Saturday, June 30, 2018

PERSONAL SPECIAL ....How to Be On Time Every Time


How to Be On Time Every Time

Being punctual matters. The short version: people who are habitually late (or are late even once, when it counts) project incompetence, self-centeredness, and even a lack of integrity.
There are tricks for people who have a hard time showing up on time, and through a little bit of research and a little bit of self-examination, I statea few points here.
First of all, though, it’s important to see being on time as part of your whole attitude towards time. You’re never going to be on time, every time — whether for appointments, meeting big deadlines, or even to catch a movie — if you haven’t put into practice a set of good time management techniques.
That means, for example, having a central place where your time commitments are recorded, whether that’s an online calendar, Outlook, a smartphone, a dayplanner, or just an index card with your schedule on it.  It seems obvious that to be on time you have to know where you have to be and when, but it’s a step a lot of people try to skip — they want to hold everything in their heads.
Secondly, being punctual requires a bit of an attitude adjustment. A lot of the time we let ourselves show up late because the event we’re showing up to isn’t all that important to us. Try this: don’t schedule events that aren’t that important to you. Use that time for things that are important to you. I know, there are a lot of things in your life that feel obligatory, like the weekly status report meeting at work, or dinner at your spouse’s or partner’s parents; either make those things important to you, or figure out how to cut them from your calendar.

Ok, with general principles out of the way, let’s move on to the tricks.
10 ways to make yourself more punctual
1. Don’t check your email or voicemail right before you leave. 
That “last quick check” will almost always take more time than you think — which is, after all, what you’re hoping for. If you thought there’d be nothing important in your email, you wouldn’t bother checking.
2. Plan for trouble. 
Always add 25% to your time estimate to get anywhere or do any task. If you think it takes 30 minutes to get to work, give yourself 40 (technically, 37 1/2, but let’s not be ridiculous here!). If you need 12 working hours to finish a proposal, give yourself 15. The worst thing that could happen is that you get a nice “Scotty effect” going, where you’re always ahead of schedule and everyone thinks you’re a miracle worker.
3. Set up the night before. 
If you are, like me, someone who has a hard time getting going in the morning, make sure you set up the night before. Lay out your clothes, put your keys, wallet, etc. in tomorrow’s pants pockets or your purse, load up your bag with whatever material you’ll need  in the morning, put your lunch together, and so on. In the morning, wake up, get dressed, grab your stuff, and go.
4. Set your clocks ahead a few minutes each — by different amounts. 
My alarm clock is 5 minutes fast, my watch only 1, my car clock 3. I think. Since I can’t be sure, I have to take each clock at face value. You might have a look at thProcrastinator’s Clock which is some random amount of time ahead, up to 15 minutes. It’s available for Mac and PC — I wonder if there’s a bedside version?
5. Learn to better estimate how much time things take. 
Use a time tracker app like RescueTime to learn how long typical tasks take you to complete. Record these times, and refer to your record when estimating the time needed for similar tasks.
6. Schedule events 10 minutes early. 
Put your 1:00 appointment into your schedule at 12:50, for example. But always have 10 minutes of work with you to fill the slack time, in case you surprise yourself by showing up “on time” 10 minutes early!
7. Set reminders. 
Use your calendar program’s built-in reminder function, or use a service like Sandy to send you text reminders at set intervals before each appointment. I like a reminder at least an hour beforehand, so I can plan, and another 15 minutes prior so I know where I stand.
8. Schedule events for “off-peak” times. 
Last year, I had a weekly meeting at 8 am. A trip that takes me 30 minutes any time after 9:00 am took me 1 1/2 hours due to rush hour traffic. Guess how many times I was late? Learn the times that traffic or other factors might make you late, and avoid scheduling during those times. For instance, give yourself at least an hour to get settled in every morning before your first meeting (so if you’re late to work, you won’t also be late for a meeting), don’t schedule meetings immediately after lunch (in case you get held up), avoid before-working-hours events (due to rush hour traffic), etc.
9. Fill your gas tank when it reaches 1/4 tank. 
Don’t let an empty gas tank make you late for anything. Fill up whenever you reach 1/4 and you’ll never have to make an emergency stop at a gas station during your commute. (Plus, I’m told it’s better for your engine — whether that’s true or not, I don’t know.)
10.             Use a countdown timer. 
Grab a cheap digital timer, and use it to create a sense of urgency, and to help you keep on track at each step you need to complete to make it wherever you’re supposed to be on time. Break your preparation down into 10 minutes parts, set the timer, and GO!
Dustin Wax
https://www.lifehack.org/articles/featured/how-to-be-on-time-every-time.html

