01_Dubberly, Pangaro, Haque_pg8_The article discusses the interaction between a person and a steam engine as a learning system, coupled to a self regulating system. The article acknowledges the person as a learning system, but doesn’t quite equate them with being a computer. What is being asked here? If computers can learn like humans, or humans learn like computers? Are humans just another component in many of these higher-order systems? is there a loss or surrendering of human agency if so?

02_Khan_pg3_The article states:

“…architecture is a form of etiquette….[it] exists not out of pompousness, but because it lets life proceed more easily. Situated computing extends this age-old preference, where as anytime-anyplace computing does not.”

Can you explain this concept in a little more detail? Is it possible for architecture to follow an ‘anytime-anyplace’ model? are the two models incompatible? does this start to turn to the realm of sentient cities?

03_Dourish_pg15-16_The point was brought up in Sentient Cities, what the agency of the individual is in truly interactive systems. In the examples given of a tangible computing environment, the fact that the system knows your next step based on your interaction with the world is great, but it inherently follows a more linear path, simply reacting to what you are doing. (The tangible object is not able to be changed, they system is only able to react to your interest in it.) Is tangible computer capable of a higher order of system? Or is it relegated to the traditional man-machine loop?