Clothes Make the Network

Roland Piquepaille writes "Howard Rheingold is looking at how "wearable computers create ad-hoc wireless communities." Here is the main idea, introduced by Gerd Kortuem, a 38-year-old assistant professor, who recently moved to Lancaster University in England from the University of Oregon's Wearable Computing Lab. "As he sees it, the crowds who surround us every day constitute a huge waste of social capital. If you live in a city for instance, there are many who pass within a few yards of you each day who could give you a ride home, buy an item you're trying to sell, or consider you as dating material. Dynamic networking makes it possible to tap those resources through a momentary alliance among transient interest groups." Check this column for a summary or the full article if you have more time."

Comments

Why 'wearable'?

[GMOL]

The thing I really don't get with all the wearable computer baloney is, what can you not accomplish with a small computer that you have in your pocket (i.e. a cell phone computer) as opposed to a "wearable" one?

Does anyone know what Rheingold does?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've done many searches on this man, and his sum total of product seems to be spouting off on pseudo-theoretical-future speak that is totally useless to anyone. How did this man become so rich being the Deepak Chopra of tech?

Hookers

[dagg]

This will be a boon for hookers. Here's a quote that was lost:

As he sees it, the crowds who surround us every day constitute a huge waste of johns and hookers. If you live in a city for instance, there are many who pass within a few yards of you each day who could give you a blow job, hand job, or kick in the jimmy (the fun way).

--
Find yer sex remotely

Rogue elements ...

[LL]

... create levels of distrust ... it takes just a couple of hitchdrivers going whacko (admittedly probably overdramaticsed by media) that people be hesitant to stop and pick up strangers. Often our preception (of fears) is stronger than reality (esp crime statistics). It's a good idea encouraging social capital ... I just wonder how easy it is in a big anonymous city where people don't give a damn.

LL

A justification for technology, not a reason

[mickwd]

From the article: "If you live in a city for instance, there are many who pass within a few yards of you each day who could give you a ride home, buy an item you're trying to sell, or consider you as dating material."

So why not open your mouth and talk to some of them ?

Re:A justification for technology, not a reason

[Black_Logic]

What, ask everyone on the sidewalk if they want to buy your old network cards/computer parts and if they like long, moonlit walks on the beach? Seems silly to me. I don't think it's a justification at all, and it seems to me that this technology *would* get people talking!

Re:A justification for technology, not a reason

[nEoN nOoDlE]

How about because you don't know them? If you're looking for a ride home for instance, are you going to ask any and every stranger on the street if they are going in the same direction? Or if they're selling exactly the thing you're looking for? of course not. I think this would be a very good thing since it will definately open up communication between strangers.

Re:A justification for technology, not a reason

[goon america]

So why not open your mouth and talk to some of them ?

Because your wearable computer (AKA cellphone) can talk to EVERYONE in a 100 yard radius INSTANTLY and determine for you which will be likely to be the most interesting for a voice-based chat.

Re:A justification for technology, not a reason

[Travoltus]

You would not want to try and FORCE people into interacting with others on terms that they do not find desirable. This is already the cause of friction and conflict, hatreds, and violence.

Striking up conversations with strangers is becoming more and more hazardous - emotionally and, sometimes, physically - and less and less fulfilling.

The success or failure of this new technology is a direct testament to the dis/satisfaction people have with traditional interpersonal communication.

Rather than try and plug up all new and unexplored methods of coping, why don't we step aside, allow technology to give us new methods, and let the people tell us how they feel about the system, and thus, what they see as proper reform?

Maybe this new system will fail. Maybe it will succeed and we will be forced to re-examine the system of interpersonal communication.

Techno geeks pissing on this new development is as backwater, ignorant, intolerant, and close-minded, as those who screamed about the telegraph, radio and television... ... or Luddism going to be the wave of the future...?

Do we really want to meet anymore people?

[c13v3rm0nk3y]

Speaking as someone who has lived and worked in some of the busiest urban areas in the world, my feelings are that most of us have already made all the "connections" we need.

Most of us spend our time deliberately ignoring each other, as even the smallest new interpersonal relationship can only offer so much in exchange for the necessary work.

Perhaps the article is meant to be more of a projection based on how the internet has change how we build relationships. Speaking only for myself, when I'm on my way home or to the office, the last thing I need is yet another social interaction with a stranger. Especially if this interaction is some banal eBay exchange or "hi want to chat?" ping. I already have enough places to meet people for commerce and dating, thank you very much.

Maybe the same folks who use IRC or instant messenging 24 hours a day will like this kind of anonymous mobile communication. Perhaps they will build fluid and mobile communities that move from area to area.

I just don't it fitting into my life, or anyone I spend time with.

Re:oh yeah, this is my big fear...

[roseblood]

"If you live in a city for instance, there are many who pass within a few yards of you each day who could give you a ride home, buy an item you're trying to sell..."

So, I wouldn't worry about virtual panhandlers spamming. I'd worry about targeted spam from vendors you'd rather not have other people know you frequent. Imagine walking past a bar with your AA friends and you're beamed a frequent customer perk. You're with your ladyfriend (who think's she's the only lady friend) when Victoria Secrets sends you a frequent customer discount - but those sexy undies you got were all intended for a diffrent lady friend (or worse, yourself!)

Reading targted spam (or junk mailings) can let you know alot about the target of said spam/mailings. (You'll find gun stuff, camera stuff, computer stuff, and aviation junkmail all over my mailbox and e-mail box for example.)