INTERNET SPECIAL ...HOW THE WORD “SPAM” CAME TO MEAN “JUNK MESSAGE

HOW THE WORD “SPAM” CAME TO MEAN “JUNK MESSAGE”

While some have suggested that this was because SPAM (as in the Hormel meat product) is sometimes satirized as “fake meat”, thus spam messages are “fake messages”, this potential origin, while plausible enough on the surface, turns out to be not correct at all.
The real origin of the term comes from a 1970 Monty Python’s Flying Circus skit.  In this skit, all the restaurant’s menu items devolve into SPAM.  When the waitress repeats the word SPAM, a group of Vikings in the corner sing “SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, lovely SPAM!  Wonderful SPAM!”, drowning out other conversation, until they are finally told to shut it.
Exactly where this first translated to internet messages of varying type, such as chat messages, newsgroups, etc, isn’t entirely known as it sort of happened all over the place in a very short span of years, in terms of the name being applied to these messages.  It is, however, well documented that the users in each of these first instances chose the word “spam” referring to the 1970 Monty Python sketch where SPAM singing was drowning out conversation and SPAM itself was unwanted and popping up all over the menu.
Some examples of these first instances of unsolicited/unwanted messages being referred to as spam:
  • First documented case among Usenet users was March 31, 1993.  This is often incorrectly stated to be the first usage of the term spam as referring to spam messages.  This first Usenet case came when Richard Depew, who had been playing with some moderation software, accidentally ended up posting around 200 duplicate messages in a row to news.admin.policy newsgroup.  The first person to call this spam is thought to be Joel Furr on March 31, 1993.  Depew himself when he apologized referred to his messages as spam.
  • A more likely “first use” of the word spam, referring to certain electronic messages, comes from MUDs (multi-user-dungeons).  This was a sort of real time multi-person shared environment; a somewhat primitive version of The Sims Online or Second Life and the like.  In it, users could chat and interact with other people, locations, and objects, as well as create objects and share them with the community.  Basically a really advanced chat room.   The name MUD comes from the fact that it reminded people of certain aspects of Dungeons and Dragons.  In any event, spamming was used here to refer to a few different things including: flooding the computer with random data; “spam the database” by flooding it with new objects; and flooding a chat session with a ton of unwanted text.  Basically, anything that had to do with filling other member’s accounts with unwanted electronic junk.   One of the earliest documented uses of the word spam from MUDders comes from 1990 when they were, ironically enough, discussing the origins of the word “spam” as referring to electronic junk messages.  Undocumented sources say it had been around quite a bit before that among MUDders, which is evidenced by the content of the documented message.
  • Others say that the term originated on Bitnet’s Relay, which was a very early chat system in the 1980s.  Supposedly, users would occasionally come on and annoy other users with unwanted text, including the actual SPAM SPAM SPAM song from Monty Python.
  • Another similar chat system on the TRS-80 also reported the same phenomenon and also called it spam.  Both these latter two chat system origins are not documented, but numerous former users of these systems have stated they remember this term being use commonly among users of these systems.
  • Bonus Facts:
    §  In the early days of the internet, spam was significantly more annoying than it is today, not just because of the lack of effective filters back then, but because of the extremely slow internet connections.  Even just an ASCII art spam picture sent a few times in a row could take an enormous amount of time to download with often no real way for the end user to get around this except to wait it out or disconnect.
    §  Also in the early days of chat rooms, it was a common tactic among chatters to use large blocks of meaningless text to annoy other groups.  For instance, Star Trek chatters would invade a Star Wars chat room and post large amounts of random text, making it impossible or the Star Wars people to talk.  NERD-FIGHT!!! 
    §  Around the same time the term spam became popular among Usenet groups, it also spread to refer to email spam, which quickly dominated the world of spam and still does to this day.  Early spam bots simply harvested emails from Usenet newsgroup messages, which gave them extremely large email lists to work from.
    §  IRC (Internet Relay Chat) was named after Bitnet’s Relay.
    §  The earliest documented commercial spam message is often incorrectly cited as the 1994 “Green Card Spam” incident.  However, the actual first documented commercial spam message was for a new model of Digital Equipment Corporation computers and was sent on ARPANET to 393 recipients by Gary Thuerk in 1978.
