desktop of the future
Dan Franklin
I find the question of the "desktop of the future" a very interesting
one. But comments so far have only described new hardware
developments like the DataGlove and small variations on the desktop,
like the "virtual room" (or set of rooms).
By themselves, these developments will not lead to breakthroughs in
computer use. They'll never lead to the kind of stuff you see in
Cyberpunk books, where (apparently) computer hackers routinely survey
a "landscape" containing hundreds of computers, each with thousands of
files, looking for interesting information (or weaknesses :-).
What kind of future user interface SOFTWARE would lend itself to this
kind of operation? Dealing with massive complexity--being able to
find the needle in the haystack--is clearly going to occupy more and
more people trying to cope with the "information explosion".
I can even speak from experience. In my current work I often browse
among files in almost a hundred directories, with each directory
containing a couple of dozen files. I'm trying to figure out what
part of a rather large software system is responsible for some errant
behavior that just turned up that morning, or what part of the system
would break if I made a certain change.
It helps a lot that I can represent each file or directory as one line
on a big screen, and I can order the files by date, type (filename
suffix, that is), or other salient characteristics. I can even do
this for the contents of many directories at once. (Try *that* with
MacOS!) But it's still very clumsy, and I do this almost every day!
What I want is a way to look at hundreds or thousands of files at
once, in such a way that possibly-important properties, whatever they
are, spring out at me. Maybe show each file as a small blot, and let
the color and shape of the blot reflect whatever properties I'm
interested in at the moment: files created more recently than 24 hours
ago, files containing calls to "system", or even object files that are
out of date with respect to the source files needed to recreate them.
These are all selections I've made (or wanted to make) as I went
browsing. In a 3D world, I could imagine having the "interesting"
files literally stick out of the mass.
Or maybe I'm interested in a continuum, rather than a binary question:
how old is each file? How big is it? How many functions are in it?
What files are the most complex by some (user-defined) complexity
measure? Is there a correlation between that complexity measure and
revision rate? And so on. I could imagine lots of questions I'd want
to ask of these thousands of files, if only I could ask them easily
and get instantly comprehensible answers. THAT'S where the future is!
Dan Franklin
Barry Shein
Dan Franklin raises a good point.
The current wisdom seems to be the metaphor, specifically the desktop
metaphor or office metaphor. There's a lot of common sense to this,
obviously seeing familiar objects being used in familiar ways has its
appeal.
However, computers also tear down the metaphors, we do things we
wouldn't think of doing with more physical objects like edit them
mercilessly and search thru millions of items every several seconds
trying to locate something.
Someone on another list asked a wonderful question, what part of my
office/desktop is a "menu"? There it is, perhaps the most salient
feature of this desktop metaphor and it has absolutely no counterpart
(other than those chinese and italian takeout menus you have tacked to
your wall.)
Maybe we're kidding ourselves.
Sure, steamshovels are big shovels and locomotives are sort of fast,
never-tiring mule trains but at some point quantitative changes become
qualitative changes, especially in technology.
The ability to do something inconceivable (dig a huge hole in hard
earth, carry hundreds of tons of goods cross-country in a day) creates
changes which can't be described as mere extensions of the past,
something fundamental has truly changed (build skyscrapers, feed an
entire country on produce grown thousands of miles away.)
This is the thing that fascinates me far more than a better desktop
metaphor, I want to know what we will be doing with these new tools
which we never conceived of before. I don't want a better way to
shuffle a zillion pieces of paper, I want to finally face the fact
that all that paper-shuffling is wrong!
Seriously, isn't it quaint to look back and think of the folks who saw
the first automobiles and remarked "oh, horseless carraiges!", and
reflect on how truly limited their vision was?
-Barry Shein, ||Encore||
Cory Kempf
>I find the question of the "desktop of the future" a very interesting
>one. But comments so far have only described new hardware
>developments like the DataGlove and small variations on the desktop,
>like the "virtual room" (or set of rooms).
I have to admit, this is probably a better place for this than .Next
is... Isn't the 'virtual room' concept more a software one? as in
'shell'?
>By themselves, these developments will not lead to breakthroughs in
>computer use.
True, IF you are only considering the OS/HW changes and not
considering the changes in the way that people think about the systems
that they are on as a result of this. Take the mac for examle...
the idea of the desktop, and all that goes with it led to a lot of
ideas that are (loosely) based on this metaphor. It has changed how
people view the system, and what occurs to them to do with it. Kinda
like spinoff technology...
