicating to the computer which keyboard is active. Such a mechanism would actually slow down my buddy and me. Michael Chastain "He who dies with the most FRIENDS wins."
roger@gtisqr.UUCP (Roger Droz) (01/10/90)
In article <72168@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >I am not sure that text mail will stay as it is forever. > >I think instead that voice mail will become like E-mail. And later, >video mail will become like E-mail. And eventually, mutli-media >will become like E-mail, although I would guess that text will still be >one of the more popular forms. > I think that fax needs to be included in the above list. Fax allows people to scribble notes by hand and deliver them with electronic speed. It has received great acceptance because it is familiar (pencil and paper), yet speeds delivery over hard-copy mail. There are many messages sent via fax that could be as easily sent via text-only E-mail using less bandwidth. Many messages are carefully composed using some sort of word processing equipment, printed on letterhead, and then faxed. There may be some argument that fax is a more standardized medium than E-mail, but given a more universal E-mail system, I think a lot of people would still go through the above process just because the receiver gets a nice looking copy of the logo on their letterhead. Fax, or some sort of E-mail the supports graphics, allows a reply where parts of the original posting are circled, underlined or crossed out to indicate agreement or disagreement. It is a lot easier to cross out a couple of words than it is to use our > style quoting to convey "I agree with you, except for this phrase." >There will certainly be an experiment with E-mail where you type the >address and subject, but speak the body of the message. The same can be said of a fax/E-mail hybrid, or a video/E-mail hybrid. Since all messages can be conveyed over the same network (the telephone), then a standardized header becomes a practical way to allow one computer to file and deal with all types of messages. In addition to the address and subject, the header also describes to the receiving equipment the nature of the message body to follow. The receiving equipment may have to switch to a different kind of modem to receive the message body, but this is much more practical than having to publish separate phone numbers for text E-mail, fax, etc. > >After that we can go through the same stages, but your message is video. >Some people will talk to video cameras when they won't talk to answering >machines. One reason is you get to see yourself on-screen as you do it. >And it's easier to edit out the bad parts than with sound. > I don't see video mail becoming as popular as video conferencing in real-time. Relatively little that we communicate via non-real-time mail requires the clarification of gestures and facial expression. Video mail does have the advantage of not having to be transmitted in real-time, though. If I could send video mail of my son's first steps to Grandma from my home computer over voice-grade lines, I may be more apt to send moving pictures than I am given present technology where Grandma and I have to make special arrangements to get enough bandwidth to send video over the phone. (Given present technology, video mail is best accomplished by mailing a video tape.) Disclaimer: I joined this discussion late. Sorry if I introduced too many strange tangents. ____________ Roger Droz UUCP: uw-beaver!gtisqr!roger () () Maverick MICRoSystems / Global Technology International (_______) Mukilteo, WA ( ) | | Disclaimer: "We're all mavericks here: | | Each of us has our own opinions, (___) and the company has yet different ones!"
hoetker@GSLISF.LIS.UIUC.EDU (Glenn Hoetker) (01/11/90)
A few thoughts on this subject (particularly fax) from Dr. N. Negroponte's
talk at the American Library Association's mid-winter meeting.
Fax has been an incredible step backwards. People sit at their word-
processors and create computer-readable materials, then print it out in order
to turn it into a non-computer readable fax message! This will eventually either
change or be superceeded.
The desktop metaphor will probably fail. Just like a real desk, when a
computer desktop gets buried in material, you can't find anything. Dr.
Negroponte gave this anology for his view of the future. If you ask him
what the last letter from CLSI that he got was, he doesn't look though
his files or the stuff on his desk. Instead he asks his secretary, who finds
it for him. He predicts the rise of very personalized computer "surrogates"
on this model. You might have a variety of surrogates, one knowing your
travel patterns, one your corresondence, and so forth.