    §  The famed Green Card Spam incident was sent April 12, 1994 by a husband and wife team of lawyers, Laurance Canter and Martha Siegal.  They bulk posted, on Usenet newsgroups, advertisements for immigration law services.  The two defended their actions citing free speech rights.  They also later wrote a book titled “How to Make a Fortune on the Information Superhighway“, which encouraged and demonstrated to people how to quickly and freely reach over 30 million users on the Internet by spamming.
    §  Before it was called “spamming”, as referring to unsolicited messages in a chat or forum or the like, the generally used terms for these actions were “flooding” and “trashing”.
    §  Cisco Systems, in 2009, released the following numbers for the origins of spam by country in descending order: Brazil at 7.7%; USA at 6.6%; India at 3.6%; South Korea at 3.1%; Turkey at 2.6%; Vietnam at 2.5%; China at 2.4%; Poland at 2.4%; Russia at 2.3%; Argentina at 1.5%.  Surprisingly, you have to go all the way down to number 91 on the list before you get to Nigeria.
    §  Of all email spam, about 73% is attempting to steal the user’s identity in some way (phishing), including possible bank information or gaining enough information to open new credit accounts from the user.
    §  Of the 90 trillion emails sent in 2009, 81% were spam.  That amounts to about 200 billion spam emails sent every day.
    §  Though not called spam, back then, telegraphic spam messages were extremely common in the 19th century in the United States particularly.  Western Union allowed telegraphic messages on its network to be sent to multiple destinations.  Thus, wealthy American residents tended to get numerous spam messages through telegrams presenting unsolicited investment offers and the like.  This wasn’t nearly as much of a problem in Europe due to the fact that telegraphy was regulated by post offices in Europe.
    §  Spam, referring to messages, rather than the food product, was first added to a major English dictionary in the New Oxford Dictionary of English in 1998.  It defined spam as “Irrelevant or inappropriate messages sent on the Internet to a large number of newsgroups or users.”
    §  SPAM, as made by Geo. A. Hormel & Co. was originally registered as a trademark in 1937, being a conflation of “spiced ham”, which was the original name.  The name “SPAM” was chosen from entries in a naming contest at Hormel.  Specifically, the name was suggested by Kenneth Daigneau, who was the brother of a then Hormel Vice president.  He was given $100 prize for winning the naming contest.
    §  If you are wondering why I’m continually capitalizing all the letters in the food product SPAM, it is because, according to the official Hormel trademark guidelines, SPAM, as referring to the food product, should be spelled with all capital letters.  They also stipulate it should always be used as an adjective as in “SPAM meat”, but I’m ignoring that one and just calling it SPAM. 
    §  Hormel was able to successfully defend their trademark of SPAM by limiting it to this capitalized version; thus the more prevalent usage and meaning and spelling “spam” and “Spam” referring to internet messages, doesn’t conflict with their trademark.  Initially, they unsuccessfully defended their trademark by including “Spam”, but lost that case and resorted to “SPAM”.  Hormel states that “Ultimately, we are trying to avoid the day when the consuming public asks, ‘Why would Hormel Foods name its product after junk email?”
    §  Other backronyms surrounding SPAM are: “Something Posing As Meat”; “Specially Processed Artificial Meat”; “Stuff, Pork and Ham”; “Spare Parts Animal Meat”; and “Special Product of Austin Minnesota”.
    §  Backronyms surround internet spam include: “stupid pointless annoying messages” and “shit posing as mail”.
    §  When the US offered the UK citizens affected by WWII SPAM, while they struggled to rebuild their agricultural base, the British citizens assumed it was an acronym and they backronymed it to “Specially Processed American Meats”.
    §  SPAM is a canned, precooked meat product (originally ham, but now SPAM from a variety of meats is available).
    §  Austin, Minnesota is known as “SPAM town USA”, not for internet spam, but for the fact that the town produces all of the food product SPAM sold in North America, South America, and Australia.  SPAM sold in the UK is produced in Denmark by the company Tulip, who Hormel has licensed its production out to.
    §  As of 2007, over seven billion cans of SPAM have been sold 
  • §  Hawaii, Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands eat the most SPAM per capita in the United States, with an average of about 16 tins per year eaten per person.
  • §  Hawaii, Guam, and CNMI, all have McDonald’s restaurants that serve SPAM.  Burger Kings in Hawaii also serve SPAM since 2007 to better compete with the McDonalds there.
    §  SPAM is also nicknamed “The Hawaiian Steak”, due to its extreme popularity there.
    §  The term spam today is poised to take another slight shift in meaning.  It is now becoming common for people to refer to any unsolicited/unwanted advertisements, messages, or telemarketer calls as spam, even if the former two aren’t electronically based.


