The Internet of Broken Things (hackaday.com)

Ummmm ... by gstoddart · 2016-02-09 01:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

On the other side are security researchers screaming that we're installing remote access with little thought about securing it properly.

Well, that and the weekly stories we see which demonstrates just how terrible the security of this crap really is. It's not like it's a hypothetical case researchers are warning us about.

Those of us who have been around long enough know damned well not to take a day-one update, because companies have become lazy and sloppy and don't find out what they've missed until some poor schmuck has it go wrong.

And now we're supposed to trust a vendor to push out an update to the things which run our homes and have them not screw it up?

You can keep your interweb of crap, and I'll keep assuming the people making it don't give a damn about security or testing their products.

The IoT is a model in which all of the consumers are the beta testers, and which security is a farce, if it exists at all. It's all gimmicks and toys, lacking either substance or quality.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.

Re:Ummmm ... by MitchDev · 2016-02-09 02:00 · Score: 1

Agreed, if you are too lazy to open the fridge to look inside and see what you need from the store, a "smart" fridge to do your thinking for you won't really help.
Re:Ummmm ... by vtcodger · 2016-02-09 05:12 · Score: 1

> Those of us who have been around long enough know damned well not to take a day-one update, because companies have become lazy and sloppy and don't find out what they've missed until some poor schmuck has it go wrong.
Probably the wrong diagnosis. It's not that (all) companies are lazy. It's that testing software is difficult at best and pretty much impossible if what you are testing is complicated.
=======
But the right prescription I think. Avoid this stuff if you possibly can. Given any luck the folks hoping to profit from it will all go broke and have to find jobs in some other sector of the economy. Something better suited to their talents and skill set. Something in food service perhaps ...

--
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
Re:Ummmm ... by nine-times · 2016-02-09 05:30 · Score: 1

My concern about the IoT is not just security and privacy, but with those things as a function of overall management. Let's say for example that my coffee maker is now connecting to the Internet. I now probably have to set up a new account on some web portal run by my coffee maker's manufacturer. Is that site secure? Are they using your email for spam? Is that site leaking privacy information about you?
Even if those concerns are laid to rest, it's still just another account on another website I need to manage. I don't want more accounts, and I especially don't want more accounts on random manufacturer's "cloud-controller" websites for little doodads. And finally, if there is a requirement that the device be controlled from the manufacturer's website or "cloud controller" service, what happens when the manufacturer goes out of business, or when they just decide that they don't want to support that model anymore?
Re:Ummmm ... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 06:03 · Score: 0

Been working with IoT project for few years and all I can say is that IoT lacks REAL standards.
These small "dumb-smart" devices shouldn't be responsible for their own security. We need devices securing them infront of them. Devices that don't treat them like your average PC or server, but one that allows some sort of standard communication and security without too much fiddling.
IoT devices are for the dumb consumer masses where securiity needs to be EASY.

Oh look, another HaD cross post by BlacKSacrificE · 2016-02-09 01:14 · Score: 2

Has the new formatting of HaD had such a bad impact on readership (I no longer go there because of it) that they are now harvesting views via /.?

It wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't such an obvious conflict gentlemen..

--
[Sorry, this signature is unavailable in your country/region]

Re:Oh look, another HaD cross post by OzPeter · 2016-02-09 01:25 · Score: 2

This is not a new thing.
The submitter is a known hackaday shill account, their stories get promoted no matter what their quality, and they never interact with /. other than to submit stories.
I actually looked at TFA before seeing who submitted it (my mistake) and was left wondering where the content actually was. The whole IoT aspect seems to relate to the Nest debacle. And in general the root cause has nothing to do with IoT, but rather proof that testing physical devices is hard.

--
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Re:Oh look, another HaD cross post by AmiMoJo · 2016-02-09 01:37 · Score: 2

To save others the trouble, it's just boring recollections of rookie mistakes the guy made many years ago, and some general mumbling about old IoT stories we read last year to make it seem vaguely relevant.
Perhaps instead of endless stories about how bad IoT is, maybe we could think about ways to make it better. I actually build IoT devices for a living (for the water industry) and security is something we think about. We came to the conclusion that, while convenient, over-the-air firmware updates are a bad idea, for example. Aside from the risk of someone abusing that mechanism, the potential for it to fail like it did with NEST is too great. Firmware updates are to be avoided if possible, or done in person.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Oh look, another HaD cross post by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 01:44 · Score: 0

Just a regular scientific monitoring sensor designer here... OTA firmware push is something that is actually relatively easy to do without screwing up. There are some of us that have decades of experience. Most of our devices that do OTA speak some other protocol besides IP, usually over ISM, but the principal is the same.
Re:Oh look, another HaD cross post by ArmoredDragon · 2016-02-09 02:59 · Score: 1

Aside from the risk of someone abusing that mechanism, the potential for it to fail like it did with NEST is too great.
Isn't that why modern devices have dual firmware images? Or at least, one firmware image is just a shim that can phone home and fix things that have gone wrong in the main firmware image, or alternatively allow somebody with a PC and a simple set of instructions to connect to it and fix it.
Re:Oh look, another HaD cross post by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 04:37 · Score: 0

I built similar systems years ago. Rollback is the key. The ability to say 'yeah I am good' and keep an older copy 'just in case'. You need to talk back to the home base that pushed the update and the homebase says 'yeah go ahead'. If you can not even manage a callback to home base rollback... You then QA the heck out of it and make sure that one part is rock solid. At worst you end up with a truck roll.

Bottom line by sensei+moreh · 2016-02-09 01:18 · Score: 1

The wider the deployment, the harder you have to think about all the cases, all the chances for exploits, and how to recover when it happens. The alternative is going to be government regulation like certain industries already have. The cost of getting things right will pale in comparison to complying with strict regulation from a government agency.

--
Geology - it's not rocket science; it's rock science

Reasons why I don't like the Internet of Things. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 01:18 · Score: 1, Funny

Here's a list of reasons why I don't like the Internet of Things:

1) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I sleep.

2) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I pee.

3) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I make kaka.

4) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I pleasure myself.

5) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I wash my body in the shower.

6) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I relax in the tub.

7) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I brush my teeth.

8) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I make passionate love to my wife.

9) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I brush my hair.

10) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I read a book.

11) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I read Slashdot.

12) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I bake cake.

13) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I put in my contact lenses.

14) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I get ready to play golf.

15) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I do my laundry.

16) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I think about rugby.

17) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I tie my shoes.

18) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I celebrate the 4th of July.

19) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I water my flowers.

20) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I eat ham.

21) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I use my stapler to staple documents.

22) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I chew bubble gum.

23) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I check the oil in my car.

24) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I look for my TV remote.

25) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I blow my nose.

26) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I rearrange my stamp collection.

27) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I listen to the Backstreet Boys.

28) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I do my calisthenics.

29) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I search for a paper clip.

30) Internet of Things devices could send information about me to advertisers.

31) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I sleep.

32) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I pee.

33) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I make kaka.

34) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I pleasure myself.

35) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I wash my body in the shower.

36) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I relax in the tub.

37) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I brush my teeth.

38) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I make passionate love to my wife.

39) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I brush my hair.

40) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I read a book.

41) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I read Slashdot.

42) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I bake cake.

43) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly coll

mercury switch thermostat by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 01:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

My mercury switch thermostat has been working reliably for decades. Decades. Never woke up to a cold house when the mercury needed an operating system update either....

Re:mercury switch thermostat by Mr+D+from+63 · 2016-02-09 01:40 · Score: 2

And my wifi thermostat (not a NEST) has been working for 5 years now with no problems. It replaced a mercury switch one that you could not program for energy savings.
Re:mercury switch thermostat by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 01:41 · Score: 0

My mercury switch thermostat has been working reliably for decades. Decades. Never woke up to a cold house when the mercury needed an operating system update either....
But it's old technology. New > Old. Reliability is overrated. Get with the times, man!
Re:mercury switch thermostat by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 01:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

False dichotomy: There are many theromstats out there with quite a bit of programmability that are not internet connected in the slightest.

In short by argStyopa · 2016-02-09 01:32 · Score: 2

...the IoT is a generally stupid idea, for all the hundreds of reasons that have been repeated here ad infinitum: additional points of failure in systems that benefit very little or not at all from the 'features' added by the new connectivity.

--
-Styopa

Re:In short by luis_a_espinal · 2016-02-09 09:05 · Score: 1

...the IoT is a generally stupid idea, for all the hundreds of reasons that have been repeated here ad infinitum: additional points of failure in systems that benefit very little or not at all from the 'features' added by the new connectivity.
That depends on the implementation. As it is, I wouldn't trust a IoT thermostat, specially after reading that horror story of people finding themselves without functioning heating during the cold snaps. Shit, I don't want to imagine the cost of fixing all that ice-busted plumbing.
With that said, I would love to see a multi-node thermostat that is affordable (and secure, if it is not, fuck that), adaptive, that learns to program itself, that I can control (securely) over wi-fi, and that its default fall-back mode on software failure is to fall back to a dumb, manual mode of operation.
We are not there yet (and I am not going to volunteer my $$$ to be a beta tester for an industry that doesn't pay attention to security.) But we will be there, and I'm looking forward to it.
Re:In short by argStyopa · 2016-02-09 13:42 · Score: 1

" I would love to see a multi-node thermostat that is affordable (and secure, if it is not, fuck that), adaptive, that learns to program itself, that I can control (securely) over wi-fi..."
I'm genuinely curious: why?
"Adaptive" - adaptive to what? How many houses do you live in?
"Learns to program itself" Why? Aren't you going to be there? Don't you ultimately at some point have to tell it "that's too hot, that's too cold"?
Wifi and Multi-node: I presume you mean "I can control from multiple places" How many places do you need to adjust your home's thermostat? Why would you possibly need to adjust your thermostat if you're not there?
How often do you need to change it? Seriously - I haven't touched my home's thermostat in probably 4 years.

--
-Styopa
Re:In short by luis_a_espinal · 2016-02-10 22:00 · Score: 1

" I would love to see a multi-node thermostat that is affordable (and secure, if it is not, fuck that), adaptive, that learns to program itself, that I can control (securely) over wi-fi..."
I'm genuinely curious: why?
Fair enough. With it, it would open possibilities of reporting fluctuations over wi-fi which I can then see over one of my smart phones, tablet or laptop. Laziness/convenience kind of a thing.

"Adaptive" - adaptive to what? How many houses do you live in?
Fair enough also. This goes along the multi-node feature I was wanting. For a large enough house, I could have two separate A/C systems - one for the living areas, and another for the bedrooms. An initial investment would cost $$$ obviously, but it would save $$$ more over time if I can simply shut either one as needed. I've seen the effect in terms of cost savings in houses that have done just that.

"Learns to program itself" Why? Aren't you going to be there? Don't you ultimately at some point have to tell it "that's too hot, that's too cold"?
A single thermostat is still not good enough when your house experiences different temperature fluctuations. For example, due to my house's orientation, the master bedroom gets way too hot or way too cold before the thermostat detects it is too hot or too cold. Having more than one across the room that can coordinate with one another, the whole system adapts to the desired ranges by just programming the "master" node.
If you couple that with more than one A/C system, then it goes further by deciding which one to run and when. Moreover, most thermostats only operate with either refrigeration or heating. If you want cooling, you have to turn that on and turn heating off (and viceversa). Here in Florida, you can get some unpleasant fluctuations, specially if your house has a specific shape and orientation and if you are living next to a lake.
For example, yesterday it was 49F on my bedroom (not good for my little children), and then at noon (due to the direct sunlight), parts of the house quickly rose up to the upper 70's. In my ideal situation, I want that automated and handled it autonomously without me having to input my desired parameters only once.
It is a first world problem, for after all, I can simply walk to the bloody A/C control and flip it as needed, or open/close windows, etc. But if that type of automation were to exist and were at my fingertips (moneywise), I would get it. Wifi and Multi-node: I presume you mean "I can control from multiple places" How many places do you need to adjust your home's thermostat? Why would you possibly need to adjust your thermostat if you're not there?
How often do you need to change it? Seriously - I haven't touched my home's thermostat in probably 4 years.

No thanks by gijoel · 2016-02-09 01:33 · Score: 1

I don't want my fridge narcing on me to the cops.

Re:No thanks by tinkerton · 2016-02-09 03:00 · Score: 1

..because the potato salad has gone bad?
Re:No thanks by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 05:12 · Score: 0

No, he means the body parts.

Re:The Klan is only getting bigger by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 01:44 · Score: 0

LOL.

They spelled knights wrong.

Re:Reasons why I don't like the Internet of Things by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 01:45 · Score: 1

Wow!

I don't like it because it's just going to make things more expensive. Companies are lemmings and when one does puts this crap into their products, everyone else will do the same and of course, charge more.

It's just another way of getting us to part with out money: it's just a gimmick - for personal use.

The industrial internet, OTOH, is making industrial processes MUCH more efficient and safer.

Re:Reasons why I don't like the Internet of Things by geekmux · 2016-02-09 01:46 · Score: 3

...The Internet of Things is creepy to the max and it sounds like it could be very invasive.

You misspelled profitable.

And the scariest part about IoT is not how creepy it is.

It's the fact that not enough humans on this planet give a shit about privacy anymore to stop such an industry.

Even Edward Snowden is sitting around these days asking himself "Why did I even fucking bother"...

The stuff is just too expensive by bangular · 2016-02-09 01:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

I think what will kill iot is that it's just frankly too expensive. A perfect example is the Belkin WeMo line of iot enabled products.

* 150 dollars for a slow cooker

* 150 dollars for a coffee maker

* 200 dollars for a humidifier

* 40 dollars for a plugin relay switch

And the list goes on. The nest costs 5x-10x more than a low end digital thermostat. I have a sneaking suspicion as with almost all other home automation, upper class people will buy it for the novelty but the rest of the world will keep to their "dumb" devices.

Re:The stuff is just too expensive by MitchDev · 2016-02-09 02:32 · Score: 2

"And the list goes on. The nest costs 5x-10x more than a low end digital thermostat."
Why even bother with a digital thermostat, old fashioned analog works just fine.
Re:The stuff is just too expensive by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 03:09 · Score: 0

Then on top of that is the numbers of companies trying to be 'the one'. All of them seem to have their own proprietary bus lines. Some use standards but in a odd way. A few use bus standards but then have a lockout key. Some use standards but in a strange way that bricks competitors devices. Then there are a very few that actually use an existing standard but are decently pricey.
Then on top of all of that they want a monthly fee to go along with it. The older grunts of us out there know that all of these fees *never* go down. They always seem to go up. It is why the cable companies are losing customers.
Then on top of all of that. That whole snazzy system I put in; lets be nice and say it lasts 10 years. I will have to take the whole thing toss it out and start over when you EOL the thing? Probably. I have fixtures that are older than I am that were made in the 1940s that *still* *work*.
So you end up with a group of dudes trying to sell you 'soft mood lighting' and remote control lights with music in the background all for 10 bucks a month. Over 10 years that is 1200 bucks just to turn the lights on and off in my living room? I can do that now and 1/100th of the cost you are asking for and no monthly fee. You are trying to sell me a solution to something that is at best (and I am being massively generous) a minor inconvenience.
Now dont get me wrong. When these systems are put in and they work they are truly a sight to behold. But for a family wonder if they can afford to send their kid to college the expense will rarely be worth it.
Re:The stuff is just too expensive by AmiMoJo · 2016-02-09 03:11 · Score: 1

The cost penalty is just temporary though. Wifi radios are already under $1, and the cost of any service will be offset by profits from spying on users.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:The stuff is just too expensive by pr0fessor · 2016-02-09 03:37 · Score: 1

I would pay 150 for a good plumbed Bunn coffee maker just not a Mr. Coffee with wifi that I can program to run but cannot fill itself so that feature is worthless.
Re:The stuff is just too expensive by Geoffrey.landis · 2016-02-09 04:15 · Score: 2

I think what will kill iot is that it's just frankly too expensive.

No, that's just the way technology goes: they sell to the people willing to pay premium prices first, then the cheap bottom of the barrel manufacturers get into the action, and the price drops asymptotically toward zero.
The first hand-held calculators used to cost hundreds of dollars; now you get them free in cereal boxes.

--
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Re:The stuff is just too expensive by bangular · 2016-02-09 04:45 · Score: 1

I didn't even notice. The coffee maker is literally just a Mr. Coffee with wifi! My $20 coffee maker has a built in timer which I already don't use.
Re:The stuff is just too expensive by pr0fessor · 2016-02-09 04:59 · Score: 1

I have the Bunn Velocity it may be expensive and not be programmable but damn it makes a good pot of coffee at just the right temperature every time and only takes about 90 seconds to brew 12 cups
Re:The stuff is just too expensive by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 05:44 · Score: 0

I don't know why people pick the Nest as their favorite IoT thing to shit on. It's one of the best products I've used by far. I've had one for a few years and it's paid for itself several times over in lowered bills. (Mostly cooling. I live in a warm region and have dirt cheap gas heating)
The Nest has a service integration that tracks your local weather, tracks your comfort habits, maps your particular heating/cooling system performance over time, and learns just how much it needs to heat or cool to achieve what you want. With most other devices, if they even support such things, require manually entering service maps.
You can dink with it from a smartphone or a web browser. You can turn off your heater/cooler if you forgot to before your left and turn it on before you get home if your vacation schedule changes. It's brain dead easy to install and is easy enough for most users to master. You can tweak it to your liking and anyone in the house can walk up and adjust the temp by grabbing and twisting.
Can you save money and get remote configuration with a cheaper and "non connected/service-tied" device? Sure. But you'll spend a lot more time messing with it and will likely get less desirable results.
Like with smartphones I got sick of fucking around and tweaking every last feature and setting only to end up with something I wasted more time with then actually using. I just want something that gives me the befits of being connected to the internet, works well without being fucked with, and gets out of my way when I don't need it.
Re:The stuff is just too expensive by JazzLad · 2016-02-09 05:45 · Score: 1

Digital lets me set a different temp in day and night - nice in the winter so I can have it warm up right before we wake up so while we're getting ready it's warm (relatively speaking) and then it rests at a comfortable level. We're only talking a range of 2-4 degrees, so the impact on my utility bill is less than the impact on my comfort level.

There's always someone home, though, so having one with sensors is way-overkill for me (and not desired - simple digital is perfect for my usage).

--
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
Re:The stuff is just too expensive by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 11:04 · Score: 0

I don't know why people pick the Nest as their favorite IoT thing to shit on.
I don't think that's what it is, mostly. Nest is just a good example of the problem some have with the whole IoT idea: they try very hard to get it right, but have still had a couple of high-profile instances of things going wrong.
Now, if they can't stop things from going south from time to time, what hope do you have for the cheap re-branded crap that most people will actually have in their homes?
Re:The stuff is just too expensive by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 13:48 · Score: 0

That $1 WiFi radio has all the security, quality and thought put into it that $1 will buy...
Re:The stuff is just too expensive by shawn2772 · 2016-02-10 03:21 · Score: 1

"And the list goes on. The nest costs 5x-10x more than a low end digital thermostat."
Why even bother with a digital thermostat, old fashioned analog works just fine.
Well, if by "works just fine" you mean "uses far more energy than necessary". Being able to schedule different settings at different times is a very good thing, and can save you a lot of money on your heating/cooling bill while still keeping you comfortable. A smarter thermostat that is able to not only operate according to a schedule but to figure out, say, that tonight is particularly cold and it needs to fire up the furnace at 4 AM, rather than the usual 5 AM, in order to get the house to the desired temperature when you get up at 6 makes for a much more comfortable house. A thermostat that can tell when you're home and when you're not adds another small measure of energy savings (unless your house is like mine and essentially always occupied).
In cases where energy costs fluctuate throughout the course of the day, a really smart thermostat can save you even more money by intelligently deciding to do most of the heating/cooling during the portion of the day when energy is cheap. In cases where prices actually change dynamically based on changing conditions, or where energy providers have a need to manage total consumption, a really smart thermostat can save you a *lot* of money by allowing the utility company to tweak your settings a small amount.
So, yeah, if you don't care about savings or efficiency, an old-fashioned thermostat works just fine.
Re:The stuff is just too expensive by shawn2772 · 2016-02-10 03:47 · Score: 1

I don't know why people pick the Nest as their favorite IoT thing to shit on.
I don't think that's what it is, mostly. Nest is just a good example of the problem some have with the whole IoT idea: they try very hard to get it right, but have still had a couple of high-profile instances of things going wrong.
I think the key words here are "high profile". Old, dumb technology gets things wrong all the time, too, but it does it in well-understood and completely non-newsworthy ways. One of my neighbors went on vacation to Tahiti for two weeks last month, and got home to find that apparently one of his kids had turned the thermostat up to 80 just before they left. No one would blame that failure on the thermostat... nor the opposite (and much worse) potential failure where the kid had flipped the switch to "off" and they'd returned home to find their house at -5F with all of their pipes frozen and burst. More subtle, but more important in the larger scale, simple thermostats waste a lot of energy heating and cooling when it's not necessary.
Your point is somewhat valid in that it's true that if the top-tier, very diligent, players make mistakes, the low-end gear is going to be worse... but only for a while. Over time this stuff will get ironed out and it'll be like every other piece of insanely complicated gear in our modern lives which just works, all the time, and we never even think about it.
Re:The stuff is just too expensive by lsatenstein · 2016-02-10 06:54 · Score: 1

I think what will kill iot is that it's just frankly too expensive. A perfect example is the Belkin WeMo line of iot enabled products.
* 150 dollars for a slow cooker
* 150 dollars for a coffee maker
* 200 dollars for a humidifier
* 40 dollars for a plugin relay switch
And the list goes on. The nest costs 5x-10x more than a low end digital thermostat. I have a sneaking suspicion as with almost all other home automation, upper class people will buy it for the novelty but the rest of the world will keep to their "dumb" devices.
I'm an owner of three low-end programmable thermostats. They work just fine. 2 of them are 4x7 which means, 4 programs for each day of the week. The third is a Mon-Fri *4 and Sat-Sun * 4 programs . They work just fine.
In heat mode, they have a tiny resistor near the thermistor sensing room temperature. That is an anticipator circuit.
As the thermostat is located distant from the heat-source, to prevent overshoot of heat setting, that resistor serves to add bias to cause the heat to turn off a half degree before the setpoint. It takes about an hour for the resistor to transfer about 0.5 degrees of bias to the thermistor. When the thermostat calls for topping up, there is somewhat less bias due to the resistor itself having thermal inertia.

--
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
Re:The stuff is just too expensive by MitchDev · 2016-02-10 07:31 · Score: 1

You children who need to adjust the thermostat even 10 seconds are so CUTE.... Set it and forget it. You don't need to continually adjust the settings unless you have some kind of serious medical or mental issue....
Re:The stuff is just too expensive by shawn2772 · 2016-02-10 10:10 · Score: 1

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, apparently. Why keep the thermostat turned up to daytime temperatures at night? Or when you're not home? You like wasting money?
Re:The stuff is just too expensive by MitchDev · 2016-02-11 01:22 · Score: 1

Set it at one temperature and keep it there. 68 degrees (Fahrenheit for those who are temperature-impaired) Big home with lots of people, always someone home at one time or another. Not my fault you like the temp so high you need to adjust it constantly, seek a doctor's help.
Re:The stuff is just too expensive by Ol+Olsoc · 2016-02-12 13:56 · Score: 1

So, yeah, if you don't care about savings or efficiency, an old-fashioned thermostat works just fine.
A couple comments. If you really care
about saving energy - put on extra clothing and keep the damned thermostat at the lowest level you can. No internet of things needed!
Maybe, just maybe if you have an extremely OC lifestyle, where you are always at home at the same time, always leave at the same time, always sleep at the same time, and never deviate, you might find, as I did, that there isn't any programming that will help. It is like turning programming of heat or AC into an encompassing hobby.
So what do we do? At least concerning heating, bought and installed one of the gas furnaces that are super efficient, so much so that the "chimney" is a pvc pipe. Temperature control consists of walking over to the digital thermostat, and if we will both be gone, which is known by consultation, we turn it down a little bit, or otherwise, just leave it alone. It's efficiency warms the place up pronto, so wasting time programming, or even thinking about it when we're not there, is pointless. Much expense and time spent to eliminate the 5 seconds a day we spend now.

--
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Re:The stuff is just too expensive by Ol+Olsoc · 2016-02-12 14:12 · Score: 1

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, apparently. Why keep the thermostat turned up to daytime temperatures at night? Or when you're not home? You like wasting money?
I've always wondered how much money you save. It isn't like the furnace doesn't run for a long time when you heat the place up again.
I do know that when we replaced our old hot tub that used a programmed thermostat that supposedly saved electricity, with a new tub twice as big, that kept temperatures constant, and we saved a lot of money on our electric bill. That's what people here call "One Data Point so as to say it's wrong, but the old tub took most of the afternoon heating up to temperature. That constant running after cooling down takes money as well.

--
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.

Re:Reasons why I don't like the Internet of Things by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 02:02 · Score: 0

You always have China. They will continue to produce bottom of the barrel simple items. You just have to get better at electronics and repair them when you buy them so they're safe, usable, and longer lasting. Other than power supplies, it's rare I have occasion to just outright throw away cheap Chinese "junk". It does, however, often require repairs right out of the box.

It'll be worth it to get a thermostat that's idiot simple, cheap, and dead reliable in 20 years, though.

Re:Reasons why I don't like the Internet of Things by DutchUncle · 2016-02-09 02:10 · Score: 1

You attribute to malice what can be simple ignorance. It's not that people don't give a shit about privacy; it's that normal non-technical people don't realize just how invasive things have become. Despite all of the news items, the little old lady next door keeps needing her computer virus-scanned because she keeps giving out her email address, and was too confused with ad-blocking so turned it off, and forwards on the chain emails that friends forwarded to her. She thinks she's being sensible because she only uses her credit card on Amazon, without comprehending (despite repeated attempts on my part) that if her computer has a virus then it can be copying everything she types on ANY page to anywhere in the world. I just thank the gods that she never got a webcam.

Re:Reasons why I don't like the Internet of Things by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 02:13 · Score: 0

I've had to throw away two expensive Corsair power supplies last year. Two. So it's not just limited to "cheap chinese power supplies". (Corsair is supposed to be US/Taiwan manufacture). I'm cured, anyway. Won't be buying more of their stuff.

Some stuff doesn't need to be smart. by jellomizer · 2016-02-09 02:20 · Score: 1

As with all technology. Just because it exists doesn't always mean that it needs to be implemented.
For example the eject button on the remote control for your VCR/DVD/Blueray player. Sure it is technically possible, but what is the point. After from your chair you eject the disk, you will still need to get off your butt, to take the media out, and replace it with something else.

Some devices don't need internet connectivity. Just because when they are soo far away from you they are no longer useful.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.

Re:Some stuff doesn't need to be smart. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 03:09 · Score: 0

Wrong. I eject the disc from the couch, then yell at my child to go change the disc.

IoT is rebranded home automation by bangular · 2016-02-09 02:25 · Score: 1

For most consumers, IoT seems to be 99% rebranded home automation, which has always fallen flat on its face. It reminds me of 3D movies. We see it every few years then people realize it's a gimmick and we go back to business as usual.

Re:IoT is rebranded home automation by geekmux · 2016-02-09 04:36 · Score: 1

For most consumers, IoT seems to be 99% rebranded home automation, which has always fallen flat on its face. It reminds me of 3D movies. We see it every few years then people realize it's a gimmick and we go back to business as usual.
If you believe this will somehow die off, then you fail to understand where and when consumers will have a choice in the matter.
Today, you get a discount if you happen to run across one of those companies who offers a car insurance discount for having an IoT monitor plugged into your OBD-II port at all times when driving.
Tomorrow you won't have an option. It will become a mandatory insurance and liability device.
That is exactly how this industry will be forced to grow.
Re:IoT is rebranded home automation by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 04:48 · Score: 0

For most consumers, IoT isn't even a collection of words that go together.
Outside of self-referential nerd heavens like Slashdot, nobody knows or cares about the "Intartubez of thinggerz!!!!!!!!!!111eleven"
Re: IoT is rebranded home automation by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 05:53 · Score: 0

Maybe, but a sufficient number of people are telling those car insurance companies to go to hell with that stuff for now. It may be a horrible parasitic industry but at the moment there are enough companies that pretend to compete.
Where things get ugly is when Wall Street starts up the mergers and acquisitions competition destroying engine and of course our regulators say 'ok'.
Re:IoT is rebranded home automation by bill_mcgonigle · 2016-02-09 06:56 · Score: 1

Tomorrow you won't have an option. It will become a mandatory insurance and liability device.
It might be cheaper to have drivers who agree to tracking. That's fine - people who don't want to be tracked can pay a little extra (I would, and I haven't had an accident claim in decades). As long as there are people who don't want to be tracked, an insurance company can profit handsomely from it, and there will be a market offering.
The trouble will become when a government forces insurance companies to require tracking. But if that's the case, then the problem isn't with the IoT or the tracking; it's that you've got something that claims to protect your liberty forcing you to engage in certain types of commerce instead. Yeah, yeah, yeah, good livestock management practices on the tax farm - I get it.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:IoT is rebranded home automation by luis_a_espinal · 2016-02-09 09:22 · Score: 1

For most consumers, IoT seems to be 99% rebranded home automation
Not quite. There is significant overlap between IoT and home automation in term of function as the former can take place in gardening, agriculture, industrial monitoring, etc. That is, the functions within home automation are a subset of IoT's functions.
But let's assume they were the same. The distinguishing characteristic is that IoT attempts to leverage existing communication/network protocols and architectures. That is a big thing (will all the good and the bad of it.)

which has always fallen flat on its face. It reminds me of 3D movies. We see it every few years then people realize it's a gimmick and we go back to business as usual.
Is it because the concept is bad, or because of prior executions? That is the question (I lean towards the later answer.)
Re:IoT is rebranded home automation by Ol+Olsoc · 2016-02-12 14:32 · Score: 1

For most consumers, IoT seems to be 99% rebranded home automation, which has always fallen flat on its face.
My Favorite IoT device, I saw on a commercial the other day. Woman is sitting on a couch in a room with windows. She pulls out her smartphone opens an app, and shuts a curtain with it. That in a nutshell, encompasses the entire internet of things.
Making something you used to simply get off yer ass to do, take a nationwide infrastructure of servers data transmission and apps to acomplish, and eventually some guy in China as well.

--
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.

Imagine all the big datas by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 02:26 · Score: 0

All up in the cloud so high

Re:Reasons why I don't like the Internet of Things by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 02:26 · Score: 4, Funny

...

27) Internet of Things devices could watch me while I listen to the Backstreet Boys.

...

57) Internet of Things devices could let advertisers use the data unsuspectingly collected about me while I listen to the Backstreet Boys.

You've got bigger problems than IoT spying.

Simple solutions by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 02:45 · Score: 0

First off, don't directly connect any primary appliances control systems (Fridge, Furnace, AC, etc) to the internet, if internet based control is seen as a necessity have a easy to enable backup and have hardware set limits to the values the internet control can exert. Second all video/audio input devices should have a hardware controlled light showing when the video/audio recording device is being powered, and of course as part of that these devices only power said inputs when in actual use. With those two procedures you've eliminated virtually all of the nastier stuff that could happen with IoT items.

different purposes by gurps_npc · 2016-02-09 03:03 · Score: 1

Look, the idea of a computerized hammer or screwdriver makes no sense for a home tool kit. But for a construction robot programmed to deliver X newtons of force and Y torque, it makes a ton of sense.

Most of this stuff isn't going to be useful for most people, but I am sure there are people that it will be actually helpful. For example, if you are in a wheel chair, I could see how wanting a remote control built into the wheel chair that controls lighting, heating, air conditioning, locks and unlocks your door, shows you what's in the fridge, etc. etc. etc.

And yes, it should control your TV/Cable/Netflix as well.

--
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com

Re:The stuff is just too expensive (for now) by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 03:18 · Score: 0

The pricing is market based, not cost based. All this wi-fi controlled junk is priced higher because it's a premium. Years ago the programmable thermostats were significantly more expensive than the non-programmable ones. Now they're largely the same.

If Wi-Fi everything catches on, plan on the costs going down quickly. Also plan on nothing ever being updated for security vulnerabilities.

Updating Linux stops machine from booting? by tetraverse · 2016-02-09 03:20 · Score: 1

"How many times has a Windows update broken something on your computer?"

I'm pleasantly surprised every time it boots up.

"Linux used to be better, but lately, I dread updates, especially major ones because they sometimes will stop my machine from even booting, triggering a big debugging session" ref

You update a production machine with no known method of restoring to a working system?

Re:Updating Linux stops machine from booting? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 06:52 · Score: 0

I don't think inability to restore is the problem. If your goal is to update (often to fix a security or reliability bug) then restoring to the previous version does not accomplish the goal. Even if all you're doing is attempting to get an update to work on a non-production testing machine before placing it on your production machine, failure of an update to behave properly will require, as the poster says, "a big debugging session." That should not be required, since the programmer producing the update should have adequately tested it prior to releasing it. An operating system update should never result in a machine not being bootable at all. If for some reason some piece of hardware is incompatible with the update that should be identified before installation and the update elegantly terminated with proper notification to the user of why the system can't be patched.
Re:Updating Linux stops machine from booting? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 10:56 · Score: 0

"Linux used to be better, but lately, I dread updates, especially major ones because they sometimes will stop my machine from even booting, triggering a big debugging session" ref

Systemd strikes again.

I don't need Internet-connected everything by kheldan · 2016-02-09 03:42 · Score: 1

Washer, dryer, dishwasher, refrigerator, thermostat, lightbulbs? Toasters, stove, oven, even? Toilets, for fucks' sake? There isn't a single valid reason so far as it concerns me specifically for them to be connected to the gods-be-damned Internet. It's just more expense, more complexity, more things that can go wrong or break. It's all solutions-in-search-of-a-problem; it's marketing people that overheard someone talking about connecting something novel to the Internet, and like retarded marketing people tend to do, they went nuts with it. Enough, already!

--
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!

Re:The stuff is just too expensive (for now) by havana9 · 2016-02-09 03:51 · Score: 2

You could see what happens on TV sets. Now almost all models are "smart". Finding a "dumb" TV is harder and harder, and normally the firmware and the SoC are using is the same of the smarter models, only the extra features aren't enabled when on the boot the harware is not found. Being normally the "dumb" TV with smaller panel they're considered low end models are priced less. but when the "smart" and "dumb" models with the same screen size are sold, the price difference is small.

Until Skynet needs to know by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 04:43 · Score: 0

I'll stick with my Dumb controllers simply because the designs are Proven - the KISS principle plays a very big role in this. Now if you can give me an AI that does what I want, when I want and how I want, I may consider adding connectivity to some of my controllers but until then, FOAD and KMA

Why is this a bad thing???? by Mishra100 · 2016-02-09 04:49 · Score: 1

I'm really confused why most commenters here have such a negative viewpoint on IoT.

Many comments about "security is terrible", "I don't need internet connected devices, my X device works just fine."

OK, then --don't-- buy it. But you have to realize that the market going through development of products to find consumer desire is a GOOD thing.

Maybe 97% of all the devices end up going away (by the way, without a dollar that I spent on them). But those 3% of devices might actually be helpful and worth the cost; maybe they save lives.

Trying new things and moving forward on an old concept (home automation) creates new options. I LIKE more options, it's the whole reason why I live longer. Please continue to innovate world.

Re: Why is this a bad thing???? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 06:42 · Score: 0

You are either new here, or still young and wet behind the ears. Everything old is new again my friend.
Re:Why is this a bad thing???? by ewibble · 2016-02-09 11:02 · Score: 1

The problem is that 3% that make it though are not likely to be secure, or even useful consumers don't pick based on that they pick based on hype.
There is a frustration the average consumer is not even aware that they are introducing a security risk, for minimal amount of gain.
Re:Why is this a bad thing???? by Ol+Olsoc · 2016-02-12 15:03 · Score: 1

I'm really confused why most commenters here have such a negative viewpoint on IoT.
Many comments about "security is terrible", "I don't need internet connected devices, my X device works just fine."
OK, then --don't-- buy it. But you have to realize that the market going through development of products to find consumer desire is a GOOD thing.
So was Thalidomide at one point.
Branding people who complain about the IoT as luddites is the wrong approach. Yes, there are plenty og "get off my lawn!" types here, but a lot of us aren't, and merely see a very bad situation in the offings here.
It isn't that programmable devices haven't been around before. I tried a few, and they just were not practical.
Now, we need a Internet connected jar? http://skelabs.com/
An internet connected bottle? http://www.hidratespark.com/
A belt. A fucking belt that you need a fucking app to use. http://www.wearbelty.com/
Nww between you and me, anyone who is too goddamned stupid to know how to use a jar ( but apparenlt smart enough to fiddle around with an app to program it, or can't remember to drink some water, or for crissakes cannot figue out that doodad that keeps his pant up and his pecker in, should not ever be the determining element in the future direction of the internet. A waste of time and money, and the stupid people who use that shit should get an app reminding them to never ever reproduce.
That isn't progress. Progress is allowing us to get shit done faster, better, and smarter.
That shit surely isn't, It's "Here Comes Honey Boo-Boo" for smartphones.

--
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Re:Why is this a bad thing???? by Mishra100 · 2016-02-13 15:50 · Score: 1

Then just don't buy it... That's some crazy hate for crap out there.
Re:Why is this a bad thing???? by Ol+Olsoc · 2016-02-14 08:25 · Score: 1

Then just don't buy it... That's some crazy hate for crap out there.
Of course I won't buy it. But just like I'm going to warn people against timeshare condos, I'll warn them against the IoT.
It could save thier lives, because someone so stupid as to need a glowing light on their water bottle connected to teh intertoobz to remind them to drink water, could be killed by water intoxication when it gets hacked, id glows steadily.
That was a joke son.... at least I hope it was.

--
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.

These are gateways to hack wealthy people by RobinH · 2016-02-09 05:09 · Score: 1

Just as only wealthy ancient Romans could afford lead pipes, only wealthy individuals now can afford these silly expensive "connected/smart" appliances, so we're in an odd situation where being well off affords you much more risk of being hacked. Everyone else will be just fine with their hardwired home controls.

--
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain

The internet is full of .. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 05:23 · Score: 0

Full of useless stuff you dont need to have online.

I flat out refuse to have any of this IoT crap in my house. Time and time again it gets hacked, and its stuff I dont really need anyways. If I did, I'd make it manageable via a jump host on my network that I know will be somewhat secured and up-to-date e.g. *BSD, Linux or even OS X.

Heck my new geospring hybrid (heatpump/electric) water heater has an RJ45 socket where an add-on module will connect to your wifi and make it "manageable" via phone app. Seems like an neat idea, as in oh I forgot to put it into vacation mode and somehow remembered this while on vacation, let me do that remotely to save my self all of about 10 cents in saved energy while its sitting idle for a few days. But its not worth the risk in that someone might take control of it and f*ckup my hotwater or use it to gain access to my home network.

Internet of *broken* things? by whitroth · 2016-02-09 05:38 · Score: 1

I hadn't even thought of *that*. Let's ignore the blue screen of house death in the middle of winter, let's consider that your wifi and tv all have static, because those idiot things that were supposed to clean your ducts broke down in there, with so much dust, and two years later, they're still online complaining. And they've been hacked by the 16 on the other side of the block....

mark

How about making the internet work first? by tekrat · 2016-02-09 05:46 · Score: 1

I'm reminded of Jeff Goldblum in Jurrasic Park. "Ok, just because you've figured out how to do this, did you stop and ask yourself *why* you're doing this?"

Frankly, I'd be happier if the internet could work as expected, *before* they start adding more crap.

How many times have I clicked on a headline at Google News, only to have the article never load at all (because it's waiting for some ad server to respond, which never does).

How many times have I tried to access something with my phone, only to have the result being an unreadable mess?

How many times have I had to lower the volume at work on my PC, because some stupid autoplay video ad starts screaming across the cubicles?

How many times have I searched for something technical on Google and had to ignore the first 3 pages of results because they are either scam sites, or advertisements for things?

Fix the internet of web pages before we add more broken, borked crap. Heck, as it stands, Netflix can barely stream to my TV, now you want to add more DDOS bots?

--
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.

Re:How about making the internet work first? by Ol+Olsoc · 2016-02-12 15:10 · Score: 1

Frankly, I'd be happier if the internet could work as expected, *before* they start adding more crap.
You sir, have completely owed the entire discussion.
Because the IoT cannot ever be any safer or more secure than the rest of the internet. Which is not at all.
Ever wonder if we're going to get Ransomware during cold snaps threatening to turn off our heat if we don't pay them some amount of bitcoin? Easy Peasy.

--
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.

Re:The stuff is just too expensive (for now) by tlhIngan · 2016-02-09 06:09 · Score: 2

You could see what happens on TV sets. Now almost all models are "smart". Finding a "dumb" TV is harder and harder, and normally the firmware and the SoC are using is the same of the smarter models, only the extra features aren't enabled when on the boot the harware is not found. Being normally the "dumb" TV with smaller panel they're considered low end models are priced less. but when the "smart" and "dumb" models with the same screen size are sold, the price difference is small.

You can thank smartphone technology for that - TVs need SoCs too and while they could get by with a low end SoC, a low end SoC doesn't cost all that much less than a higher end multi-core multi-GHz one used in a smartphone. (Even the low end ones are dual core 1GHz units0.

Manufacturers love having the extra power - it makes the UI more "snappy" and it can boot faster, and the video processing can be done on the GPU rather than specialized video processing hardware controlled by the CPU (with very little increase in lag - it's still roughly a frame or two).

And when you're at this point, "smart" features are really just a software thing manufacturers can do to add value to their products for basically free. After all, the processing power is there.

Using a lower end SoC with video processor on the side costs about the same price, and they lose out on the ability to run a standard high level OS like Android on their SoC.

Qualcomm was going to introduce a video chipset at one point with all the TV inputs and a low end processor - perfect for TVs, but abandoned the plans when there was little interest

Hue and cry by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 06:14 · Score: 0

As always there will be a big hue and cry against this technology. Similar thing happened with social media too. But now
everybody uses it. Normal people do not care about security and privacy. This will be successfull if it provides convenience,
else no. Period

I told them by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 06:38 · Score: 0

Back in 2008 I worked in a small startup which worked in data collection. Their CEO was yelling mouth frothing how "Everyone should just stop worrying and trust the cloud! SSL certificates solve all the problems!" Sure the CEO was not a stupid man, but greedy and only wanted to pursue profit at all costs. Even their chief engineer had the behind-the-scenes opinion that "it's good for us, but I'm not going to use the cloud for critical information".

Solution in search of a problem by Tony+Isaac · 2016-02-09 06:46 · Score: 1

There are a few interesting and useful applications for IoT. Home security systems and remote medical devices, for example. But for the most part, it's just an excuse to charge you more for a product. Do I really need my lights, air conditioning, sprinklers, refrigerator, coffee maker connected to the Internet? Yeah, some of it's cool, but is it worth the added risk?

Re:Solution in search of a problem by Ol+Olsoc · 2016-02-12 15:25 · Score: 1

There are a few interesting and useful applications for IoT. Home security systems
One thing I always wondered about. Xfinity has ads about their home security systems. Mommy is sitting at work, and is so pleased to see the children getting home from school. Now of course, just like facebook, the addicted will end up constantly checking to make certain everything is okay. But that isn't my question.
If I remember correctly from my teenage years, a lot of us run around not highly clothed at times. So now when Xfinity send out some onlne video of 15 year old Tiffany traipsing around al fresco, who's going to take the rap?

and remote medical devices, for example.
Greetings! And Salutations! We notice you are using the XYZ Internet connected implant insulin pump. We understand that they sometimes malfunction and pump out so much insulin that they kill you. Such would be a terrible tragedy. However, if you do not want this malfunction to occur, simply send XXX bitcoin to us, and it won't happen. Thank you for your discretion in this matter as well.
Then again, no doubt the IoT folks will bring out a ransomware app to streamline the process.

--
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.

Re:Reasons why I don't like the Internet of Things by Burz · 2016-02-09 08:41 · Score: 1

Here is some of the evidence: IP cam trolling!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

There was an epic one from last week where 4 unwanted pizza deliveries showed up at this person's door before the pranker started shouting "GIMMEE MY PIZZA!" and obscenities at the family. But it got pulled.

Re:Reasons why I don't like the Internet of Things by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 09:05 · Score: 0

You attribute to malice what can be simple ignorance. It's not that people don't give a shit about privacy; it's that normal non-technical people don't realize just how invasive things have become.

While this excuse might have served us well 30 years ago, it is quickly growing extinct with the blue-haired generation. And even that generation is educating themselves.

That said, it pretty much comes down to common fucking sense to understand that from a security perspective, a product like Amazon Echo is nothing more than a live microphone. This would be obvious to the average consumer if they actually gave a shit about privacy. They don't.

I want a Nest But by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 09:27 · Score: 0

But everything wants to connect to a home server.

It's not just about them watching me, I don't want to buy an expensive piece of hardware that could be bricked if the company goes under, or if they decide not to support "older versions".

Signed, guy who bought an Apple PowerCD (good luck googling that), a Zip Drive, a few shitty little plastic boxes to store floppy drives in, etc. etc., and a thousand or so crappy pieces of software that no longer run on a modern computer.

Re:Reasons why I don't like the Internet of Things by macs4all · 2016-02-09 10:33 · Score: 1

I've had to throw away two expensive Corsair power supplies last year. Two. So it's not just limited to "cheap chinese power supplies". (Corsair is supposed to be US/Taiwan manufacture). I'm cured, anyway. Won't be buying more of their stuff.

That's because you bought a re-labeled Chinese Junk power supply from a MEMORY manufacturer.

Just because a company otherwise good with other products decides that they want to put their name on something they know NOTHING about doesn't transmogrify the re-labeled product into something "Good", too.

Re:Reasons why I don't like the Internet of Things by damnitalready · 2016-02-10 10:45 · Score: 1

"It's not that people don't give a shit about privacy; it's that normal non-technical people don't realize just how invasive things have become."

Then how did "I don't care, I have nothing to hide!" become so prevalent?

Re:Reasons why I don't like the Internet of Things by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-11 10:06 · Score: 0

... not really if it is only a machine using those observations. I d be glad to have options to supermonitor myself (at will). Like suggesting when to buy toilet paper because it has observed your usage. or suggesting one brand over another brand because given habits... given toilet paper capabilities... given income... the one that suits you best does not exist but observations say it is a good startup market for research and... you get the idea? Machines can do that and no one would know that would care about YOU. Your lost is annoying, actually.

Re:The stuff is just too expensive (for now) by Ol+Olsoc · 2016-02-12 14:30 · Score: 1

Finding a "dumb" TV is harder and harder,

Too bad finding smart TV shows is all but impossible.

--
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.

Slashdot Mirror

The Internet of Broken Things (hackaday.com)

97 comments