Article

Article:
http://www.computerworld.com/article/2593079/ubiquitous--pervasive--sorry--they-don-t-compute.html



Picture
http://designingforusabilitybendavis.blogspot.com/2008/10/studio-1-definitions-and-images-of.html

     This article gives two possible pathways that our current technology could take into the future.  The author explains the similarities and differences of the two in order to clear up confusion about what their names mean.  The first option the article describes is pervasive computing.  The article defines pervasive as "diffused throughout every part of".  It uses this definition to explain that pervasive computing is a future where we see technology everywhere.  Free computer kiosks dot sidewalks and stores, and people use their handheld devices for everything and anything they can.  The other, very similar, option is referred to as ubiquitous computing.  Defined as "everywhere", the word ubiquitous shows the reader that this future of technology is much smoother.  Instead of technology in every part of our lives, technology is so ingrained in our routines that it almost ceases to exist.  It does everything for us even before we tell it too.  From GPS units that alert us of upcoming traffic to ovens that turn themselves off when we forget, ubiquitous computing is almost like invisible technology, running thousands of calculations per second to improve our lives.
     This topic of future technology interests me very much.  I like the way this author defines the two very similar terms, and shows the large difference in the simple definitions.  The two terms are often used interchangeably, which I now know is false.  The two terms are very related, but almost are sequential and dependent on each other.  I don't think that we could ever reach ubiquitous computing without first enduring pervasive computing.  There will be a time where almost everyone in the first world is glued to little screens on their wrists and palms.  Soon after people will realize that technology should be working for us instead of the other way around.  People will move technology out of the spotlight, without losing any of it's benefits, and focus on each other.
     I think that this author is biased to the idea of ubiquitous computing.  He defines two terms, then uses his own definitions to compare them.  He selects many positive pieces of evidence to support the ubiquitous side while omitting almost all negatives.  He does the opposite for pervasive computing, almost making fun of the people who support it.  Near the end of the article, the author uses a quote from an expert about the difference between the two.  The man he quotes is the man who invented and is researching ubiquitous computing.  The quote is most likely bias due to its source.  The author has one more interesting bias.  The article was written in March 2000.  It is interesting to read the article considering all the technological progress we have made since then,  If the article is reread with this bias in mind, it may come across a little differently.  Although there is bias, I don't think it is strong enough for this to be considered an editorial.