-The Story-
Thanks to the wonders of genetic engineering, I have 20/20 vision, but that doesn’t stop me from utilizing my most important tool—my glasses. Though I can see perfectly fine, I feel totally blind without them. I wake up in the morning, and putting them on is my only instinct. Veiled in those thin wire frames is the most sophisticated computer I own. Oh, there’s my daily schedule hovering on the left, with the clock above it, a menu next to that. As soon as the glasses detect that I stand, the lights turn to a dim glow. They do many things like that without my command. As soon as I enter the bathroom, a fancy little message pops up reminding me to take the antibiotic. I’m glad I put that in there. I tend to be really absent-minded, but these glasses don’t make me show it.

While I brush my teeth, I listen to my voice messages, downloaded through the national wireless internet and transmitted into the skull just above the ear, which is a very good conductor of sound. I quickly respond to some through the microphone embedded at the bottom of the frames. This is also one way that I can give commands to the glasses and even the outside world in most cases. If I say “Computer, make me a cup of coffee, decaf,” the glasses recognize that I am in my own house and redirect the signal to the coffeepot in the kitchen.

It is a chilly day, so I start the heater in the car, which is down in the parking garage, while I eat my breakfast. I carry no keys. A simple glance opens everything I am allowed to enter. I am in a rush to get down from the ninth floor. I call the elevator on my way there. It opens just as I walk up to it. The car which I ride to the train station has been degraded to little more than a moving box. All the gizmos of the past have faded into the glasses.

As I board the train, I glance into the “eye” of its computer. My glasses give the computer a scan of my eyes, which it checks for a math, so that a stolen pair of glasses won’t work for anyone. The $1.50 charge pops-up. Normally, I would have to say “Charges accepted” in order for the transaction to complete, but I put the train system on a trusted list. Most people do, but I can tell the ones who don’t, mumbling as they board (darn tourists). There is this shady-looking fella behind me. I tap the ID button and look back. His name pops-up along with a court-imposed warning that he is a convicted felon. It isn’t polite to stare, but I’ll keep an eye on him. I tap the button on my temple to activate my rearview cameras, and a screen appears near the bottom of my vision, showing everything behind my head. In the meantime, I listen to some music, make some calls, and watch the news on the web, all in perfect 3D. The glasses easily generate their own power through the movement of the head, which moves quite a lot.

Of course, work is whole world of its own. My glasses let me in the door. There are no computer monitors anywhere in the building; we all wear our own. It is quite useful for one to see and hear anything, anytime, anywhere. Virtual meetings and instant collaboration are just two of these advantages.

Internet databases hold all information. Industrial computers move the structures and devices around us. But they are just the dumb computers told to do things by the glasses on everyone’s face, which are, in turn, under the constant control of every user. From the beginning of time, all technology has been the slave of humanity. For a time it got away from us; now we put the whip back in our grip.

-The End-
Which device ultimately becomes the supreme interface of all computing will likely depend on history and chance, but I wouldn’t rule out the glasses. The final mobile computer will be small. To do that, the computer must be near the mouth, so that it is voice activated and does not need a keyboard. It must be near the eye so that the screen will be small, but look huge. It must be attached to the body to free the hands and not get easily lost. It could be embedded in the body, but that would require unpleasant surgery. And most people like to remove themselves from technology from time to time. Finally, it must fade into the background of standard social fashions.

What medium could possibly fill this full tab other than a high-tech pair of spectacles? The future may be right at the tip of your nose.

Maybe I could check my email and read my friends away messages. I haven’t done that in like 45 minutes. … … … Oh, Man! There’s no wireless connection! Why can’t every place be like the Case campus, where you flip open your laptop, and boom, you’re online. I guess I’ll just have to type this in Word first. I actually do that every week. I gotta keep a back-up in case the blog system explodes. And I gotta check for spelling and such. (For crying out loud, “gotta” is spelled right! Add to dictionary. (Not really.))

So they installed this Wi-fi system in the concourse; it’s even called “concourse”. (How creative.) And now they want $7.95. (Screw that!) Why can’t they just give us the darn internet? We are all laying down no less than four hundred smacks to be here. The least they could do to us delayed passengers is let us redeem the time through web procrastination. (Oop, the lady’s flight is boarding. Have a nice flight. You too. … Oh, hello Mr. Middle-Eastern-Man. Are you going to Cleveland, too? … Oh, you don’t even have an accent; just keep yacking on that cell phone. (I really am terrible.))

