SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
One of the leading thinkers in the new computing sector known as the internet of Things (IoT) can't help but look at all the flashy, expensive, feature-packed gadgets on the market today – things like Google Glass or the Apple Watch – and keep coming away with the same thought: too many device makers keep getting it wrong.
Given the nature of his chosen field, serial entrepreneur David Rose – who's also a researcher with the MIT Media Lab, where he's taught for six years – might be expected to want the next generation of connected devices to pick up where smartphones leave off. Indeed, that seems to be the nature of the race to figure out what the next dominant computing platform looks like, whether it's Facebook snatching up Oculus or Microsoft working to bring its HoloLens to fruition.
...
In a book he published last year, Enchanted Objects: Design, Human Desire and the Internet of Things, Rose sums up his hope for the future of technology: he wants it be dominated less by glass slabs and more by tools and artefacts, just like his grandfather's space was filled with.His grandfather, for example, never hunted for the one tool to serve as an all-purpose tool hub or for a tool that would eliminate the need for other tools. His shop was filled with hammers, screwdrivers, wrenches, clamps and more – and they all enchanted the young Rose because even in their simplicity, those tools could lead to a multiplicity of imaginative creations.
The Internet of Things could also, beyond proving a privacy debacle, be a walled garden whose walls reach to infinity.
Original Submission
(Score: 0, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 16 2015, @11:53PM
Ok, I get it.
You're (all 10 of the first responders, at least) old.
Only expensive things got IP addresses when you were young.
And you are pissed off that the old ipad 1 you bought with hard earned money doesn't work anymore,
except for when it rats out your browsing habits to some set of nefarious being that somehow are mind controlling you now.
Horseshit.
The Internet of Things (or something marked with 2.0, or re-branded in some other insane fashion) is simply the intersection of two things:
- IP addresses for (at least) two orders of magnitude less cost are now available and getting cheaper. Anything that comes down two (or more) orders of magnitude in cost brings about a paradigm shift. Yes, a paradigm shift requires the old guard to die off, luckily, you are old, and soon to go.
- Trends are actionable for positive uses. Not trends like what kind of genitalia some ex-Olympic champion is sporting today, but things like: how much sleep you got yesterday versus all the other days of your life. An exercise. And yelling, and sunlight, and ... pretty much anything you do. Or for that matter, pretty much anything lots of things/devices/critters/systems do.
And yes, any action taken will result in disagreement over the definition of positive (politics, it takes just 3 people).
Your leakage of "private" information about how many times a day you look at porn (or how often your doorbell rings) may result in the NSA confiscating your penis... but probably not.
And your friendly neighborhood cop may shoot you because you Googled for (I forget, what are you afraid of today?), but probablyprobablyprobablyprobablyprobably to 8 decimal places, not.
However, the next generation (yes, they will go to hell in a handbasket if only for the weight of their tattoos) will weigh the end results
and find that knowing that your senile ass is safe at home today because all of the devices in your house report normal trends and they don't have to actually talk to you because you are so full of spite and hate...
they will welcome the IoT (2.0, ++).
(but still hate the phone, and cable company).
Perfect is the enemy of good. How about actually weighing the balance of these changes before dismissing them all as worthless? Nah - stick with your mob mentality, pitchforks, and bile.
Mod me AC, mod me inflammatory, mod me offensive, mod me wordy, mod me whatever you want.
You are still small minded, backwards thinking, and otherwise totally human.
Hugs,
AC
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 17 2015, @12:07AM
You put up a lot of words, and no benefits. Like, literally none.
I don't like it because I like owning things, not leasing them. But, more importantly, I don't like the IoT because I don't see how it makes my life in any way better. Like, there's no solution I have for a connected house. I mean, it seems like fun to build from parts, because projects like that often are. But I have yet to grok a solution to any problem.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 17 2015, @12:35AM
Cool, own them, then.
Or wait until your utility function justifies owning them, and then own them.
This implies paying for them. Which today seems to be seen as evil (I can't believe they are charging $X for that thing I'd only pay $y for! The nerve! And now they want to fund it with ads! Double nerve!).
And when they come down in cost another order of magnitude (5 years? and because those who do not follow your way actually fund it) you can do it out of the extra lunch money you will be willing to part with.
