Slashdot Mirror
The 'Pervasive Computing' Community
Roland Piquepaille writes "Most of us are using computers, but also PDAs and cell phones. And this trend is accelerating in our increasingly networked wireless world. We might use hundreds of computing devices by the end of this decade. Still, we are slaves to our machines. With every new device, we have to learn new commands, languages or interfaces. The Cambridge-MIT Institute (CMI), a strategic alliance between the University of Cambridge in the UK and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the U.S., has enough of it and wants to give back control to the users. So it launched its 'Pervasive Computing' initiative with the intention to tackle this challenge. In particular, the group wants to develop new technologies to make easier for us to interact with all these computers. This overview contains more details and references about this initiative."
So, how much brain cancer am I getting from that local 802.11 hotspot?
Cemil.
I've got a Zaurus 5500, and love it for what I use it for, but a Palm seems to make a better PDA. So, I've come to the conclusion that a Linux handheld device isn't a PDA, but a small-sized computer. So, a Linux pda makes for a good platform if you are a unix developer who needs to write custom hand-held software. Also, while there are a bunch of Palm apps out there, not many are free. It's not that I have to have everything for free, but often times an app doesn't quite work the way I want, and I like to be able to tweek them a bit. An example, I found a good TI-85 calculator emulator, but the buttons looked awful. A bit of messing around with the xpm definitions, and now the button colors are defined in the config file. This is the kind of stuff that you just can't do with non-free apps that you find on Palm or PocketPC.
As for what I use mine for:
* Web lookups (i.e., looking up items in Internet phone books, TV listings, dictionary definitions)
* Other web browsing when it wouldn't due to to carry a laptop (meetings, nature's call, etc)
* Custom PIM app -- I wrote a web-based app which allows me to organize data and meeting notes in a unique way that suites me. On my Zaurus, I've got a version of the app served up by a local web server. Whenever I'm within wireless range, a background task automatically keeps the local database synced with the one on my server. (Once I perfect it, I'll put it up on sourceforge).
* Entertainment -- with a wireless card in the Zaurus, and one in my laptop, I can stream movies and music to the kids in the car served up by my laptop which I use for navigation. It also runs Mame.
-- BSD or Bust
Still, we are slaves to our machines...
No, we are slaves to the programers who program the software that runs on our machines.
Who really doesn't see a problem with the current setup?
Varietous interfaces and commands makes things fun, plus it increases one's aptitude.
I say out with pervasive computing.
clifgriffin > blog
Yes, I prefer my girlfriend that way also.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Disclaimer: I work for a synthesizer manufacturer.
...
Synthesizers and other forms of electronic musical instrumentation have been having the same problems as computers.
Nevertheless, the paradigms of "Page Up/Page Down" and "Parameter Left/Right", and "Patch Up/Dn", and "Edit/Play", as horrible as they are, have served 'standard interface' requirements for years. There is a 'standard user interface' in this realm, as crap as it is.
Manufacturers in this market have copied each others interface ideas freely and easily, and it has resulted in an, admittedly hodge-podge, 'general user interface' set of 'music machine hacker' chops. "Multi-mode"/"Single-mode", etc. can generally be found on most modern synth platforms. Any synth geek around knows that the patch +/- keys are the ones you look for first, then the 'filter resonance knob', or whatever.
Computers would do well to learn from the lessons of musical instruments in this regard. It never ceases to amaze me that all these TLA "Initiatives" often disregard even the most obvious examples of solutions to problems... I guess because their grants aren't "directed" to those realms.
In any case, I hope to see some interesting results from CMI. At Access, we're really interested in human/user-interface problems and good ways to solve them
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
It's almost as easy in the Trek universe as starting up an alien ship's engines, or navigating it through an asteroid belt. One thing you gotta say about those aliens: They followed the CMI 'Pervasive Computing' initiative slavishly, and we can be so thankful they did or Spock (or Data, or O'Brien/Dax, or Seven, or T'Pol) would have looked like incompetent idiots.
As technology becomes more and more pervasive in our lives we are growing up with a generation of people who don't know what it's like to live without computer assistance. They also are primarily exposed to computers as these large devices that do a whole bunch of things but have a terrible interface. They don't understand that computers can be small, unobtrusive, and do their jobs without the user having any idea they are there.
Automobile control systems are one type of the latter while microwave oven controllers are a type of the former. The car control system works great and for the most part the user can be completely oblivious to its existence. However, the microwave oven control pad is getting more and more complicated every day with too many settings, too many choices, too much interface getting in the way of the user.