So I am still wondering if they really make that much money off of the wireless network feel. Wouldn’t the ticket fees dwarf the wireless revenues? It seems to me that it would better for everyone if they just provided it as a convenient distraction to their travelers.

Or am I wrong? (Let’s get one of those cheesy pretzels.) ($2.59 for a pretzel!)

From the technological perspective, it is quite interesting that someone would maintain such an archaic device. The compact disc is far superior—smaller, no speed knob, skip tracks with the push of a button, etc. What is more interesting is our reaction to it: “Whoa! Cool! Can we listen to it when we get back?”

Why are we so fascinated with old technology? It is not just turntables, but old cars, candles, and cash. We love our techy toys, but we are also nostalgic about the devices of our past. What makes us like this old junk? Is it that we can understand how these devices work, as opposed to using some well designed user interface? Do these devices remind us of something good that we no longer have?

In forty years, will we pull out our iPods from a box in the closet? Will we show them off to our grandchildren, who think it is the coolest thing ever? “Grandpa, you mean all the music you listened to was inside that white box?” Who knows what they will be listening to then? But if history is any lesson, then the technology we expect to be in use by everyone in the future may be used by no one—replaced by better toys. But will still bring out these laptops, PDAs, iPods, game stations galore! And we will wonder both how we got along with it and how we got along without it.

This was not a legal battle, nor much of a battle at all. It was the battle over whether or not Microsoft would disable the anti-piracy malware that Sony included on all of its CDs and DVDs. Just like the decision to invade Iraq, It was not a matter of if Microsoft could defeat the malware, it was a matter of whether it not it was in the world’s best interest. In the end, Microsoft went the way of the US and attacked the hidden Sony program. The ability to remove the malware will be included in the next Microsoft Update through their Malicious Software Removal Toolkit.

Frankly, I listen to so little music, that I really don’t care. Whether the music industry thrives or fails, it will not impact me at all. However, the concept of whether or not a company has the right to alter your computer without your consent is an important issue that I wish to discuss. Ultimately, it is wrong to sell a product that behaves differently than it is marketed. It is a cultural expectation that a music CD is self contained, that is, leaves no mark on the device that it is played in. Without clearly informing customers that this expectation will not be met, it is wrong to install software through the autorun feature, especially software that will communicate with external computers on the internet.

On the other hand, if Sony announced that it was changing the nature of the music CD in America, that would be acceptable, since this would give the public an opportunity to respond with boycott or other means. They can sell whatever they want; this is a free market economy, as long as they label what they sell.

Note: It was found that this malware was susceptible to attack by viruses because it communicated externally. This probably sped up the decision for Windows to remove the software. I'll bet that Ad-aware and Spybot preempted the Microsoft move. What do you think?

According to their website, the FCC has determined that internet-only VoIP is not subject to their jurisdiction. Logically, there was no other option. VoIP is an internet communication program, fundamentally no different than a web browser, unless it is a service that also connects to landlines. The national phone system requires planning and oversight because of the way it is constructed—each house has a line, which goes in a bundle to the city hub, which connects to regional hubs, and so on. The internet is more amorphous; that is, it does not have any designated paths from one place to another. The internet sends information by way of packets, which can bounce around until they find a suitable path. In this way, the internet requires oversight only in the communication language, not in the construction of the pathways.

When it comes to communication, the purpose of the government is to create infrastructure and standards. Since the infrastructure that VoIP utilizes already exists, it is quite unnecessary to regulate on those grounds. Creating the standard was what 911 was all about in the first place. It is reasonable to have the number for the local emergency service be the same everywhere. However, 911 was not ubiquitous until recent times. Everyone had the local number for the hospital, etc, until cities gradually adopted the standard number. Having 911 connectivity was not required. (I don’t believe that it still is, either.) Ultimately, this will be the case for VoIP as well. There is no need to force providers and consumers to behave a certain way. Eventually, the market will demand that VoIP phones connect to the local emergency center when 911 is dialed, like we all learned when we were young.

Requiring providers to supply this good will only hamper the development of this new luxury item. Hopefully, it will cease to be a luxury item and become the ubiquitous provider of all voice services in the world. Until then, let it grow and experiment with new ideas. Freed from the bondage of 12 tones, VoIP phones have unlimited potential for new options. Maybe there is something better than 911. However, we will never find it as long government regualtions dictate that the old way is the only way.