FOUND OUT

CONSUMER /COMMUNICATION SPECIAL .....Warning: Scary Warning Labels Work!


Warning: Scary Warning Labels Work!


If you want to convince consumers to stay away from unhealthy diet choices, don't be subtle about possible consequences, says Leslie John. These graphically graphic warning labels seem to do the trick.


Marketers can make a bottle of sugar water look like golden elixir. Can health advocates sour the taste for consumers? (SteveDF)
San Francisco is in a three-year battle with the American Beverage Industry over whether soda companies can be forced to include consumer warnings on outdoor advertising. The law, which is still being hashed out in court, requires manufacturers to say sugary drinks can lead to obesity, diabetes, and tooth decay.
New research from Harvard Business School suggests that even if San Francisco wins its court battle, it may lose the war: Warning labels that aren’t sufficiently graphic don’t work.
“San Francisco policymakers are devoting lots of time and money to fighting it out in court, and they’re operating on the assumption that text warning labels are going to work,” says HBS Marvin Bower Associate Professor Leslie John. “We thought it was important to test it, and our findings suggest that their text label policy might not move the needle much at all, at least when it comes to getting people to buy fewer sugary drinks.”
What does move the needle, the researchers found, are warning labels based on graphics instead of text. Graphic graphics, to be specific, splashed with evocative pictures of the after-effects of too much sugar, like a man’s bulging belly, an insulin needle inserted into a stomach, and a mouthful of decaying teeth.
“We were working with a graphics team and they had these stock photos and clip art cartoon images,” John says. “Initially, the pictures weren’t graphic enough. I kept saying, ‘I need rotting teeth!’”
The in-your-face images indeed affected study participants. Not only did they reduce soda consumption, but many also reached for a healthier option instead—bottled water.
Slated to be published in an upcoming edition of Psychological Science, The Effect of Graphic Warnings on Sugary Drink Purchasing is the first real-world test to determine whether warning labels can motivate people to beg off sugary drinks. John co-wrote the article with 2018 HBS doctoral degree recipient Grant E. Donnelly, Harvard School of Public Health doctoral candidate Laura Y. Zatz, and HBS doctoral candidate Dan Svirsky.
How much does fountain syrup weigh?
To study the effectiveness of warning labels, Donnelly, Zatz, Svirsky, and John conducted a field test at a Boston hospital cafeteria for 14 weeks. They displayed three types of labels at different times near bottled drink coolers and on soda fountain machines:
·         A calorie label that read, “120-290 calories per container. 2,000 calories a day is used for general nutrition, but calorie needs vary.”
·         A text warning label with wording similar to what San Francisco used in its labels: “WARNING: Drinking beverages with added sugar(s) contributes to obesity, diabetes, and tooth decay.”
·         A graphic warning label with text, plus the addition of three unsettling images of a fatty stomach, a needle in a midriff, and rotting teeth.
The researchers gauged the effectiveness of each type of label over two weeks by tracking the amounts and types of beverages purchased, and comparing those results to periods when no warning was posted. They even weighed partially full fountain syrup boxes to determine how much of the sweet stuff had been used each week with carbonated water to make soda.
The results weigh in
Calorie labels and text labels didn’t dissuade people from buying soda; on average, the same number of sugary drinks were purchased during those periods as the periods without any labels.
The only warning that slowed soda sales were those with graphics and text. The share of sugary drinks purchased in the cafeteria experiment during those periods dropped from 21.4 percent without labels to 18.2 percent with graphic labels, a decline of 3.2 percentage points. For some consumers, the bulbous bellies, protruding needles, and nasty teeth changed their habits; as soda sales dropped, bottled water sales rose from 24.9 percent to 28.1 percent.
Graphic warnings worked by grabbing the attention of consumers, forcing them to think about the risks involved, and prompting them to consider the negative health consequences, the researchers found.