>What kind of future user interface SOFTWARE would lend itself to this
>kind of operation? Dealing with massive complexity--being able to
>find the needle in the haystack--is clearly going to occupy more and
>more people trying to cope with the "information explosion".
Looking at files is a rather static view of the system... the idea of
a computer program is a batch mode apporach. If we can get faster
hardware/better algm's, it should become feasable to view software in
a more interactive mode... to actually see the data as it is flowing
around the system... Of what use this would be, I am still working
on, but one thing that I can see is a faster turnaround time -- with
the changes being made while the system is opperating (ie reach in a
swap the bad code object for a new one... add/change the functionality
of the system without the need of source, etc.
>It helps a lot that I can represent each file or directory as one line
>on a big screen, and I can order the files by date, type (filename
>suffix, that is), or other salient characteristics. I can even do
>this for the contents of many directories at once. (Try *that* with
>MacOS!) But it's still very clumsy, and I do this almost every day!
cakewalk. Before you start putting down a system, the least you could
do is research it a bit. In fact, on the mac *I* can do better. But
I really don't see any good reason to start a 'my system is better
than yours' battle... (With work, I could probably do something
similar on any good system)
Personally, I am hoping that the idea of files as static disk objects
will fade away (if it ever becomes reasonable to have several Gb of
RAM, of what use is a Hard Disk? -- there was a blurb in a one of the
tech rags that I read a long time ago about some research using
bi-state protiens as memory cells. They predicted something on the
order of 10 Gbit/cm^2 density. Use a low power laser to read, a
higher power one to switch. Nonvolatile.)
>What I want is a way to look at hundreds or thousands of files at
>once, in such a way that possibly-important properties, whatever they
>are, spring out at me.
It sounds like you would be in a world of sensory overload... picture
the cockpit of an airplane... now increase the number of controls,
dials, etc 100 fold. Now find the usefull data with everything
blinking lights at you to get your attention.
I generally use a form of grep to deal with this... If I tell 'ls'
to give me the data, I can use 'grep' to show me only the data that
I want to work with. The only real problem is that it takes a while
and is clumsy. On the Mac II (when I have access to a colour monitor,
I use different colours to represent different things... either projects,
or types of files (ex: all .h files have light blue icons) I would like
to see other text attributes as well as colour added to the text
listing of the directories though.
>Or maybe I'm interested in a continuum, rather than a binary question:
>how old is each file?
I wonder if it would be practical to set up a system of colours and
shades to represent continuum function gradiations... such as age for
example... old data would fade out, current data would be bright...
perhaps a version of grep that would alter the way that the the list
in the current window is displayed, based on the values of the data
objects... say turn all files that match the current selection pattern
bright red? etc?
I could go on for ages on this... maybe (if I get the time and
inclination), I will write another micro-story...
don't think that I am putting down the idea, cause I'm not. Just
don't limit the ideas that are already out there.
+C
--
Cory ( "...Love is like Oxygen..." ) Kempf
UUCP: encore.com!gloom!cory
"...it's a mistake in the making." -KT
J.D. Beutel
>
>Dan Franklin raises a good point.
>
>The current wisdom seems to be the metaphor, specifically the desktop
>metaphor or office metaphor. There's a lot of common sense to this,
>obviously seeing familiar objects being used in familiar ways has its
>appeal.
>
>This is the thing that fascinates me far more than a better desktop
>metaphor, I want to know what we will be doing with these new tools
>which we never conceived of before. I don't want a better way to
>shuffle a zillion pieces of paper, I want to finally face the fact
>that all that paper-shuffling is wrong!
Interesting discussion. Whatever the future brings, I'd bet it will
involve some sort of non-linear representation (i.e., pictures instead
of words). I do not take seriously the interfaces of today that use
pictures and metaphors to make computers friendlier, but I do recognize
that 'a picture's worth a thousand words.'
Ultimately, in the cyberpunk future, the interface wouldn't be just a
picture, thought--it'd be sight and sound and smell and touch and,
hey, while we're at it, why not invent a few extra senses? If the
bottleneck of our brains is I/O, maybe we can expand our interface?
In the near future, how about adding sound to sight? Certain files
could make distinctive noises, like a low, background hum.
If it were done well, I'd find it more helpful than annoying.
Some terminal key-clicks, for example, I like. (tvi925 is one)
Too bad that most are annoying.