This kind of a question bares an unfortuante resemblance to the “how much money would make you happy.” A recent study showed that people will answer that question with number about 60% higher than their current income—regardless of how much they make! Hopefully, my answer on internet bandwidth will not be as myopic as the people in this study.

For those of us on broadband, webpages come up with very little lag. (The little that is there seems to be more of a problem with Internet Explorer.) There is no reason to get audio faster than streaming because we cannot consume (listen) to it faster than that. So everything audio, text, and still picture cannot be improved by a faster internet connection than what is readily available today.

So what are the limitations? I can think of two things that we don’t get perfectly fast yet. The first is video. (The second is program downloads, which I will not touch on this week.) We cannot yet watch a perfect resolution, high-definition, digital, non-laggy movie over the internet. However, we see a maximum that this would require. There is a maximum to the resolution of the human eye. There s a maximum to the noticeable refresh rate. Therefore, there is a maximum bandwidth that video can ever require.

Here is an approximation of the maximum bandwidth ever needed for streaming any video:
bits = res * fps * depth * eyes
bits = maximum number of bits per second ever possibly needed for streaming video
res = 325 million. Pixels in the eye; cannot detect anything smaller.
fps = 25. Frames per second; cannot see faster.
depth = 20 million. Color depth; cannot tell two colors apart.
eyes = 2. This all you need to make perfect 3D.

bits = 325 quadrillion per second. (325 Petabits per second!)

There is no reason that we should download it faster than this. If you had a display device that could display this, you would be unable to distinguish it from reality. (Kind of creepy, if you think about it.) It is unlikely that video will ever be dense, since this calculation ignored compression possibilities. The human eye doesn’t even take in information that fast; the brain cannot handle it. Nevertheless, this puts an upper limit on the maximum bandwidth a single person on the planet could ever use. How much money would make me happy? Umm, a 60% reduction in tuition? How much bandwidth could I use? How about 325 Pb/s!!!

Most of the article echoed the op-ed from the Wall Street Journal, which I cited on my previous entry. However, to my delight, I found a specific reason that the the US should give control of the internet to the UN: the President's administration has requested that ICANN not create the .xxx domain, which would be reserved for only irreputable sites.

I know, horendous offence.

I searched whitehouse.gov for the reasoning behind the decision, but couldn't find anything, not a single article with ICANN or .xxx in it. However, a Google search seemed to indicate that it was pressure from anti-porn constituants. For people who flat-out oppose pornography in part of society, this is hardly a logical step. Pornographic sites can already own a .com, .net, .org, or .justaboutanything. Creating a domain that makes it really, really easy to block on your personal, business, or elementary school computers is, at worst, a neutral issue.

So it appears that the it's-for-the-children crowd is shooting itself in the foot. Creating the .xxx domain will not make it easier to create porn websites; it will, however, make it easier to block, if desired. Is some computer illiteracy behind this?

As a side note, I figure that there might be some first amendment issues. There is not intrinsic problem with creating .xxx, any movement would be strictly voluntary. However, the very existence of a special designation may encourage "forcing" xxx-rated sites into that domain. While this would not be a gross violation of free-speech, it would be questionable.

Either way, the administration shouldn't involve itself in such petty discussions, which may give the UN crowd some fodder.

An opinion article in the Wall Street Journal (Oct 17, page A18) outlines the current state of the problem. Simply put, the bureaucrats at the UN have decided that the internet should be controlled by them. Why would they want to do this? Has ICANN been negligent or malicious in its job? This is difficult to imagine. ICANN has given each country its own top-level domain (like .us for the US) to manage as it sees fit. IP addresses are a little thin right now, and the original (American) users of the internet (like the US Department of Defense) tend to have a bigger piece of the pie. When IPv6 is implemented, this discrepancy will be eliminated and everyone will have his fill.

So, besides the natural human desire to acquire power and use it makes other’s lives miserable, I cannot think of any reason that the UN would want to decide who can get an IP address, a name, and such. The UN has already formed a (powerless) Working Group on Internet Governance. They claim that they will respect freedom of expression, but “respect for cultural and linguistic diversity as well as tradition [and] religion.” That sounds all flowery, but the biggest revelation is this explanation of that belief, “that translates to multilingual, diverse and culturally appropriate content.” Think about what the UN might translate as culturally appropriate… Democracy is culturally inappropriate in communist China. Human rights are culturally inappropriate in North Korea. The governments of these countries have been trying for years to block out information about the free world. They block many websites, but the internet changes so fast that they cannot stop it all. The all-governments-are-created-equal mentality of the UN will certainly lend a teary eye to the complaints by communist countries and pass a resolution that all pro-democracy/freedom websites will have to register there domain names, so that they can be blocked where this material would be “culturally inappropriate.”