Disclaimer: These are obviously my memories and my restatements of
Dr. Negroponte's talk. No more than I've passed along, I'm pretty sure they
are completely accurate, if I've mis-stated him in any way, my apologies.brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (01/11/90)
I see video E-mail as being more popular that video conferencing. For one, people will like it for the same reasons they prefer e-mail to phone tag. I can send a nice video message to somebody and not have to worry about meeting up -- particularly if they live in Australia. (Just as the Australians & Japanese are thriving off FAX machines these days, they will love video E-mail) You get to compose yourself and make sure you look OK for video e-mail. Not so easy for a video phone call. And bandwidth cost is important. For one, you can compress video E-mail in non-real time, and probaly get pretty good compression. (Not yet, but I don't see why not in the near future.) You will in general be able to do better than real-time. But most of all, "spare" bandwidth is going to become almost free in the future. We need so much bandwidth for our live conferencing systems and other live data systems, that a packet that is willing to wait 5 minutes will pay a pittance -- perhaps a fixed rate, even. This will always be the case, I think. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
jeremy@jeremy.prime.COM (01/11/90)
> > > A few thoughts on this subject (particularly fax) from Dr. N. Negroponte's > talk at the American Library Association's mid-winter meeting. > > Fax has been an incredible step backwards. People sit at their word- > processors and create computer-readable materials, then print it out in order > to turn it into a non-computer readable fax message! This will eventually either > change or be superceeded. Fax has one major advantage over the current computer mail setup. You plug in a fax machine to the wall outlet, connect a phone cable to it, and you are ready to receive/transmit faxes from/to all over the world. Computer mail is incredibly complicated compared to that. Fax will start to become obsolete as soon as $600 "computer mail machines" are available that can be plugged in, connected to a phone and are ready to go. Even then, we need a scanner and a computer independent way of sending graphics. -- Jeremy Nussbaum jeremy@jeremy.prime.com Prime Computer 2 Crosby Drive MS 16-2 Bedford, Ma. 01730 (617)275-1800 x6745
bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (01/12/90)
(Note that some of this Fax vs. Email debate/comparison arose from an
article by John McCarthy of Stanford in last month's CACM.)
One advantage of Fax over current e-mail systems that might be
overlooked is that when I fax you something that's not originally
generated by me it's obvious that it's not mine and it's precise (e.g.
a letter I received, an article from a newspaper or magazine), little
chance of a misunderstanding or error in transcription.
If I type something in or summarize the possibility of
error/misunderstanding arises and, more importantly, it suddenly
appears to be my effort, even if it's "obvious" it isn't.
The old adage about killing the messenger might be at work here, at
least sometimes. If I fax you an article then the messenger is the fax
and the article is the article. If I send you a note I typed which
says I just read an article which describes you as a honker (?) then
there's some good probability you'll throw some anger my way ("how
dare you even *repeat* such a thing...!")
Anyhow, abrogation of responsibility, always a popular sport in office
politics. Don't underrate it!
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die, Purveyors to the Trade | bzs@world.std.com
1330 Beacon St, Brookline, MA 02146, (617) 739-0202 | {xylogics,uunet}world!bzselm@sprite.berkeley.edu (ethan miller) (01/13/90)
In article <9001111411.AA02351@jeremy.prime.com> jeremy@jeremy.prime.COM writes:
%>
%>
%> A few thoughts on this subject (particularly fax) from Dr. N. Negroponte's
%> talk at the American Library Association's mid-winter meeting.
%>
%> Fax has been an incredible step backwards. People sit at their word-
%> processors and create computer-readable materials, then print it out in order
%> to turn it into a non-computer readable fax message! This will eventually either
%> change or be superceeded.
%Fax has one major advantage over the current computer mail setup. You
%plug in a fax machine to the wall outlet, connect a phone cable to it,
%and you are ready to receive/transmit faxes from/to all over the
%world. Computer mail is incredibly complicated compared to that. Fax
%will start to become obsolete as soon as $600 "computer mail machines"
%are available that can be plugged in, connected to a phone and are
%ready to go. Even then, we need a scanner and a computer independent
%way of sending graphics.
Why is it necessary to spend $600 for an "e-mail machine"? For about
$300, you could put together a system with a keyboard, display, 8 or
16 bit CPU, and 1200 or 2400 baud internal modem. The price would
go down with high volume, too. Of course, this wouldn't be a general
purpose computer (though you could certainly program a Mac to emulate
it), but even those people who didn't need a more powerful computer
could afford one. As someone else said, all we need now is a protocol
for sending messages over a phone line to a phone number. It should
be simple and not require a dedicated phone line. Better still, it
should not cause normal phones on the line to ring (so letters can
be sent at night when rates are low). It's probably possible to do
this with an auto-answer modem and a PC or Mac, so why shouldn't we
start now? There are over 5 million PCs in the country; that's more
than the number of FAX machines.