11011011
Jeff A. Bowles
Look at the mailbox mechanisms some R&D sites have today: you send a
letter to George, and *YOUR* picture appears as an icon is his mailbox.
If I were editing music files, I'd want a couple of different handles
for the file:
1. A representative grandstaff reduction of some recognizable
portion, i.e. the dit-dit-dit-dah for a transcription of
Beethoven's Fifth (1st movement);
2. That recognizable portion, played on my MIDI interface.
Note that I'm not (NOT NOT NOT) talking about VIEWING the file, but
viewing the directory in which it resides - we're talking about the
handle for the file as it appears in a directory.
If I were viewing information on art work, perhaps I would have a folder
for each major artist, and the folder "name" would be a reduction of the
most well-known work he/she created. Why should it say "Rembrandt" in
whatever typeface, when it can show me his self-portrait?
Note how the Mac has multiple ways to name a file - an icon coupled with
a name, a miniature icon coupled with the name (and other verbose info),
and so on. The practice is reasonable - certainly better than the 1960's
method of naming files things like
X.OBJ X.LOAD X.LIB X.FORT X.PLI X.ASM
although on Unix, we're much better than that - we use one-character
suffixes!
If files were, in fact, sets of observations (think about statistics
for a sec), perhaps the handles you used might be something else, but
the idea that you might view a directory KNOWN TO CONTAIN RELATED FILES
using something like "show the directory as a 2-D graph in which the
files are on the X-axis and the maximum data item from each file is its
Y-coordinate". I agree with whomever said that this sort of thing would
be a powerful tool.
Imagine someone else combining a couple of the above examples, and
saying "each file contains a score, let the handle for the file be
the highest note appearing in the tenor line and show me the directory."
It this a database query? Sorta kinda.
The only problem I see is how to make such a system extensible. You
can't imbed A-L-L the different ways to show a file, because as I indicate
in the above examples, you could come up with a lot of different TYPES
of files. Still, it's a good place to start: something that would be nice
to use, albeit not easy to implement....
Jeff Bowles
al greenwood
Something which I wish was discussed more in this group. The Psychology of
Computer Use and of Computer Communications will determine not only how
new technology is viewed but how it is used..
This is my area of research, and Ive been hoping to link up with individuals who are already involved and working in this area..
I do have a question for everyone.. The one study done in this area.. states
that Computer Communication causes users to like each other less.. Do you agreewith this?
Graham Wills
>
>Seriously, isn't it quaint to look back and think of the folks who saw
>the first automobiles and remarked "oh, horseless carraiges!", and
>reflect on how truly limited their vision was?
>
> -Barry Shein, ||Encore||
Why does he think so ?
What are the crucial differences between autos and carriages which make
someone who thinks they are similar "quaint" ?
After all, they have the same basic function, transport; they both need
regular maintainence, polishing; they inspire(d) similar feelings in their
owners - affection, pride; they are (were) status symbols; In recreation
they are (were) used similarly, for racing, going for a drive in the country;
etc. etc. etc.
In fact the only *real* differences are that cars go faster and can travel for
longer distances more easily. Socially and psychologically they perform the
same function.
They would have been much more quaint if they had remarked
" Oh, a new type of transport which will cause fundamental changes
in the way we live "
Graham Wills
TCD, Ireland
D. W. James
)I do have a question for everyone.. The one study done in this area.. states
)that Computer Communication causes users to like each other less.. Do you
)agreewith this?
Is this users who knew each other in advance, or who were meeting for
the first time via computer communications? From personal experiance I have
to disagree with this as it stands. However, it can be generalized and made
more accurate. That is, Computer Communications causes users to become more
polarized. If you disagree with someone, it will be more violent over
computer channels than in person, and if you agree with someone you will
more quickly become confidants. Computer communications, be it real-time or
e-mail, lacks the dampers that society has imposed in most other forms of
communications. This has lead to such extremes as the flame-wars we are all
familiar with to a friend of mine who recieved a dozen long-stemmed roses from
a gentleman she met via BITNET' Chat the day after they met.
--
Later Y'all, Vnend Ignorance is the mother of adventure.
SCA event list? Mail? Send to:vn...@phoenix.princeton.edu or vn...@pucc.bitnet
Anonymous posting service (NO FLAMES!) at vn...@ms.uky.edu
"Self-discipline implies some unpleasant things to me, including staying away from chocolate ..." Oleg Kiselev
weis...@xerox.com
that Computer Communication causes users to like each other less.. Do you
agreewith this?"