Another issue is that of taxes. The great modern crusaders of freedom in the world, Kofi Annan and Jacques Chirac, have wanted to place to place a tax on financial transactions over the internet. The sole noble purpose of taxes is to benefit the people who pay the tax (Read the beginning to the Declaration of Independence if you don’t believe me). Because the internet has worked fine without any tax at all, a new tax could only serve as federal bribery, that is, to alter people’s behavior (like cigarette taxes) or pay off supporters (like Medicare).

It was the atmosphere of creativity and freedom found in the United States of America that spawned the internet. The genius and self-sacrificing attitude of the early founders developed it. The entrepreneurial spirit of economic freedom turned it into a worldwide marketplace. The internet is America’s toy, our toy. As with most of our toys, we share it with anyone and charge nothing for it. Baring grossly illegal activity, anyone can post anything, anywhere, anytime on America’s internet. And the last people to whom we should give it are the same conies who ran the Oil for Food program.

Whether we are in the dorm, at a friends place, at the mall, at a meeting, wherever, we are constantly thinking, sometimes subconsciously, sometimes actively, about how to better improve our situation. It’s getting dark—turn on a light or go somewhere else. I’m bored—turn on the TV or computer or one of the thousand things to do even in Cleveland. We ran out of song sheets—I’ll print more. We’re running out of chairs—get more or stand. What is wrong with this? Nothing, we do improve our lives with the technology, simple and complex, that we keep at arm’s reach everyday. With more choices, we can at least make ourselves believe that we can move closer to that optimum level of comfort. However, we have also trained ourselves to accept the measurable aspects of our comfort. We feel cold so we walk over the thermostat, but it already reads 72, so tell ourselves that we really must not be cold and walk away. We often miss the immeasurable things, that which we often call the little things in life.

So what? you ask. That still doesn’t answer my question about what is so great about a hayride.

Well, let me simply reference an experiment reported a few years ago in Scientific American. (I am doing this from memory. If I find the article at home, I will post the exact numbers.) The experimenters offered people in a public area $10 to take a survey. (The survey had nothing to do with the experiment, it was just a distraction.) When the survey was done, the experimenters offered the subjects the option of taking the $10 they were promised or they could have a very fancy pen worth $10, instead. About 40% took the pen and 60% took the cash. Later, the experimenters repeated the experiment, but this time they offered the subjects the $10 they were promised, or the $10 fancy pen, or two $5 fuzzy pens. About 10% took the fancy pen and 10% took the fuzzy pens and 80% took the cash. Look very carefully at those numbers. The third option caused people who wanted the second option to now revert to the first option. People who thought the fancy pen was more valuable than the cash changed their mind when they saw the fuzzy pens and thought the cash was more valuable than them all! That doesn’t make any sense at all, even when you put yourself in the subject’s shoes and think that you might do exactly that! With this evidence and more, the researchers found that options and choices are intrinsically harmful, and we only tolerate them because some option might be better than another, which would balance out the bad effects of having to actually make the choice in the first place.

People who dislike technology do not dislike technology at all. They dislike having to choose from the thousands of options that technology provides. People do not turn off their computers to save energy, even if that is their stated reason. They turn them off to eliminate all the choices they provide. We go on hayrides because it simplifies our lives. We play without reason, we wrestle without consequences, and we love without shame. We run out food—we ration. We run out of song sheets—we share. We run out of seats—we scrunch closer. It is too dark to see—we sit around the campfire and talk. No choice but to be friendly. Choices, complexities, decisions—we know why we like them, but we don’t know why we don’t like them. Computers on our ear, on our belt, in our skull, in our bed—we know why we like them, but we don’t know why we don’t like them.

Sadly, many of these companies never sold enough goods to pay back their shareholders the investment made. The bubble, as it became to be known, popped. Despite their grand goals and good ideas, many companies never survived to see the reign of eBay, Amazon, Google, etc. They may have faired well if they survived, but frankly, they didn’t because they forgot a key element of achieving grand goals—implementation.