Compared to text warnings, graphic warnings worked better by grabbing the attention of consumers.
“I’ve gotten some early feedback from people saying that [3.2 percentage points] is not a big effect,” Donnelly says. “Going into this, we weren’t sure if we’d see any difference. But we observed about 200 people in a two-week period making a drink change. To impact that many people, we think that’s pretty significant.”
John adds, “Imagine if we piled up all the sugar that people didn’t eat over those two weeks. It is a small percentage point difference in absolute terms, but then when you think about all that sugar, it’s a bigger deal.”
The results may mollify retailers and other venues that sell a variety of drinks. If warning labels are present, consumers still purchase drinks; they just choose healthier options. “Cafeteria sales were neutral. We didn’t see a decrease in drink sales,” John says.
Soda makers and suppliers, however, may suffer losses if graphic warnings become standard. (That’s the goal, after all.) But John believes many drink companies are aware that health-conscious consumers are veering away from soft drinks, so they are already adding healthier alternatives to their product lines.
 “Soda companies are in a really challenging spot, since their responsibility to their shareholders is to make money, and their go-to way of doing this has been by selling junk food,” she says. “But, you can see this trend where they’re trying to juggle their product portfolios. For example, you see the emergence of smaller serving sizes, and more water and mid-calorie options.”
Cities look for public support
If cities want to win public approval for labels, this research suggests it might behoove them to publicize information about their effectiveness. A related online survey of 400 participants showed that once people learned that graphic warnings led to a drop in sugary drink purchases, they supported the labels in much greater numbers.
One question that remains unanswered by the study is whether the warnings spur consumers to change their behavior over the long term. “We don’t know whether the graphic warning labels would have a sustained effect,” John says. “We had them up for two weeks; it’s possible that if they are up all the time, people will adapt to them and their impact might lessen over time.”
Another issue to consider: While the research highlights the benefits of graphic labels, John realizes the shocking images may also raise concerns, such as whether they “fat shame” people. “There could be situations where graphic warning labels could make people feel badly about themselves, so are we introducing another problem? Or will people tune them out if they think they’re offensive?
“The conclusion of this research is not that graphic labels are the answer to all of our consumption problems,” she says, “but we do find that they shift people to water at least in the short run, and we think that’s a pretty cool result.”
San Francisco’s 2015 warning label law was the first initiative of its kind in the nation. Some communities have attempted other measures to reduce the public’s soda consumption, including New York City’s proposed cap on portion sizes and Berkeley’s one-cent-per-ounce tax on sugary drinks.
Donnelly hopes these research findings spur more effective labeling policies that not only lead people to make healthier choices, but encourage companies to work with public officials for the greater good.
“I hope it can inform some of the conversations firms are having with policymakers,” he says. “These firms can respond in a positive way—by giving more shelf space to healthier foods.”
by Dina Gerdeman
https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/warning-scarey-warning-labels-work?cid=spmailing-20690509-WK%20Newsletter%2006-20-2018%20(1)-June%2020,%202018

COMPUTER SPECIAL.... WHO INVENTED THE COMPUTER MOUSE?


WHO INVENTED THE COMPUTER MOUSE?


Doug Engelbart is widely credited as the inventor of the computer mouse. Of course, as with most inventions, nothing happened in a vacuum and before the device that gave birth to the modern mouse was thought up, there were several exceptionally similar devices around. For the full story of the invention of the computer mouse, we’ll begin by backtracking slightly to a British engineer whose invention was subsequently classified as a military secret and hidden from the public.
That engineer was Professor Ralph Benjamin who, while working for the Royal Navy Scientific Service, invented a device that functioned in an almost identical fashion to a trackball mouse way back in the mid 1940s. According to a 2013 interview with Dr. Benjamin, he was tasked by the Royal Navy with helping develop something called the Comprehensive Display System, an early computer system that could calculate the theoretical trajectory of monitored aircraft based on the inputs of a user.
The cursor on the screen was controlled by a simple joystick mechanism that Benjamin felt could be improved. After some tinkering, he came up with something he dubbed the “Roller Ball” which functioned almost identically to a standard mechanical mouse, with an outer ball that would in turn manipulate two rubber coated wheels inside, one for the X axis and one for the Y. This movement was then translated into the appropriate movement of the cursor on the screen. So why don’t people say the good professor invented the mouse? Beyond that it wasn’t Benjamin’s device that gave birth to the modern mouse, rather than having the desk or whatever object move the ball via friction as one moves the mechanical mouse, in Benjamin’s device, your hand simply directly moved the ball itself, with the top of the device exposing said ball- essentially it was a large, upside down, stationary mechanical mouse.
Although Benjamin’s device was more precise than a joystick, it was never widely implemented and the Comprehensive Display System continued to be controlled by said joystick. Due to its status as a military secret, Benjamin received little to no credit for the invention of essentially a trackball mouse and he remains an obscure figure in computing history, despite the innovative nature of the device he pioneered.