Not in the slightest. The biggest effect for me has been to get me in
touch with hundreds more people of whom I would otherwise have never known.
Some are jerks, true, but that is true everywhere, not just with computer
communication. They can always be ignored. But the many other fine people
I first meet on the net by far make up for any negatives.
As for people I first met in person, and later worked with electronically,
without the computer communications I would have lost touch with these
people, but with it I have stayed in touch. It has not usually made me
like them better, but also no worse.
-mark
d...@watson.bbn.com
>What I want is a way to look at hundreds or thousands of files at
>once, in such a way that possibly-important properties, whatever they
>are, spring out at me.
Cory said:
>It sounds like you would be in a world of sensory overload... picture
>the cockpit of an airplane... now increase the number of controls,
>dials, etc 100 fold. Now find the useful data with everything
>blinking lights at you to get your attention.
Not at all. I'll try a more concrete example. The screen you're
looking at right now can show you at least 2000 ASCII characters or
so, but you don't suffer information overload. If each of those
characters represented a process, and you specified that processes
with different amounts of cumulative CPU time should be represented as
one of the characters ".", ":", or "X", you could instantly spot the
long-running processes in far less time than it would take to scan a
typical "ps -l" for high numbers in the cpu time column. When the
number of entities gets large, it's the traditional way of displaying
things that causes information overload.
But I *would* suffer from sensory overload if I could not adjust the
display parameters as quickly and easily as I adjust the steering angle
of my car. I'd need to move through many changes to get the display right
and avoid the problem you describe. This is where new hardware, like
the DataGlove, might come in.
>Looking at files is a rather static view of the system...
Very true. I was just giving an example from my experience. Actually
I think the problem with files is not that they are "static", since any
information system is going to have static pieces of information, but
that files almost always represent the wrong level of granularity. They
either have too much or too little information in them. (And of course
in traditional systems there are no links between files other than
being in the same directory.)
> ... to actually see the data as it is flowing around the system...
There are systems that do this, in circumstances when it's appropriate.
A USENIX in the last year or two featured a signal-processing system
which used icons to represent filters of various kinds, tape recorders,
oscilloscopes, etc. You could interactively couple them together in
various ways and "see the data". I've often wanted the same thing with
UNIX pipes; my ten-stage pipelines are very elegant but real killers
to debug.
Dan
al greenwood
>polarized. If you disagree with someone, it will be more violent over
>computer channels than in person, and if you agree with someone you will
>more quickly become confidants. Computer communications, be it real-time or
>e-mail, lacks the dampers that society has imposed in most other forms of
>communications. This has lead to such extremes as the flame-wars we are all
>familiar with to a friend of mine who recieved a dozen long-stemmed roses from
>a gentleman she met via BITNET' Chat the day after they met.
>
Oh most definitely, I have strong reservations about that "one" study, and am
planning to run one that demonstrates the above interactions. (sometime...)
The question is what is causing this lack of inhibition.. lack of sight, anonymity, a form of deindividuation.. Are these dampers something outside of
us that the computer will not transmit... or are they internal rules for
our interactions which we for some reason ignore or dont apply to the computer.
A friend suggested that the tenuous link with reality that computer comm. has
contributes to this. (I mean where exactly is this conference located, and how
we imagine others to be...) Nobody imposes rules on a fantasy..
Alex Zbyslaw
>In fact the only *real* differences are that cars go faster and can travel for
>longer distances more easily. Socially and psychologically they perform the
>same function.
Couldn't disagree more. The fact that you can travel long distances in
short times, at your convenience is a considerable factor both socially and
psychologically. Scale really does matter.
The same, I think, hold for computers. Eniac (if it still exists) is not
equivalent to a Sun or a Cray, which (hopefully) won't be equivalent to the
nth next generation.
What matters most is what you can do with it, not some abstract functional
equivalence.
--Alex
JANET: al...@uk.ac.ed.eusip ARPA: alex%ed.e...@nss.cs.ucl
UUCP: ...{backbone}!mcvax!ukc!eusip!alex
[CSNET BITNET]: alex%ed.eusip%nss.cs.ucl@[csnet-relay cunyvm]
John Hascall
>Mr. Shein writes ...