ethan
=================================
ethan miller--cs grad student elm@sprite.berkeley.edu
#include <std/disclaimer.h> {...}!ucbvax!sprite!elm
Witty signature line condemned due to major quake damage.bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (01/14/90)
>Why is it necessary to spend $600 for an "e-mail machine"? For about >$300, you could put together a system with a keyboard, display, 8 or >16 bit CPU, and 1200 or 2400 baud internal modem. The price would >go down with high volume, too. Of course, this wouldn't be a general >purpose computer (though you could certainly program a Mac to emulate >it), but even those people who didn't need a more powerful computer >could afford one. As someone else said, all we need now is a protocol >for sending messages over a phone line to a phone number. It should >be simple and not require a dedicated phone line. Better still, it >should not cause normal phones on the line to ring (so letters can >be sent at night when rates are low). It's probably possible to do >this with an auto-answer modem and a PC or Mac, so why shouldn't we >start now? There are over 5 million PCs in the country; that's more >than the number of FAX machines. > >ethan (There are over 10 million PC's in the US, about 30M worldwide) Yes, I agree with all this. Worse, I claim most of it exists and has existed for years. You have traditional Teletype communications (stocks, news wires, etc.) You have TELEX which is basically a CRT installed in your office for a monthly fee and a telecom line. You type in a TELEX address and type an e-mail-like message. There are all sorts of other things out there like this. ESS's and many much smaller phone switches include voice mail, do they count? Why not? Anyone remember those tiny terminals with 9" screens, keyboard which slid out like a drawer from the body and a phone handset? They were manufactured for exactly these kinds of applications, hooking up into Western Union, AT&T/Mail, MCI/Mail and other e-mail networks. They were pretty cheap as I recall, like $400. You still sometimes see them in DAK catalogs, I guess the PC's on every desk wiped out that market, or something. So it's neither lack of inexpensive equipment nor lack of vendors offering e-mail services that has impeded its ubiquity. Nor lack of "big companies backing it" unless you consider Western Union, AT&T or MCI small companies. My claim is that there *has* been a fair amount of penetration of e-mail service everywhere (at, least everywhere that isn't poor.) The observations that somehow "we" have something "they" don't and that "they only use faxes" I suspect is, well, not false, but it has been overstated on this list. Is it possible we're struggling against a myth? Or if not quite a myth, something which is in the midst of curing itself rapidly without all our bright ideas? We need more facts. Nahhhhh. -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die, Purveyors to the Trade | bzs@world.std.com 1330 Beacon St, Brookline, MA 02146, (617) 739-0202 | {xylogics,uunet}world!bzs
scratch@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Steven J Owens) (01/18/90)
In article <752@arc.UUCP> steve@arc.UUCP (Steve Savitzky) writes: >>The keyboard will go the way of the card reader. Voice-and-pointer >o Pocket computers will generally use handwriting recognition on their > touch-sensitive screens, rather than voice inputs. > >o Pocket computers will have a full-sized, touch-sensitive screen. > They will approximate a smart pad of paper, at which point almost > everyone who now carries a notebook around will want one. Too late - both of these already exist (and I've been *waiting* for them to show up...). For the first, look through old issues of Omni magazine. Somebody is using a light-pen & clipboard computer combo with a program that converts the hand printing to text. The next, obvious step is to move to touch sensitive - that's here too, in the form of the Agilis system handheld workstation, which also incorporates menus and touch-screen tech to allow one-handed use "in the field." The Agilis handheld is one helluva machine and if I had my choice I'd buy the $12000 "deluxe" configuration with: "...80386 processor, 4 megabytes of memory, a 20-megabyte hard disk drive, the console slice, a keypad slice, two battery slices, and a power converter" and other options including a wireless packet radio communications slice offering 230,000 bps network communications within a range of 1 kilometer outdoors and about 100 meters indoors (though soon enough there'll be packet radio networks stretching through most buildings and probably a lot of the outdoors). The thing to really wait for is the price to drop to affordable ranges... at which point everybody and his brother will have one, and you'll be able to send e-mail to most people and be pretty sure it'll get to them within minutes. >o Pocket computers + _partially_transparent_ eyephones + locators + > cellular networks will permit cyberspace to be overlaid on the real > world. This will permit virtual nametags (title bars for people), > virtual costumes, virtual street signs, and the like. THIS is interesting... similar ideas had occurred to me, but only on a limited scale, probably in specialized nightclubs and bars... I could really see it spreading to common use in society, however... >o Attempts will be made to prevent the development of artificial > intelligences. Opponents will be in the amusing position of trying > to legislate against something they claim is impossible in the first > place. I think perhaps you'll see more attempts oriented towards preventing the usurping of human "jobs" by AIs. To a degree I agree with this - we already have tons of functioning intelligences to do jobs like this, why not work on figuring out how to utilize them, not replace them? On the other hand, just because a new development will affect the jobs of a segment of the population is no reason to fight it - efforts should be made, instead, to channel the human brainpower freed from the mental "drudgery" into creative/productive ends, where they will probably outstrip any AIs for centuries to come. Steven J. Owens | Scratch@Pittvms | Scratch@unix.cis.pitt.edu "Show us endless neon vistas / Castles made of laserlight / Take us to the shopping sector / In the vortex of the night / Past the shining mylar towers / Past the ravaged tenements / To a place we can't remember / For a time we won't forget" -- Warren Zevon, Transverse City