Slashdot Mirror
The Internet of Things and Humans
An anonymous reader writes "Speculating the future of human computer interaction, Tim O'Reilly contemplates how humans and things cooperate differently when things get smarter. He says, '[S]o many of the most interesting applications of the Internet of Things involve new ways of thinking about how humans and things cooperate differently when the things get smarter. It really ought to be called the Internet of Things and Humans ... is Uber an #IoT application? Most people would say it is not; it’s just a pair of smartphone apps connecting a passenger and driver. But imagine for a moment the consumer end of the Uber app as it is today, and on the other end, a self-driving car. You would immediately see that as #IoT. ... Long before we get to fully autonomous devices, there are many “halfway house” applications that are really Internet of Things applications in waiting, which use humans for one or more parts of the entire system. When you understand that the general pattern of #IoTH applications is not just sensor + network + actuator but various combinations of human + network + actuator or sensor + network, you will broaden the possibilities for interfaces and business models."
I think it would be a good idea for every pothole to have its own IP address so we can track how big it's getting, for example.
Mostly random stuff.
Presumably #IoT = Internet of Things. But #I guess we're #supposed to invent #clever #hashtags for everything #now.
The Internet of things is probably the worst thing that is being pushed right now, even worse than the cloud.
Yep, looks like IoT is what cloud stuff was about five-six years ago. We already are in firefighting mode with enough security issues. Do we need to add a larger attack surface?
With the track record of security, we should assume that every device can be seized and used by an attacker. That refrigerator? Shut off while on a trip. The stove? Turned on to start a residential fire with the "smart" fire alarms turned off.
Lets have some security advances first, then people can have their Internet connected blenders.
the consumer end of the Uber app as it is today, and on the other end, a self-driving car.
I'm quite capable of driving myself, including shifting gears. I don't need or want to rely on software to get me where I'm going. It's bad enough we have rearview cameras being shoved down our throats because people are too lazy or fat to turn around and look behind them, we don't need more technology to try and solve a human problem.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
There was a time in my life when I would have thought the "Internet of Things" was really cool. Now, things like this are a huge turnoff to me because of constant surveillance by governments and corporations. The fun is over.
Brave Sir Robin ran away. ("No!") Bravely ran away away. ("I didn't!")
And websites can't even communicate with one another efficiently or at all.
Yet, IoT advocates imagine within a few short years this magical IoT will create a system of intercommunicating hardware that will somehow work perfectly.
Yeah ok.
And no, it will not be mindless Luddite sentiment. I enjoy the entirely visceral feel of driving a car or motorcycle equipped with a manual transmission. And the idea of internet enabled toasters and refrigerators are absurd.
yeah, but imagine your fridge linked to Fresh Direct or the Amazon grocery delivery service and automatically ordering food for you whether you want it to or not. Epicness
or you can put your bread into the toaster at night and then use your phone to toast it the next morning before you get out of the shower so you don't have to do it manually
I wouldn't be surprised to see solenoid activated locks on my fridge requiring sitting through a 5 minute ad from Safeway in order to open the door... only to find that a hacker turned the temperature of the fridge up so everything is spoiled inside...
Or even worse, the fridge won't open until the chip on a new gallon of milk is scanned because it will "expire" anything and block access at an arbitrary date, similar to how ink in some inkjets expire.
And the idea of internet enabled toasters and refrigerators are absurd.
A lot of stuff that I read on the Internet . . . looks like it has been posted by toasters an refrigerators.
The problem with tech these days, is that too many people are jumping in because they think it is a gold mine. All they need to do, is throw a bit of money and time at it, and they will be the next Gates, Bezos or, aptly named, Zuckerberg ("pile of sugar", in German). I think there will be some very excellent ideas in there with all the trash and gimmicks. But the ratio of crap to good will be about 1000:1.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
#IoT is more-or-less a synonym for Sky-Net in it's infancy.
Think about it: The devices and appliances get smarter by studying humanity. Watching, collecting data, adjusting response, eliminating (or suggesting the elimination of) steps in the chain.
How long before humans get edited out completely, and the machine simply builds itself around us? How long after that before we're no longer needed in the flow-chart of its designs?
Just food for thought, here. I don't like the idea of my fridge coordinating with my stove about what I'm going to have for dinner based on my vending machine habits of the week, and productivity rating at work...
Maybe I should... It'd be really convenient. Might lead to a Fractale-like existence, though.
I guess it will all matter where we stand on certain things in society. Like Google Glass, and all-pervasive surveillance systems, and the Governing Body in place over it all...
.... make it stop!
Computers are things. It's always been an "Internet of Things".
"Internet of Things" is as stupid as if we suddenly started saying "highway of cars". It's both true and free of meaning at the same time ... which I suppose is a weird sort of achievement.
And no, calling it HoC wouldn't make "highway of cars" any more hip. Just stupider.
Ha ha, apparently proselytizing about the "Internet of Things" is trendy again. Don't hold your breath kids; until IPv6 is a thing that's really a thing, enjoy your "small home network of things", where your game console, thermostat and toaster have 192.168.x.x IP addresses dangling from your cablemodem, and require a 3rd-party cloud service to mediate contact with your neighbor's toaster.
Seriously though... if anybody but major datamining companies are going to get remotely enthusiastic about this IoT shenanigans, two things need to happen: IPv6 and dirt-cheap low-bandwidth wireless uplinks (think cellphone plan with pay-by-the-byte or 512kb/month dataplans and low/no monthly maintenance fees) so that all the applications (smart stoplights, weather/pollution sensors, whatever) that would benefit from not dangling off someone's cell plan or cablemodem don't have to do so. Maybe on the 3rd revival of the IoT hype, about 10 years from now, it'll really catch on and be actually kind of useful. (See also: "M2M".)
Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
Can the Internet of Things stop people from using inappropriate hashtags in long-form content? If so, then please sign me up.
Visit the
Are there any benefits to having everything connected to just one vast address space? I certainly can't spot them. I think this is a solution to a problem that has already been solved in another (and better) way.
Although I may concede that it could potentially be useful to have a larger address space, I think it would be massively stupid to start frittering it away on insignificant frivolities like an "internet of things". I mean, would you want your fridge to have 'friends' on Facebook or start tweeting about its contents? When we're all worried about privacy?