When working on your next consumer device (those of you working on that kind of thing), think about making it invisible. That is the key to making it indispensable.
I have been pwned because my
from the article, they state this of computers: "It needs to be sentient, loyal, small and low maintenance."
I propose adding the following rules:
0. It may not injure humanity or, through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.
1. It may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm except where such orders would conflict with the Zeroth Law.
2. It must obey the orders given it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the Zeroth or First Laws.
3. It must protect its own existence, except where such protection would conflict with the Zeroth, First or Second Laws.
except for "small" and maybe "low maintenance" their goals seem to anthropomorphize computers.
More music, fewer hits
From the overview:
There are still significant challenges to face before all these devices can improve our quality of life, such as designing better interfaces with these ever smaller computers. So the CMI has decided to tackle these challenges and is running several projects such as improved security, more robust networks and power-efficient computer architectures.
IMHO The worst challenges are of commercial nature, not technical. Given enough time and funds, CMI can sure set usability standards for pervasive computing, but manufacturers are likely to ignore or "extend" them to promote their own platform over the competition.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
variety is the spice of computing, of course some os's are terrible but it makes the others look better.
This is something I'd love to see happen in my lifetime, sort of a life goal if you will. The idea here is like Bluetooth but infinitely scaleable, extendable in all directions, peer to peer, and so drop dead simple grandmother could use it without a manual.
In a perfect system like this each node has about a 10 or so foot wireless range, each node extends the network like a repeater, and these babies are embedded in absolutely everything. Your robotic lawnmower needs to talk to your irrigation system but is 20 feet from it? Simple enough, both devices understand the network physical topology intimately and just route the communication through your SUV. And nobody should have to configure a thing for this to work.
The council seems more focused on developing new hardware that can overcome these issues. But I think the main problem for what we have now are the rogue software programs that take away that control from us (e.g spyware, open relay SMTP servers that send spam).
but doesn't anyone else see the irony?Now that I've read the article, I like what they're doing. Instead of trying to complicate our lives further, they want to change the way things work; which is good. Longer battery lifespans, secure UIs, ubiquitous communication, etc.
I do think its a waste of time to try and create a 'better' input method. Pretty much the only thing faster than typing is a direct connection to your brain. We can type faster than we speak & read faster than we can listen.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Mod me a Luddite troll if you wish, but it seems to me that this is an appropriate time to step back and ask ourselves why we need all this computing power at our fingertips everywhere we go. I tried really hard to get into the PDA thing as well as having had to use laptop computers for my job over the years, however I've found that the best computing toolset I could carry for the any business trips was... a good pen and a pad of paper along with a decent solar-powered scientific calculator. Never ran out of power at incoonvenient times, never had to be rebooted because it locked up, never started beeping uncontrollably in the middle of a meeting, and it had an friendly interface able to tackle any task from word processing to number-crunching. My doodling during boring meetings even looked attentive and productive rather than looking like someone playing a video game...
Georgia Tech and others are working on a product called Squeak which could gain ground in this regard. Some of the players involved are key names from the early years of computer interface/graphics research, including Dr Alan Kay.
Squeak is an open source product with quite a flexible license, and although they are mainly concentrating on educational apps, it is worth noting that in the system itself they have developed an unusual, yet addictive, UI. It is such an easy system to learn, that quite complex tasks can be done within a few hours of learning the basics of the system and going through the tutorials.
This sounds exactly like what M$ (motto: "All your devices are belong to us") is trying to do - PCs, office software, servers, enterprise software, XBox, PocketPC, media formats, online music sales, tablet computers, MSN, etc. I wonder who will win the interface definition standardization game? A bunch of really smart people at MIT or an even larger bunch of better funded smart people at Microsoft? (Note: at $6 billion dollars, Microsoft's R&D department has more than 4 times the money of ALL of MIT.)
Can me bitter, but I fear that with billion in R&D and hundreds of millions of dollars for marketing, M$ will win this game unless they commit suicide.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
Is my GPS enabled, 802.11b/g capable, PDA cell phone. Is that too much to ask?
I talk about stuff.
Things like this have been looked at before but not enougha nd not recently enough to keep all of the new technology in mind. I think it is insane that we are still using computers almost the same as we were when the first GUI OS came out. IT is time computers reacted to use better.
Dan Mayer: my blog, essays, art, etc
For example the Apple Newton's terrible handwriting recognition system vs Palm Pilot's . . . and Palm's system of handwriting recognition is becoming more ubiquitous as others license the operating system (handspring (now part of palm), Sony, etc.)
Or a simple example, how many software products for sound recording or CD audio playing do not have the familiar play, rewind, FF and stop that look like a right arrowhead, double left arrowheads, double right arrowheads, and a square? If someone tried to write a player/recorder without this interface, would a significant number of people actually buy it even if in all other respects it was a great program?
What about a trash can in the GUI for deleting files? . . . or even the concept of a mouse? All these became "standards" in their own right because they were well accepted by the consumer.
A standards body may save some knock down drag out fights over "standards" in the marketplace and may speed things up a bit, but the ultimate challenge is the marketplace . . . if people think that the interactive experience from a product sucks, then they're not going to buy it . . .
This has been a floating research topic in Cambridge for a long time.
The old Olivetti Research Labs (ORL) performed a lot of blue sky research activities, including production of omniORB (free CORBA ORB) and VNC (virtual network client) and so on. In fact, VNC was part of the focus on pervasive computing.
There was an umbilical cord between ORL and Cambridge Computer Laboratory with people like Andy Hopper and so on.
AT&T bought ORL in the late 1990's bringing it under its AT&T Labs arm: unfortunately it was too blue sky for AT&T is now days (e.g. AT&T Labs in Middletown NY is more commercially oriented - and as we've seen recently, they've lost a lot of fantastic talent by changing their focus) and closed in 2002.
Microsoft Research Institute in Cambridge has a lot of staff that fell out of these places, and the umbilical cords remain. It's an incestuous community (but a good one, it breeds a lot of new and interesting things).
The kinds of blue sky technologies that used to come out of these labs are now being produced by open source community.
If you own a machine, you are in turn owned by it,
and spend your time serving it.
(Marion Zimmer Bradley, 'The Forbidden Tower')
The machine does not isolate man from the great problems
of nature but plunges him more deeply into them.
(Antoine De Saint-Exupery)
regards,
john
Still, we are slaves to our machines. With every new device, we have to learn new commands, languages or interfaces. - No, some people are slaves of proprietary so-called operating systems. Other people use operating systems and programms which get improved, but don't change the userface with every new version. For example, if you are a Linux user (or addicted to UniXes in general), you will feel at home instantly, whether you use it on a cluster, a server, a desktop, a laptop or notebook, a PDA, a mobile (cell) phone, a wearable or whatever .
Just my opinion of course but instant messaging etc. has just served to make people unable to think.
Don't know how to do something? Don't bother with the manual or anything, just call tech support. I swear no one can make a decision on wiping their rear without consulting someone else.
Vote Quimby!
Thank you Mr Asimov...
Being able to talk to your computer (or whatever device you happen to be using) looks really cool on TV, but do we really want to be standing around listening to each other yammer on and on to no one?
;-)
For me, the ultimate interface would be one that can receive 'thought waves'. Of course, this should require 'active thought', directed specifically to the device - don't want little boxes hanging around just listening to your brain all the time.
It would be a challenge to keep other devices from listening in, either accidentally or intentionally. Some sort of encryption comes to mind, but how would you implement it? Implanting an encryption chip is probably untenable, and an external device to provide the encryption relay makes the problem recursive.
I suppose we could just pair the interface device to the user, similar to pairing a Bluetooth device. Or perhaps someone could offer a course in 'encrypted thinking'?
A computer without Windows is like a cake without mustard.
It's true, that the things you own end up owning you. Financially an influence, as well as influences over the things you know and learn.
the Zeroth, First or Second Laws.
Sheesh.
You can start numbering the list at 0 if you want, but the first item on a list is still "First." If you don't want to call item 0 "first", call it 0th, 1st, and 2nd--or even better, "law 0, law 1, law 2"
While I do applaud these two institutions for their initiative, and wish them the best of luck, I feel that the poster has put a little bit of an unfair spin on the news, as if this is something that they just dreamed up entirelyon their own.
IBM, for example, has had a Pervasive Computing Lab in Austin, TX for several years that has produced several applications in a multitude of markets.
In fact, those of you that are fans of Opera may want to check out Multimodal Browsing on the Sharp Zaurus. Those of you with Windows may want to check out IBM's Multimodal Toolkit for creating these new X+V pages that we might be hearing more about in the future.
Enjoy the links!
~ Mike
Michael C. Hollinger
"Still, we are slaves to our machines.
:P
Incorrect, last time i kicked my computer it didn't hang me or beat me to death.
Anyone who has tried to work collaboratively on word-processing documents has quickly discovered that it doesn't work, UNLESS a) the collaborative document is almost free of anything above character-level formatting, or b) the collaborators are willing to learn and submit themselves to working within a very complete, rigid, predefined stylesheet that is not changed during the course of the collaboration.
In the real world, different people achieve the same printed appearance by very different semantic routes, and, as a result, it is almost impossible for person A to edit person B's document, or to cut and paste large portions of material, without messing up the formatting.
I of course am thinking about Microsoft Word here but that's just because it's dominant. The same problems occur with virtually any "modern" WYSIWYG word processors. (Although I will say that Word's automatically numbered lists and paragraphs are still a mystery to me and I have been completely unable to form any mental model that explains their innately perverse behavior).
Yes, I have no doubt that there are left-brained people who successfully work collaboratively with markup languages such as TeX, but in the world of casual "computer-literate" users I still frequently encounter paragraphs in which the first line indentation is achieved by typing five spaces.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
In the future, we will be able to optimize simple things like irrigation by allowing the stakeholders in the process to act as agents in a complex system. These agents will be able to optimize their system(s) by adapting their own (rule based) behavior to the behavior of other agents in the system. Ubiquitous communication is the first step in that direction. Robotic lawnmowers are the second.
In fact, I have been lamenting the wasted bandwidth I could be squeezing out of my sprinkler control wires during the daytime, when they are not used for irrigation. I could probably get 10Mbps to my sprinkler control valves if I installed the right hardware. My lawn mower, however, is another story; it is one of the old fashioned kind that can't even tell if the grass is too long in the first place. The only measurable bandwidth it has is about 22 inches.
Well, I've wasted enough of your time. I just wish I could have squeezed 'emergent behavior' into paragraph two.
Language students: Don't try to learn English here. This ain't it.
One of the subplots in Dune science fiction series was that humans got too dependent on their machines, particularly their computing machines, and had to fight a galactic war to free themselves. Two of the eleven Dune books so far are specificially about this.
Right now the computers are in their infancy. The people who will ultimately use these pervasive computing environments, those that are just now in grade school, will be trained to use whatever interface the producers of this technology develop. It is nice to have academic research to back up the production and marketing guys, but which group has the most years of experience getting users to use electronics?
Take some examples. I never had any trouble learning or figuring out what the dials, yes the dial, on the TV did. I never had any trouble figuring out the top dial had to be set to a certain place in order to use the bottom dial. It was actually a complex logic puzzle. I figured it out. The same thing with the VCR. I now see three year old children able to navigate the complex buttons of the modern TV with no trouble at all. And they can't even read. The do by spatial position.
The same is true for vending machines, microwave ovens, whatever you like. There is no such thing as a truly intuitive interface, although some are more intuitive than others. There is really no reason to make the audio controllers on a computer the same as on a radio, except as a crutch to the older users. The young will choose the design that works for them. They will use it in ways that the researchers never thought of. And most will use it without any understanding of the technology, not even the basic notion that the color of the LED is created by the quantum mechanics.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
It seems like wherever I go these days- coffee houses, the bus, auditoriums, etc.- a large fraction of the population is "lost" in their electronic gizmos. This include music players, cell phones, PDAs, portables. Its kind of strange- all these people physically in one place, but mentally in completely separate worlds.
Somebody needs to read more Asimov.
"With every new device, we have to learn new commands, languages or interfaces."
I agree. I was really annoyed that I had to learn a new interface to drive a car. Why can't it be just like walking? Then there was the TV set. The first time I tried to use one I lit a match thinking it would work like a fireplace, but nooo, they had to make it different with a huge lighter that supposedly emits invisible light rays. These days I can use a computer and I can't figure out why they don't make them all just like my desktop machine. Like my celphone, why doesn't it just have a normal keyboard and mouse, instead of those weird "Talk" and number keys?
I propose LCARS (Library Computer Access and Retrieval System) be the operating system of choice for the fleet.
The reason you don't want to do this (and similar P2P wireless phone ideas) is that it drains the batteries something crazy.
Besides, the complexity of a dynamic networks would make it hard to make it work in a reliable way. (Roaming and similar issues for instance.)
Nothing is worse than trying to mow wet grass. For the record I do not posess a robotic lawnmower, sprinkler system, nor SUV. I simply couldn't find another example that didn't somehow involve a toaster. I think you'll agree we've all had enough of that futuristic premise.
It turns out that mentally rehearsing something you are going to say tenses the muscles in vocal track. Some researchers (as reported recently in slashdot) are trying to measure and interpreted these muscle movements as a sub-vocal interface. so it may be possible to design an sub-vocal in the form of something like a necklace.
Also this has an use as a lie-detector, because people unconsciously sub-vocalize, unless they have been trained otherwise.
These agents will be able to optimize their system(s) by adapting their own (rule based) behavior to the behavior of other agents in the system.
Very true, connecting devices (with or without wires) is just one step, making them "talk" to each other is another. The mentioning of "sentient" and "loyal" sounded to me a bit like AI - which I think won't provide any solutions in the next decade, as the topic of AI is not so hot anymore in research.
Agents on the other hand may truly be useful, although IMHO there will be a "controlling" agent responsible for several dedicated devices (like all lights in a house) instead of a single agent in every device (one agent in every lightbulb - a bit exaggerated, I know).
My cats ate my karma. They also wrote this comment.
Now I'll be able to unplug my teledildonics from my PC, plug it into my Palm Pilot, and hit the road!
How long before something like the Vertebrane system solves this problem completely? Honestly - how long before truly "embedded" (as in "embedded in the human body") technology is available?
Man. I'm gonna need bigger pockets.
In Soviet Rush, today's Tom Sawyer gets high on you.
The Science Museum or Minnesota is currently showing an exhibit "Robots + Us". Part of the exhibit is the Robot cafe, which seemed mostly to be a home for AI press clippings and a very old counter-top juke box controller. But they did have a framed sign titled "Rules". The first three were what you'd expect. The fourth was "a robot must bus his own dishes".
I laughed. My eight-year-old didn't get it. Time to start him on the Caves of Steel, I think.
--
E_NOSIG
"Pervasive Computing"
Let me see if I understand this:
MIT suggests it: innovative and far-seeing concept for increasing useability, efficiency, and interactivity for humans and their ever-more pervasive electronic devices.
Bill Gates suggests it (ie. implementing Windows everywhere, in everything): greedy, self-interested capitalist bastard trying to oppress all of the Open Source Ewoks of Truth and Light.
Is that pretty much correct?
-Styopa
Explain to me again why it's bad if you have an RFID tag in your pocket that "the man" might track, but OK if you have a persistent wireless internet connection in your pocket, that's uniquely identified to you so that the access can be billed?
Oh, yeah; because the latter can run Linux. NM.
Does anyone else feel like it's time for the users to start taking a little responsibility too? Computers are monstorously complex machines. People spend years of their lives studying mere fractions of how computers work. The fact that we've boiled it all down to a smooth, milky interface is absolutely incredible, in my opinion. Windows 3.1 was not there, and KDE is really close. But computer engineers are so used to hearing about how it's their fault that people can't use computers, when really, it's ok to ask the users to learn a little.
Do most people know how to drive tractors? No. Those that want to need to learn a little. And tractors are a couple orders of magnitude simpler than the average micropressor. It's true that computers are much more widespread, and so a good compromise IMHO is to say that the simple functionality of a computer should be easy to get at, but the more complex stuff (e.g. cross referencing co-workers' schedules to find a common meeting time) will be harder. Doing something like that isn't going to be point-and-click. It's going to be point-and-click-click-click.
I'm more interested in the Perverse Computing Standards. Who needs another pr0n viewer?
"I'm An Idiot, But I Want To Use Another Computer."
I use many computing devices every day. I program the VCR, the Microwave, my Cell Phone. Also, Digital Watches, Game Consoles, Environmental Controls. Not to mention the various pieces of software that mimic 'real' interfaces, at the same time, variating from the OS.
My point: I use all of these without reading the manuals. I can figure any one of these out, just becuase the nature of the devices and interfaces is so similar. Has 'Pervasive Computing' already reached us, or am I just not an idiot?
Slashdot Eds Link Anonymous Posts With Logged Posts
They Are Vermin Feeding On Each Other's Feces.
I Hate \.
Even if they wanted to play this game, which I don't believe they do, Microsoft have no chance:
Fortunately, those aren't the only choices.
Are you sure microwaves are getting more and more complex? The first ones actually came with in-home training!
You can start numbering the list at 0 if you want, but the first item on a list is still "First." If you don't want to call item 0 "first", call it 0th, 1st, and 2nd--or even better, "law 0, law 1, law 2"
You are so out of it.
The 3 laws of robotics were originally just that... 1/2/3. However, mid/late in the series, Daneel decides that there must be a law that takes precedence over the other 3 laws. Rather then renumber the series and confuse all of the readers, it was easier to just label it the "zero" law.