A final product, however spectacular, is only worth more than the paper if there is a way to successfully create it. The amount of money that Pets.com may have made once the demand for e-commerce matured is irrelevant because they didn’t have a plan to make money while the internet was small. They could have acted as a spin-off of some already-successful company that could have carried the load for a few years. For years, hydrogen cars, which would be a total failure if taken to market, have been riding on the backs of normal automakers, who enjoy generous media coverage every time they show off some silver, bubble shaped Jetson-looking vehicle. The other option is to find a small, needy niche to excel in. AMD entered the Intel-dominated microprocessor industry by catering to high performance gamers. Slowly, AMD spread into the market.

Ubiquitous computers MUST do this as well. We have dreamt up societies where everyone walks around with LCD watches and has a headset in one ear and talks to his refrigerator and performs brain surgery through virtual reality while working out at the gym. All this is nice, but how do we get from here to there. No one would buy a WLAN watch if there was no WLAN to support it. Who would wire his house with voice activated lights if the old switches worked fine? The economies of scale (a law that states that the cost of an individual item goes down for the more of them that are made) for this brand new technology are enormous. The cost of making the few dozen or so computerized houses will be outrageous. However, the cost of making everyone’s house computerized would not be so bad. (Think how much it would cost per house to bring electricity to a dozen houses compared to every house in the country.) Somebody’s house has to be the first. Somebody’s house has to the second. In the absence of some anti-capitalist government mandate, somebody’s going to have to fork over a pocketful before everyone can fork over a penny. Who is willing to pay this first sum? Wealthy businessmen trying to shave a few seconds off their morning of their valuable time? Computer nerds looking for the geekiest technology available? Star Trek lovers who always wanted to say “Tea, el-gray, hot”?

This same theory can be applied to most ubiquitous technologies. That is, they are often not very useful until they are actually ubiquitous. A beautiful goal and a means to perpetuate this goal will not bring success if there is not a realistic pathway to reach it.

None of these goals are unattainable. I believe that a computer pad could effectively replace books if it was designed correctly. Here are some key ways that computers could compete and even beat the hardcopy version:

Usability- No one finishes a book in a single sitting (unless the book is very short or you have lots of time, which is never the case for college students). Therefore, there must be a means of bookmarking must be available. Even the DVD industry has embraced this idea, despite the fact that most people actually watch an entire movie in a single sitting. Though not very useful for pleasure reading, the possibility for many bookmarks makes a computer book ideal for research. Add in the ability to store many books, search them, and highlight in them, and the ubiquitous computer book has entered a new market for student and professional researchers.

Portability- Laptops lose here. When we read a book, we shift our posture many times to redistribute the pressure points on our legs and back. It takes more physical effort to move a big piece of equipment than we are willing to spend if we are just trying to relax. I actually do a lot of reading and writing on a laptop, so believe me when I say that these things are too heavy to enjoy. (And they make my legs hot too, which is a whole separate problem.) Nevertheless, a computer without speakers or a keyboard could easily weigh as little as a hardcover book. Also, holding a book open requires certain amount of energy, especially if the binding is firm and the words close to the middle. A single flat pad would actually be better since no force is needed to hold open one.

Readability- While handheld PDAs win on weight, they lose on readability. Since novels have been around for centuries and their sales are dependant on the pleasure factor, I predict that novels have already given us the optimum dimensions of readability. This works out to about 5x8 in. You may also notice that good handout fliers are usually half the size of normal sheet of paper, which ironically is a very unreadable size. With that in mind, I should propose the biggest advantage that ubiquitous computer books could have over regular books. Take a screen shot of this blog and paste it into Paint. Read a few sentences and keep in mind how easy it is to read. Now, invert the colors and read some more. You will immediately notice that this white on black text is easier to read. Why is this? There is a simple biological reason. Whenever your eyes stare at a bright surface, your brain turns down the sensitivity of that region to give you better peripheral vision at to prevent depletion of your photochemicals. The result is that white appears a bit more grey, reducing the contrast between the black letters and the white background. If the colors are inverted, there is less white space, leading to less reduction in contrast. Why don’t we use white lettering in books now? Simply, white ink is hard to make. (Compare the price of a white-out pen to a regular one.) On the internet, the best websites use a black background, though most use white out of tradition. A well-designed computer book would have white text on a black background. (The glare won’t keep your sleepy spouse awake either.)

How else could a computer book match or beat the traditional system? Are there some areas that a ubiquitous computer book could never win in?

(As you may have suspected from our choice of viewing, we ascribe to the theory that there is nothing good on TV anymore, and hence, perpetually watch reruns of our favorite classics. Come to think of it, we could have set aside the reruns and joined millions of Americans in flushing their intellect down the toilet by watching the premier of reality show “The Biggest Loser.” Go ahead and google the name if you are fortunate enough to not have heard of it. I suspect that you will agree that it will live up to its name when the ratings come out.)