As to the benefits - if you think knowledge based on evidence as tempered through the fire of experience is of no benefit, like literally none, then I find we are at an impasse, and leave you to your own future.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Friday July 17 2015, @02:00AM
Like how we own our PC hardware? Oh no wait, they're pretty far along the road of locking us out of our own electronics unless we want to use a Big Brother-approved setup.
First they came for our unlocked bootloaders, and I said nothing because I didn't run Linux.
Then they came for our unlocked hardware, and I said nothing because I didn't want to upgrade my components.
Then they came for our unsecured media files, and I said nothing because getting my locked-down music from iTunes was easier.
Then they linked our biometrics to our ability to use our computers, and I said nothing because I didn't have to remember passwords anymore.
Then something went wrong in the system and now I can't use computers anymore. At all.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Friday July 17 2015, @01:54AM
It's more impressive when you use words like Luddite and you actually spell them correctly.
Sometimes things are already Good Enough. We don't need to make them exponentially more complicated, prone to failure, and insecure.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 17 2015, @02:19AM
I don't think we have the right software skills yet to create the "Internet of Things" as envisioned by the futurists. First, how is this IoT going to exchange data? Have you looked into RDF? Or OWL? These specs have been around for a while, but they've never caught on as a common protocol. Of course, there are plenty of XML schemas out there: http://www.xmlschema.info/xml_schema_library.html [xmlschema.info] You could use any one of schemas with your IoT. But the Internet applications have moved from XML heavy protocols, like SOAP and the WS-* standards, to a more loosely defined JSON backed data exchange. How will the IoT exist when every device has its own data model for its API. How does your GE Dishwasher and your Whirlpool Washing Machine make sure they don't run at the same time your taking a shower?
And let me just say, IPv6 is a train wreck. Seriously, it isn't backwards compatible with IPv4. The only way to integrate IPv6 and IPv4 is through a few hacky methods. So either the entire Internet leaves IPv4 behind or you're stuck in limbo with some devices on IPv6 and some on IPv4. And IPv6 isn't even that big of an improvement when it comes to protocol support. The amount of bits used to designate the protocol, e.g. TCP, UDP, etc., is the same size as IPv4, so there's no room to add additional protocols that would work with IP. This gets to be very important with the IoT as the interaction between different devices would benefit greatly from a variety of different types of protocols that could be customized for specific uses. But no, that can't happen because IPv6 is a crappy design.
(Score: 2, Funny) by spamdog on Friday July 17 2015, @02:22AM
I think this guy's schizophrenia got connected to the internet.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday July 17 2015, @11:50AM
A Luddite was someone who opposed new technology because it would take their job. That doesn't even remotely apply here.
Furthermore, not all change is good. You are essentially using the appeal to novelty fallacy.
The Internet of Things (or something marked with 2.0, or re-branded in some other insane fashion) is simply the intersection of two things:
It doesn't always make sense to intersect two things. Especially when it means more proprietary software, more DRM, less privacy, and more insecurity. The software freedom and privacy aspects are the most damning, and companies sure as hell don't care about either.
Your leakage of "private" information about how many times a day you look at porn (or how often your doorbell rings) may result in the NSA confiscating your penis... but probably not.
And your friendly neighborhood cop may shoot you because you Googled for (I forget, what are you afraid of today?), but probablyprobablyprobablyprobablyprobably to 8 decimal places, not.
The problem with you selfish idiots is that you make it all about yourself. "Me, me, me! I only care if I'm the one to be abused, so if some other person who actually works to change our system is abused, who cares?" Even companies can abuse you by, for instance, raising insurance rates for random reasons, or refusing to hire you. It's not going to be fun when you realize companies have all this information about you that they use for unknown purposes. It would be even less fun if you happened to become a target of the government. Or if someone else did, but if you're the selfish type, you probably don't care about others.
However, the next generation (yes, they will go to hell in a handbasket if only for the weight of their tattoos) will weigh the end results
and find that knowing that your senile ass is safe at home today because all of the devices in your house report normal trends and they don't have to actually talk to you because you are so full of spite and hate...
they will welcome the IoT (2.0, ++).
Then they are ignorant about the values of privacy, software freedom, and security. But ignorance is not incurable.