>>Seriously, isn't it quaint to look back and think of the folks who saw
>>the first automobiles and remarked "oh, horseless carraiges!", and
>>reflect on how truly limited their vision was?
>Why does he think so ?
>What are the crucial differences between autos and carriages which make
>someone who thinks they are similar "quaint" ?
>After all, they have the same basic function, transport; they both need
>regular maintainence, polishing; they inspire(d) similar feelings in their
>owners - affection, pride; they are (were) status symbols; In recreation
>they are (were) used similarly, for racing, going for a drive in the country;
>etc. etc. etc.
>In fact the only *real* differences are that cars go faster and can travel for
>longer distances more easily. Socially and psychologically they perform the
>same function.
Yes, this is how it seems on the surface. Cars today are, in a mechanical
sense, quite similar to the first cars.
What HAS changed is the social and psychological functions. Originally,
they work looked at as "evil". They were the toys of the rich. The general
public considered them a nuisance or worse. Many places, in fact, had
strict laws for automobiles (i.e., 5 mph speed limit, or having to pull to
the side and stop the motor upon meeting a horse).
This all changed when Henry Ford made the car something the entire population
could afford. This lead to the creating of a nationwide system of
(drivable) roads, where before there were only muddy horse/wagon trails.
With this came a profound change in American travel/living patterns--no
longer did most people grow up to live a short distance from there
family, no longer did people live their entire lives in a hundred mile
radius of where they were born.
>They would have been much more quaint if they had remarked
>" Oh, a new type of transport which will cause fundamental changes
> in the way we live "
Actually, such a person would have been very forward thinking....
IMHO the mass-produced automobile is one of the ten things which
has most changed life in this country.
John Hascall
p.s. since I mentioned it, how about your list of the 10 things that
have and/or will change life?
John B. Nagle
>" Oh, a new type of transport which will cause fundamental changes
> in the way we live "
Which, of course, the railroad had done fifty years before.
John Nagle
P.Kathuria
>>[...] Computer Communications causes users to become more
>>polarized. If you disagree with someone, it will be more violent over
>>computer channels than in person, and if you agree with someone you will
>>more quickly become confidants. Computer communications, be it real-time or
>>e-mail, lacks the dampers that society has imposed in most other forms of
>>communications.
>Oh most definitely.
>The question is what is causing this lack of inhibition.. lack of sight,
>anonymity, a form of deindividuation.Are these dampers something outside of
>us that the computer will not transmit... or are they internal rules for
>our interactions which we for some reason ignore or dont apply to the computer.
>
>A friend suggested that the tenuous link with reality that computer comm. has
>contributes to this. (I mean where exactly is this conference located, and how
>we imagine others to be...) Nobody imposes rules on a fantasy..
I can't help replying although I have no research to back up anything I
say, only a year's experience of BBs, chat programs and multi-user adventure
games (usually packaged together), which I hope to make use of by collecting
transcripts and writing a paper. My background is psychology and computing.
To Al's original question, yes, I'd disagree too; I tend to like people
quicker over the computer but I can also dislike them quicker too; there
is still a sizeable portion of just-okay people in the middle. My feelings
are that having done away with handwriting, fashion, looks, voice,
mannerisms and even gender, all one is left with is the context and what
is said to build up an idea of someone you are communicating with. For
instance, one can make some assumptions about people who write here from
their organisation and the fact that they have access to news. Besides
this information, what people say becomes all important. However this
medium can still mislead people. In bulletin boards and e-mail people write
as much as they like without being interrupted, some are meticulous about
the appearance and accuracy of what they write and some are not. But
because it is all people have to go by, I believe that these become
more salient, and these are factors in addition to the actual content of
a message.
What I think is most interesting is communicating real-time in chat programs
or MUAGs. Because of the medium and number of people involved, messages
are usually restricted to a line at a time (because the subject of the
conversation(s) change often and someone may reply before you) and so
people talk in a new way. Some develop their own shortened vocabulary to
make conversation as close to the spoken word time-wise as possible, as
well as use smileys and atmospheres to qualify what they are saying (e.g.,
[smile], [wave], [hug]). I have made some good friends on this medium
(and psychological research would explain this in terms of disclosure),
having spent many hours talking. At times I had to pinch myself to
remind myself that there was a real person somewhere typing at a terminal
like me; sometimes it's like talking to oneself because there is no threat.
Although early on the model one builds up of someone is disjointed and
conflicting, over time I think one can have a good enough idea of what
someone is like in 'real life' to know whether you'll get on or not.
Most importantly, I believe people are more honest over this medium
because nothing will embarrass them but their own regret; there is no
feedback unless someone purposefully replies (I'm comparing this with
silences over the 'phone, a look that passes over the face). Because
of this I value it because it forces us to accept people for who
they are inside rather than base any model on the conventional, and often
misleading, first physical appearance.
---* Paola Kathuria p...@ukc.ac.uk or com...@cms1.leeds.ac.uk
... whose paradise is a bag of jam doughnuts and a can of squirty cream.
Peter da Silva
data point, mind you.
--
Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation.
Work: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, pe...@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. `-_-'
Home: bigtex!texbell!sugar!peter, pe...@sugar.uu.net. 'U`
Opinions may not represent the policies of FICC or the Xenix Support group.
Frank Wales
>I liked someone I met on a computer system so much I married her. Just one
>data point, mind you.
And then there were two. [Anyone plotting this?]
--
Frank Wales, Systems Manager, [fr...@zen.co.uk<->mcvax!zen.co.uk!frank]
Zengrange Ltd., Greenfield Rd., Leeds, ENGLAND, LS9 8DB. (+44) 532 489048 x217
Doug Thompson
AZ>From: al...@aipna.ed.ac.uk (Alex Zbyslaw)
AZ>In article <2...@maths.tcd.ie> writes:
AZ>>In fact the only *real* differences are that cars go faster
AZ>and can travel for
AZ>>longer distances more easily. Socially and psychologically they
AZ>perform the
AZ>>same function.
AZ>
AZ>Couldn't disagree more. The fact that you can travel long distances in
AZ>short times, at your convenience is a considerable factor both socially and
AZ>psychologically. Scale really does matter.
AZ>
AZ>The same, I think, hold for computers. Eniac (if it still exists) is not
AZ>equivalent to a Sun or a Cray, which (hopefully) won't be equivalent to the
AZ>nth next generation.
AZ>
AZ>What matters most is what you can do with it, not some abstract functional
AZ>equivalence.
Agreed! The auto was a horseless carriage, and initially filled the
role of the horse-drawn carriage and existed side-by-side with it.
However the auto has done much that the horse-drawn vehicle could not
do. It transformed rural communities within 100 Km of a city into
suburbs, because it provided economical and convenient access to the
metropolis which the horse could not. It reduced travelling time, so
people could take jobs that were 70 Km distant. So people took those
jobs. Horse-drawn vehicles would never have inspired freeways, nor the
degree of daily mobility which billions enjoy because of it.
Social mobility was enhanced, and demographic patterns were
transformed. In agriculture, the tractor (an ancestor of the car)
created a labour revolution, increasing the work which one person
could do in a day quite dramatically. This too had its demographic and
economic effects. It meant cheaper food, more food with less labour,
and contributed the the historically unique proportion of
city-dwellers in the modern first and second worlds. Without the
tractor most of us would still be living on the farm.
When you significantly alter cost and speed factors, everything else
tends to change to reflect that. The printing press revolutionized
communication, even though it used the same alphabet as hand-writing.
It did so because one writer could address millions with a press, and
only a few thousand without one. The press also reduced the cost of
information on paper dramatically which permitted more people to make
more use of it. That too had important side effects.
The auto is one of the best examples though, because it has so
dramatically changed the appearance and the demography of every place
it has been widely deployed. And it has happened within a couple of
generations. In 1899 when my grandmother was born, autos were less
common than computers are today. Today she lives near a freeway and
comments sometimes about the changes. The compounded side-effects are
such that almost nothing is the same as it was in 1899! The auto is
not the only agent of change, but it is involved in most. The world
wars shaped our era very much. Both were massively influenced by
internal combustion engines in surface and air vehicles.
Blitzkrieg and submarine warfare, aerial bombing, and many of the
remarkable phenomenon of the world wars would not really have been
possible without internal combustion engines. Their development was
very much a product of the auto industry.
This is more than a horseless carriage we're dealing with here . . .
=Doug
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fido 1:221/162 -- 1:221/0 280 Phillip St.,
UUCP: !watmath!isishq!doug Unit B-4-11
DAS: [DEZCDT]doug Waterloo, Ontario
Bitnet: fido@water Canada N2L 3X1
Internet: do...@isishq.math.fidonet.org (519) 746-5022
------------------------------------------------------------------------