We really don't want an "Internet of Everything" but even building an Internet of Everythinguseful means setting some ground rules to insure there's value in the process and that costs and risks are minimized.
Sadly, I think the point of the "Internet of Everything" and its likely cosmic/quantum successors is to generate PR. We have too much hype in the industry, and it often hides the real requirements and the real issues, making the reality harder to achieve.
Well like the name suggest "The internet of Everythinguseful" I think this concept is vary from person to person . In today's world people are talking about how to minimize the distracting computing. However with the detailed research and statistics this concept would also be helpful in minimizing distracted computing.
Personalization is one of those issues that gets swept aside by the hype wave, Nomi. Another is privacy/security/stability. If you put a traffic signal online in a direct sense you can bet it will be hours before somebody attaks it. Same with a traffic camera. Is there a utility to making these devices networked in an Internet sense? It depends on how you balance things.
@Tom It sounds a little sensational to say that if we really connected EVERYTHING we'd "break society" within the first 24 hours... but it doesn't sound very sensational. I think your security and privacy concerns are entirely legitimate.
Those were my concerns, Sara. Think about the small point of home alarm systems. Most are not accessible to the Internet, but for those that are there have already been stories of hacking or blocking. Suppose that every alarm system was online, every garage door, every home appliance. How long would it take before people decided to turn on the neighbor's coffee pot in the middle of the night to play a joke and set a house on fire, or opened a door and let someone in? There is always an exponential risk associated with extending access to something and sometimes little or no benefit in the extension, so the balance is way over to the wrong side. I'm sure your surveys have said that people today think that security and hacking are the biggest problems with the Internet. Why make the impact of those problems immeasurably worse without taking strong steps to solve them first?
Good concerns. However when there is a will there is a way , although the problems of security / hacking/privacy exists to a great extend in today's info tech life and without solving these issues in a beffiting manner this concept would be of no use. Howvere yes we should be optimist and this step is defintly an extra mile towards new dimension in internet world.
People talked about distractions time ago, blaming the Internet and computers for their lack of concentration and focus, or even for their lack of discipline when having to complete a task.
They got distracted because the Internet was the new toy. And we all know that adults are like children in bigger bodies. Things have changed now because everyone got used to the toy, so those early distractions have disappeared.
Before the Internet people blamed television, and before that they probably blamed the radio. Today, the Internet is necessary for work, school, healthcare, banking, business and personal communications, etc.
I guess we always need a scapegoat to make us feel like we "want to" get things done, but there's a 'distraction' that slows our progress. Most people know that if you NEED to get something aka deadlines, you will, so it's a cop out.
Today, the Internet is necessary for work, school, healthcare, banking, business and personal communications, etc.
You are right to extend but my point of concern regarding distraction is that creation of such kind of internet which is only made up of useful thing would be helpful in minimizing the distraction / distractive computing . However if you are ignorant of the fact that there is no distractive computing now a days than I think the concept of internet of everythinguseful may not be validate in true letter and spirit.
Thanks for this, Tom. We hear 'The Internet of Things' going around more and more, and the truth is that it's ultimately just another buzzword. As true as it is (and as awesome of an age as this is to live in), there's nothing tangible that seperates tomorrow's 'internet of everything' from today's 'internet of most things' - it's just the number of devices connected and in what contexts. It's worth taking some time to look at exactly how these devices are connected, and whether or not those connections are meaningful.
You're right to point out, for example, that there's nothing magical about connecting something that wasn't connected just because it's associated with this buzzword - it's simply opening a network connection like any other, and it has it's benefits and it's drawbacks. In fact, there are bound to be unique kinds of risks and drawbacks that we're not used to (IE security, as you mention), possibly tipping the balance. Maybe everything will be connected someday, but there's no need to rush it - and indeed, doing so may only cause problems and slow us down in the long run.
Enterprise Efficiency is looking for engaged readers to moderate the message boards on this site. Engage in high-IQ conversations with IT industry leaders; earn kudos and perks. Interested? E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Dell's Efficiency Modeling Tool The major problem facing the CIO is how to measure the effectiveness of the IT department. Learn how Dell’s Efficiency Modeling Tool gives the CIO two clear, powerful numbers: Efficiency Quotient and Impact Quotient. These numbers can be transforma¬tive not only to the department, but to the entire enterprise. Read the full report
Now that TGen has broken new ground in genomic research by using Dell's storage, cloud, and high-performance computing solutions, the company discusses what will come next for it and for personalized medicine.
The Translational Genomics Research Institute wanted to save lives, but its efforts were hobbled by immense computing challenges related to collecting, processing, sharing, and storing enormous amounts of data.
Office and personal productivity tools come in a first-class and coach flavor set, but what makes the difference is primarily little things that most users won't encounter. What's the big issue in using something other than Office, and can you get around it?
Google's Chrome OS has a lot of potential value and a lot of recent press, but it still needs something to make it more than a thin client. It needs cloud integration, it needs extended APIs via web services, and it needs to suck it up and support a hard drive.
On a recent African trip I saw examples of the value of the cloud in developing nations, for educational and community development programs. We could build on this, but not only in developing economies, because these same programs are often under-supported even in first-world countries.
VMware's debate with Cisco on SDN might finally create a fusion between an SDN view that's all about software and another that's all about network equipment. That would be good for every enterprise considering the cloud and SDN.
Wearing a bulky, oversized watch is good training for the next phase in wristwatches: the Internet-enabled, connected watch. Why the smartphone-tethered connected watch makes sense, plus Ivan demos an entirely new concept for the "smart watch."
Cloud storage costs are determined primarily by the rate at which files are changed and the possibility of concurrent access/update. If you can structure your storage use to optimize these factors you can cut costs, perhaps to zero.
The Internet has evolved into a machine for drumming up a chorus of "Happy Birthday" messages, from family, friends, friends of friends who you added on Facebook, random people that you circled on G+, and increasingly, automated bots. Enough already.