[thelist] Re: philosophical or possibly somewhat OT

[DESCHAMPS Stéphane DvSI/SICoR]

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : thelist-bounces at lists.evolt.org
> [mailto:thelist-bounces at lists.evolt.org]De la part de Carol Stein

> In my paper, I proposed that the ubiquitous and wearable computer will
> actually be a dual machine -- the online (or library 
> computer) and offline
> (personal computer) will be segregated, because their functions are so
> separable. So, let's start thinking about this issue, seriously: What
> applications will really belong online? Why? 

Mmmmh. In the long run, with the current miniaturization (and forgive me if I over-simplify things, but I can't see the world other than by over-simplifying things, I guess), there's no need for an online vs. offline choice.

Any PDA/cell phone/bluetooth-or-IR-or-whatever user will tell you that. It's the *coupled* technology of the PDA *plus* acces to online resources that make them so valuable.
(and this from a guy who's still hesitating about buy his own PDA ;-))

As for your thoughts about the way we interact with machines, you're right, they've been envisioned in the movies you quote as quite simplistic. But only in those. Did you see Spielberg's more recent flicks, A.I. or Minority Report? The interfaces are far from a simple keyboard/screen I/O.

Not to mention all of what Asimov and Dick wrote, to mention only a few, imagined. Vocal automatic interfaces, visual, etc. What's the reason why a computer shouldn't see or smell, hear or talk, as modern experiments show it's possible?

The sky's the limit.

(and you were not off-topic IMHO, so we're saved, although this discussion could lead us into a real long troll)

s t e f
http://www.nota-bene.org/