Anyway, my dad, my mom, and I are all snuggled under the covers watching the show. Suddenly, in the span of about fifteen minutes, we receive five calls. Dad fulfills his paternal duty each time, gets up, and answers the calls. First call: brother’s friend, not for anyone upstairs. Second call: girlfriend’s dad, obviously not with us. Third call: young female voice; I can’t remember the last time a young female called me, so this call goes to the basement too. The last two calls are for my dad. They are people simply telling him that they want a ride to church on Sunday. He drives the church bus and picks up those who don’t have cars so they can attend the service. Around the fourth call, my mom protests, “No cell phones in the theater!” I readily agree.

What does this story have to do with ubiquitous computing? Well, it should be apparent that none of these calls needed to interrupt our Star Trek viewing. Three were redirected, and two were simply a name and an address. From this comes the most promising aspect of ubiquitous computing—smart phones. A smart phone system would not have communal phones, where a person has the possibility of wasting his time answering someone else’s call. Some households have addressed this problem by buying all members, tweenagers and up, his or her own cell phone. They then promptly cancel their unnecessary landline phone, avoiding the outrageous federal phone taxes. A smart phone system would recognize that certain people do not normally need to reach an actual person and would ask people on this list to leave a message, unless they have other concerns and want to bypass the automatic system.

Instant messengers have used “busy” messages, “appear offline” settings, and an “always visible” list allow the section of who can talk to the user, when they can talk to the user, and everyone can leave a message. Cell phone users have discovered text messaging as a way to send information that does not require an inefficient call. It should be apparent that none of today’s phone problems have technological hurdles to jump. (The financial cost of a cell phone may be an exception.) All that must happen is that the inconvenience of installing a radically different communication system must drop below the cumulative inconveniences of an inefficient system. It is less of a technological problem and more of a sociological and economic one.

Unless, of course, I failed to take the laptop away from the Ethernet. Why can’t I resist the temptation to check cnn.com every five minutes? Unplugged!

Much to my strange delight, the cravings continued to appear at college. Just last night, I had the obsessive desire to sit down and type. (No, blogging was not on my mind.) However, the situation was much more complicated with the infection of instant messaging and wireless internet.

I attack the lights, feeling a bit malicious in doing it. The desk lamp has to go, too. Now, I need to clean up my computer for typing time. First thing that has to go are those vile instant messengers—both of them. Sign out! Exit! Sign out! Exit! Second target is Outlook. I move to the little X but hesitate. Can’t…resist. I click Send/Receive one last time. Oh no, “receiving message 1/1.” USG Mailer. Outlook closed! Whew, that was close. The last thing I need right is social information. I need to get back to typing.

That evil internet is still there, easily available, with a click on the little blue ‘e.’ I seize the blue gigabit cable. Unplugged! Ahh, I am now totally isolated from the computer world. “Wireless Network Connected (CaseGuest). Speed: 54.0 Mbps.” What is this? I’ve been attacked by ubiquitous computing. Disabled! Nothing dares to pop up as I stare at the screen. Even though I am perfectly isolated, I am still haunted by the icons of those little computers with a red X on them. Remove icon! Remove icon!

Someone could just walk right through the door. Locked! This watch is irritating. Removed! The clock can stay; it doesn’t talk to anything. I do, however, consider the fate of my room phone. Should I take it of the hook—unplug it from the wall? Finally, I allow it to stay, reasoning that I only get call from important people.

Happily, for several hours, I sit undisturbed, typing away, Lord of the Rings in the background. When one of my characters talks to his computer, I am abruptly reminded of our SAGES discussion concerning ubiquitous computing. What if my character wanted to do what I am doing, get away from cyberspace? In spite of all our technological advances, human beings still have a special affinity for natural settings. Why else would camping, natural lighting, and even suburbia be so popular in the world? As it stands right now, most of our technology is obvious and bulky, from the desktop to the TV to the cell phone, and it comes with an off switch. The wise among us use it when we want to play a board game with our friends, put a puzzle together with our kids, or get to know our spouses better. When ubiquitous computing reaches the point when everything is talking and listening to us and our technology is no longer bulky or obvious, those off buttons may be hard to find. I make a mental note that my intelligent fictional characters add and frequently use a global “shut up” button on their home’s main computer terminal. Perhaps, intelligent non-fictional creators of ubiquitous computing should make a similar mental note.