I didn’t understand a lot of the jargon being spoken, but the stuff I did understand was quite interesting. Being able to run a ‘desktop’ virtually without having all the software and hardware taking up space. This could lead to a complete downsizing of technology. Possibly everything running off of hand-held virtual devices. Interaction with this kind of technology is boundless. Riley’s app could essentially be integrated into the classrooms of the future, hurdling over the ‘laptop for every child’ initiative. This would have larger ramifications as well looking at the amount of resources it takes to produce the variety of parts found in computers. By cutting down on production you save resources and the environment. This kind of technology affords broader mobility with people being able to work separately from corporate and personal access. It is frightening from my stance because it blurs the line between physical personal space and virtual space. Reflecting on all the interactions we looked at in our process, I feel that the physical space can be just as important as the virtual one. With more advances in technology and complex interactions, who will define how we set boundaries for these hairy situations concerning public/private and virtual/physical.

case study (first case study at the bottom entitled “Enabling Device Mobility with Dynamic Virtual Clients”):

http://ipip.intel.com/go/dvc/

video: