Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NTT's Cool - Human Area Networking Technology

Posted by timothy on from the closer-to-fruition-since-last-mention dept.

kvsnut writes "I4U is reporting about NTT's research project called RedTacton - It 'safely turns the surface of the human body into a data transmission path at speeds up to 10 Mbps between any two points on the body.' There is a pretty interesting site (uses flash) setup to showcase the technology. If you want to jump to a non-flash overview, try here. It be cool if I could sync my Treo (I'm saving for) by just touching a cradle (or heck the PC)."

6 of 248 comments (clear)

  1. Use Bluetooth by SiMac · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What's the point beyond the coolness factor? Palm devices can already sync via 802.11b or Bluetooth. Wireless technologies can already go faster than 10 mbps, and are cheap and well-tested. If we can transmit data through the air, why do we need to transmit it through our bodies?

  2. So not new tech by way2trivial · · Score: 4, Insightful

    http://domino.research.ibm.com/Comm/bios.nsf/pages /pan.html
    From 1997 at IBM

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
  3. Re:More trouble than it's worth? by QuantumG · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Uhhh hard. Every single time I have to plug a USB thumb drive into a PC it takes at least 5 minutes. Usually because I have to pull something else out to find a slot. You might be wondering what this technology would have over bluetooth. Well have you ever used bluetooth? You inevitably have to fiddle with it for minutes to find the menu option that lists the devices that you have already registered with and then fiddle more to map the name that is on the menu with the device that you can see, point at, and touch in the real would (but has no clear identifier on it that matches it with the menu option). All this technology is the reason why people don't like technology. The user interfaces are really unintuitive. Ultimately, loading a file from my portable data storage device onto a computer should be as simple as sitting down at the computer, selecting File -> Open and clicking the little icon of a happy user called "QuantumG's files". If someone else has the file it should be as easy as asking them to touch the computer and selecting "John's files". Transfering a file from my device to Johns should be as simple as the both of us touching a computer and dragging the files from my device to his.

    And should someone at an lcd factory ever get off their ass and make a transparent lcd that fits into a contact lens or better yet, the membrane of your eye you'll be able to use your personal network to communicate with your mobile computer, storage and interface.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  4. "safely"... by ABeowulfCluster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Once, smoking cigarettes was considered 'safe'. Putting radio waves thru the human body is never a great idea.

  5. Better than Biological Authentication. by stephenisu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The biggest market I see for this (other than the obvious marketing/spy novel stuff) is user authentication. People like myself fear bioauthentication because, well if someone steals your identity, you are pretty much boned.

    With this system, you can have a separate heavily encrypted key for each device you touch, and it can be changed if the need arises.
    Death to all passwords!

    You could know who entered each and every keystroke!

    --
    Sigs? We don't need no stinking sigs!
  6. Re:More trouble than it's worth? by God!+Awful+2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You might be wondering what this technology would have over bluetooth. Well have you ever used bluetooth? You inevitably have to fiddle with it for minutes to find the menu option that lists the devices that you have already registered with and then fiddle more to map the name that is on the menu with the device
    Sounds like you are just complaining about some flaws in the implementation of bluetooth rather than actually suggesting an advantage of the HAN approach. How does HAN really solve these problems? You still have to deal with the problem of disambiguation. You still have to have some kind of authorization mechanism so that every device you touch doesn't have instant access to every other device you touch. (Can you imagine a computer virus that literally spreads by touch?)

    There are ways that the UI for bluetooth can be improved - to an extent. Security is always inconvenient. That's how Microsoft can stay ahead. Just ignore security and make your UIs better.

    -a

    --
    /. users can't