If this happens then the l33t won't have anyone to look down on!
Well, except for the guy who still can't figure out the toaster.
"It needs to be sentient, loyal, small and low maintenance."
I can go either way on the sentient part but this sounds like the ideal girlfriend.
"Written on the pages is the answer to the never ending story..."
I agree. The article (not the slashdot post) seems quite 'arrogant'. Pervasive computing has been around for about 25 years now (also overlapping with ubiquitous computing). There is an IEEE magazine (IEEE Pervasive Computing) about it, conferences about it (PerCom) - these people never mention anything about what's already happened; being "The MIT", that is not unexpected but is still unfortunate.
I'd be happy if we had a President who obeyed these laws.
"In particular, the group wants to develop new technologies to make easier for us to interact with all these computers."
Voice.
Nothing would be easier or faster to use. You don't need a keyboard or a "stylus" or any of that other crap. Once we develop voice recognition that actually works in real time without any "training", the question of how to "interact with all these computers" is answered forever.
...not that I'm a pirate.. Hell I've never even fired a cannon. - oldwolf13
This "problem" is not limited to computers.
You have to learn how to use your lawn mower, drive your car, play your guitar, use your dishwasher....
You cannot expect to get a new appliance without learning how to use it.
mya, i saw this a while back, theres tons of projects like this, but few seem to be making it anywhere. perhaps because the problem isnt quite the human/tool interface problem, its the human/human interface problem.
anyhoo: MIT Project Oxygen
been covered here before, but for the love of redundancy...
|plastic....or gasoline?|
although this council thing probably won't be a bad thing, I think that we should let evolution decide the best interfaces. Basically those that are the best will thrive, and others will copy those characteristics. You can definitely see that with the early mac os versus windows stuff. But I guess this is a step to ensure noone gets sued for plagiarism or whatever.
I just want a universal remote.
So when I'm at a mate's house and he steps out, and the ads come on I can mute withouth the need to spent 15 mins trying to work out which of the 4 remotes controls the volume.
Oh yes. And a universal remote for radios so I can drive a hirecar, and change channel without a) crashing the car, b) stoping to hunt for the instruction manual.
And microwaves. It'd be really cool if I could program other people's microwaves without asking stupid question like "how many watts is it?"
Say what. If you can make a universal remote that also plays OGGs I'll happily lug that about. Get stuff to spaeak the same language and I'll carry my own tune playing universal remote.
And for time when I can't be bothered with fiddly interfaces, it'd be really neat if I could connect to a screen and keyboad just by placing it in the vicinity of a keyboard, mouse and screen.
And power. Remembering to plug stuff in is a pain. So I'd want a universal universal remote charging cradle.
And it would be really neat if my car could access it to play stuff via the speakers in my car. And if it could keep an eye on my fuel consumption too... that would be cool.
And if it was a mobile phone also. And if it could tie into the phone system of my house so that I'm not required to lug it around the house. That would be cool too.
And I'd like some way to make all this "prior-art" count so that some bastard doesn't try to charge the earth for selling me a bloody obvious idea.
It can be argued that he is. Since the 0th law doesn't disalow killing a human to protect humanity. In fact the 0th subsumes the 1st law.
Most of us info-geeks have PDAs of one type or another. Somebody needs to write a simple graphical utility, that allows on to read the key's from a remote control through the PDAs I/R port, or download the common table of key functions for most remote controls from an online database.
:-)
Once you have all the information in a nice little table in your PDA, you can throw away all your remotes, and use the PDA to control the entire collection of digital appliances you've accumulated (eg. TV, Surround Sound/Home Theatre, DVR, DVD, MP3 Player, Home Security, etc.)
Having your environment controled by an easy to use, single device, that you're already familiar with would make a bunch of people very happy...
Genda
P.S. Anybody who wants to build this should contact me... I'd love to make something cool like this. Otherwise, send me a royalty for using my idea
Yes, this will happen soon, you don't have to worry, unless you already are on your deathbed. The only reason this didn't happen earlier is that there was need for it. In the past computers didn't move, they stood on our desks, notbooks and PDAs were rather rare and didn't move from the power grid anyway (and where you can find the power, you can find a phone line). Only recently we god capable devices with long power life and quickly Wi-Fi (Bluetooth, 3G) has emerged. Everyone is talking about dynamic network artitecture, because it only became relevant now. But it's not terribly difficult to implement. It will take some time to phase out the legacy systems, but ultimately the problem is purely technical, no breakthrough is needed.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
Didn't pervasive computing start years ago at Xerox PARC?