Weiser says, “…display prices will fall, and resolution and quality will rise. By the end of the decade, a 1,000 * 800-pixel high-contrast display will be a fraction of a centimeter thick and weigh perhaps 100 grams.” It makes me to think how a prediction and estimation of the further technologies by a scientist can be close to the reality. I ask myself, “What kind of inventions were not predictable in the history of science and technology?” I am not sure about the answers but those are the most interesting parts of the history. On the other hand I still do not understand the aim and motivation of scientists such as Weiser who believe that the technologies related to their field should be ubiquitous. Maybe the answer is at the end of the article, ”When almost every object either contains a computer or can have a tab attached to it, obtaining information will be trivial” (I am more interested in analytical power and processing capabilities of computers rather than their super accessible memory). But it is still unclear and complex for me. I am always thinking about the next generation of technologies which are not frustrating and I am waiting to see the technologies that are solved into the human nature and nature and life. As the information technologies are changing, architectural spaces embodying activities are changing too. When the technologies can be unpredictable the architecture would be too, but there is another question, “How can Architecture cause or seek the invention of new technologies?” This is something different from thinking about “virtual pizza parlor” that Mitcher talks about. When it is unpredictable, at first, it should seems illogical but emergent. I think it happens whens architects, themselves, get deeper into the other sciences and corporate with scientists rather than waiting for using their results.