A similar device was also developed independently of Benjamin’s design in 1952 by a company, Ferranti Canada, working as contractors for the Canadian Defence Research Board. The company was, amongst other things, tasked with creating an input device for computers on a budget of “basically zero dollars”. Three engineers working for Ferranti, Tom Cranston, Fred Longstaff and Kenyon Taylor, came up with the idea of using a ball housed in a casing that remained in constant contact with four wheels positioned around it. When the ball was rolled in a given direction, the movement of the wheels would be translated to corresponding cursor movements on the screen- essentially this was a four-wheeled version of Benjamin’s device. As a testament to the low budget the engineers had to work with, rather than constructing a trackball from scratch, they simply used a 16 cm (about 6 inch) diameter five-pin bowling ball. Because the device was invented for the military, it too was designed in secret.
Ironically, in one notable way these, and other similar trackball devices that were invented before the mouse, were more similar to the once ubiquitous ball version of a mechanical mouse than Doug Engelbart’s first mouse. You see, Engelbart’s mouse didn’t use a ball at all, instead having two perpendicular wheels directly contact the table instead of using a ball to manipulate said wheels.  While still functional, Engelbart’s design had the downside of making it so one wheel was always at least partially being scraped along the surface of the desk. But we’re getting ahead of ourselves a little.
Engelbart developed what is the direct ancestor of the modern mouse in the 1960s as part of an ongoing project to discover the most efficient way to interact with a computer. Engelbart felt that the current devices in use at the time, mainly keyboards, joysticks and light pens, were inefficient. With the help of engineer Bill English (who designed the actual hardware for the first mouse based on Engelbart’s idea), he developed a handheld device that housed two perpendicular wheels the movements of which would control the on-screen cursor. Essentially, this more or less worked like an upside down, hand held version of the two previously mentioned stationary trackball devices, but without the ball.

Engelbart thought up the idea for this device in 1961. The first prototype was created by English in 1964. In 1966, Engelbart and English approached NASA asking them to fund a study to determine which input device was the most intuitive and efficient for controlling a cursor.  According to Engelbart, the devices proposed to be tested, besides the mouse, were the “light pen… tracking ball and slider on a pivot”. The space agency agreed and a series of tests were carried out.
Engelbart noted of the tests, “We set up our experiments and the mouse won in every category, even though it had never been used before [by the test subjects]. It was faster, and with it people made fewer mistakes. Five or six of us were involved in these tests, but no one can remember who started calling it a mouse. I’m surprised the name stuck.” (Engelbart later explained it was called a mouse due to the fact that initially they had the wire come out of the bottom like a little tail. They switched it to the top to get around one’s arm getting tangled in the cord all the time.)
At the Fall Joint Computer Conference in San Francisco on December 9, 1968, Engelbart presented this mouse to over a thousand computer engineers in one of the most influential computing presentations of all time, later dubbed the The Mother of All Demos. Besides the mouse, Engelbart and his colleagues also demonstrated in one system a number of revolutionary concepts that are now a staple of modern computing, including hypertext, video conferencing via a high speed modem, shared screens via a network (where control could be passed back and forth), a form of windowed computing, word processing, real time digital text editing with multiple people able to edit files at the same time (with revision control), and several other forms of networked collaboration. Further, at a time when the idea of a personal computer was a little outlandish, he also demoed how such a system could be used for various personal computing needs, like maintaining a grocery list with robust organizational features built into the word processor to manage such lists.
Before the presentation, some who’d heard of what Engelbart was working on had dubbed him a “crackpot”. After the presentation, Engelbart received a standing ovation and was described by later Xerox PARC employee, Chuck Thacker, as “dealing lightning in both hands”. However, demonstrating a system amazingly far ahead of its time left some skeptical that his team’s “oNLine System” (NLS, developed with funding from DARPA) could actually do what they’d demonstrated. One such individual was famed computer scientist Andries van Dam, who furiously berated Engelbart after the presentation, stating, “It’s irresponsible and unethical for you to show something you put together for a demo and pretend it actually works!” To which Engelbart stated, “No, I told him, it’s real. He just wouldn’t believe it until he got to SRI and saw it for himself.
Despite very publicly debuting the mouse to the best minds of the computing world in 1968, Engelbart’s part in its invention, and even the monumental presentation itself that greatly influenced so much of the coming decades of computer development, were largely forgotten.

And so it was that, like so many other inventors before him, Engelbart did not receive the credit for his invention (initially), and Bill English even still receives little credit to this day. This, despite that fact that several years later English would go on to invent the mechanical mouse that featured a ball to control the X/Y wheels, which would become the general design of just about all mice until the rise of things like optical mice.
Beyond receiving little credit, because Engelbart and English were working for Stanford Research Institutewhen they developed the first mouse, the eventual patent that was granted for it in 1970 didn’t belong to them. Thus, the pair got no money for their invention other than their normal paychecks. Stanford Research Institute reportedly did make some money off the patent before it expired in 1984, for instance reportedly profiting $40,000 ($130,000 today) when they licensed it to Apple.
Speaking of Apple, the mouse as we know it today rose from obscurity thanks to Steve Jobs being Steve Jobs- i.e. finding an existing technology, hiring someone to copy it but with very subtle usability tweaks, geniously marketing it, and then later getting much of the public credit for it. In this case, in 1979, Jobs agreed to give Xerox a certain number of Apple shares in exchange for allowing him to come see what Xerox’s Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) was working on.
When Jobs went on a tour of the research centre, he encountered a prototype version of the mouse (the ball-mechanical mouse invented by Bill English, who was now working for Xerox PARC). Jobs recognised the potential of the device immediately, and, according to Larry Tesler, the engineer who demonstrated the mouse to Jobs, “He [Jobs] was very excited. Then, when he began seeing the things I could do onscreen, he watched for about a minute and started jumping around the room, shouting, ‘Why aren’t you doing anything with this? This is the greatest thing. This is revolutionary!’”
As it turns out, Xerox was doing something with the device and had been selling the Xerox Alto along with a trackball mouse since 1973 and would later package it with the Xerox 8010, released in 1981. However, higher ups in the company didn’t seem to properly appreciated how innovative their system was. As Jobs would later note, “If Xerox had known what it had and had taken advantage of its real opportunities, it could have been as big as I.B.M. plus Microsoft plus Xerox combined—and the largest high-technology company in the world.”
Jobs, stunned at this lack of vision, rushed back to Apple and had his team developing the next iteration of the company’s personal computer line completely revamp their plans, demanding a window-based system with the mouse as a key component. According to Dean Hovey, Jobs explained to him later that week
[The Xerox mouse] is a mouse that cost three hundred dollars to build and it breaks within two weeks. Here’s your design spec: Our mouse needs to be manufacturable for less than fifteen bucks (about $50 today). It needs to not fail for a couple of years, and I want to be able to use it on Formica and my bluejeans.
Hovey then explained, “From that meeting, I went to Walgreens… and I wandered around and bought all the underarm deodorants that I could find, because they had that ball in them. I bought a butter dish [for the body of the mouse]. That was the beginnings of the [Apple] mouse.”
As for why the Apple mouse only had one button, unlike other mice of the day (for instance, the original had three buttons, which after much research Engelbert and his team determined was the ideal number), Hovey stated “There were disputes around the number of buttons—three buttons, two buttons, one-button mouse. The mouse at Xerox had three buttons. But we came around to the fact that learning to mouse is a feat in and of itself, and to make it as simple as possible, with just one button, was pretty important.”
Apple’s first take on the mouse came bundled with the relatively obscure Apple Lisa computer. (This was named after Job’s daughter who he denied was his until 1987, despite that a paternity test confirmed Lisa was his daughter and she and her mother were living in poverty, while he simultaneously was naming Apple Lisa after her). This first Apple mouse featured a steel ball to drive the internal tracking wheels. The design was overhauled once again (notably using a rubber ball) for the more popular Apple Macintosh computer released in 1984 which became one of the first commercially successful devices to make use of a mouse. Microsoft also came out with their own mouse in 1983 for the PC, in-between Apple Lisa and the much more famous Macintosh 128K, but it was the latter that subsequently spurred the widespread adoption of the mouse.
After the success of the Macintosh, other companies followed suit and the mouse became a staple of the personal computer. Despite many at various times over the decades since predicting that the mouse would go the way of the Dodo “any day now” (most recently because of the rise of the popularity of touch screens), the mouse is still going strong with seemingly no real end in sight.

FOUND OUT