* = Ron
* > = Joe
* > > = Tim
* > > * = Joe
* > > * (Am I *really* having to explain this to an audience of NeXT and Apple
* > > * fans???)
* Don't worry Joe, we're with you. Even those of us who've never touched
* a NeXT and the last Apple machine I owned was a ][+.
* You've proven your worth at being able to "glimpse the future", even
* if you do work for the evil empire, and you are an old OS hack :).
Wait a minute. I don't recall Joe telling us his version, just towing the
* You know Rommel and Montgomery also had a lot of respect for
* each other as battlefield soldiers, in spite of the fact
* that they worked for different bosses, with , shall we say,
* different views of the world order. It was Montgomery and
* Eisenhower, if I recall, that hated each other. Or was that
* Patton? Any history experts out there?
Montgomery and Patton.
* > No. My POINT was, can you explain to me how Microsoft will IMPEDE the
* > imminent universal connectivity of everything.
* They're not. They're actively promoting it (eg Teledesic).
* There evilness is not in impeding the vision, it's in wanting to own
* and control it. They get the vision all right - that's what makes
* them so scary.
Microsoft is not Teledesic. Teledesic is Bill Gates and Craig McGraw (McCaw?)
* > > * But oral commands (input) and visual representations (output) are
* > not
* > > * mutually exclusive.
* > > * [...]
* > > * Voice recognition won't catch on until it's easy to use. At some
* > point,
* > > * we *will* have systems that can understand "when's the next F1 race"
* > > * without getting all confused.
* > >
* > > Well I don't know about you, but I can look at something once and
* > remember
* > > it far better than listening to it once. I guess it has to do with
* > those 3
* > > million visual inputs to the brain vrs the 300,000 audio.
* > Yes, granted, I agree. Visual output is not going away. But voice
* > recognition (input) will arrive. And again, they are not mutually
* > exclusive.
Umm... again Billy Boy's version is that it is for the most part going to
go away. At least that is what he told CSPAN. That was what I was basing my
* Come on guys , this is model/presentation separation 101. You're quite
* right, Joe - they're not mutually exclusive. Whether you come
* from the OO/Smalltalk school of Model/View/Controller, or the Web school
* of structured document design, independent of presentation,
* you wind up at the same place.
* Ie, the _model_ (F1 race) exists independently of its presentation.
* One moment you want it visual, the next audible and the next
* smellable :-). Sometimes you want all 3.
I don't think I want to smell www.microsoft.com now or in the future.
Although this does bring up interesting possibilities with www.hotchicks.com
* Tim can prefer his visually only - that's his choice, made
* independently of the model design. It comes down to personal
* preference, the capability of your presentation environment (gotta
* get that smell-generator upgrade for my browser :-), etc.
* Tim, I sincerely hope those web sites you design for big $$ have
* *some* notion of presentation-independence.
* As to the many examples you gave of the type of future you
* want (Jiffy oil changes, etc.), they're all very good of course,
* but any one of them could have come straight out of Wired.
Well since I don't read WIRED I'll have to take your word for it. Obviously
oil changes and vcr programming is the "consumer" aspect of the future.
* The challenging part, I feel, is not in merely predicting
* what a bit-soaked world will look like, as Negroponte & company
* like to do, but in figuring out the mapping of the software
* technologies needed to make it all happen.
Write CSPAN and tell them that, since Ms and Bill Gates is in a far better
position than I to do that and other than a few taped voice recog demos,
didn't bother to illuminate us any further than I have. And as a matter of
fact quite a bit less.
"For the record you're no loser"
"Yeah, but I'm no Eddie Van Blunhdt either..."
<> email@example.com <>