- Norbert Weiner (The Atlantic) — His fears for the future stemmed from two fundamental convictions: We humans can’t resist selfishly misusing the powers our machines give us, to the detriment of our fellow humans and the planet; and there’s a good chance we couldn’t control our machines even if we wanted to, because they already move too fast and because increasingly we’re building them to make decisions on their own. To believe otherwise, Wiener repeatedly warned, represents a dangerous, potentially fatal, lack of humility.
- Open Ephys — open source/open hardware tools for neuro research. (via IEEE)
- Startups Selling Resistance to Surveillance (Inc) — growing breed of tools working on securing their customers’ communications from interception by competitors and states.
ENTRIES TAGGED "Internet of Things"
The convergence of six factors is creating a climate for mainstream IoT adoption.
The term “Internet of Things” isn’t new. Some say it was coined in 1999 by Kevin Ashton to describe a world where “things,” which can be devices or sensors, are both smart and connected — meaning they have the ability to collect and share data. The data coming from those devices and/or sensors then becomes a kind of currency, which can be combined and analyzed with other types of data to uncover insights that were, until recently, out of reach.
Although technology experts have quoted Moore’s Law, anticipating for decades the evolution of devices with embedded microchips, the proliferation of connected industry devices, and the rise of machine-to-machine communications, today we are seeing that the Internet of Things is at an inflection point. Read more…
Data from the Internet of Things makes an integrated data strategy vital.
The Internet of Things (IoT) is more than a network of smart toasters, refrigerators, and thermostats. For the moment, though, domestic appliances are the most visible aspect of the IoT. But they represent merely the tip of a very large and mostly invisible iceberg.
IDC predicts by the end of 2020, the IoT will encompass 212 billion “things,” including hardware we tend not to think about: compressors, pumps, generators, turbines, blowers, rotary kilns, oil-drilling equipment, conveyer belts, diesel locomotives, and medical imaging scanners, to name a few. Sensors embedded in such machines and devices use the IoT to transmit data on such metrics as vibration, temperature, humidity, wind speed, location, fuel consumption, radiation levels, and hundreds of other variables. Read more…
When to use a star network.
This article is part of a series exploring the role of networking in the Internet of Things.
In my previous post we evaluated a point-to-point networking technology, specifically Bluetooth, to determine its applicability to our building monitoring and energy application. In this post, we will evaluate the use of a star networking technology to meet our application needs.
A star network consists of one central hub that establishes a point-to-point network connection with all other nodes in the network (e.g. sensor nodes). This central hub acts as a common connection point for all nodes in the network. All peripheral nodes may therefore communicate with all others by transmitting to, and receiving from, the central hub only.
Today, Wi-Fi is by far the most commonly used wireless star topology. It is deployed widely throughout many environments, providing near ubiquitous internet access in facilities such as schools, campuses, office buildings, lodging, residential homes and so on. The term Wi-Fi is not a standard, but a term trademarked by The Wi-Fi Alliance and covering a number of IEEE 802.11 standards along with details of implementation.
As in past posts, let’s take a closer look at the technology and evaluate WI-Fi’s capabilities against the nine key application attributes that characterized our building monitoring and energy management application.
Self-driving cars will make decisions — and act — faster than humans facing the same dangerous situations.
Frankly, I’m already tired of the discussion. It’s not as if humans don’t already get into situations like this, and make (or not make) decisions. At least, I have. Read more…
Talk of the "tech sector" is out of date. Every company is a tech company.
Uber has encountered a series of challenges that are notionally unfamiliar to the current generation of tech companies: wrongful-death lawsuits, rent-seeking by an entrenched industry, regulatory scrutiny from local bureaucrats, worker protests. The company admitted to having disrupted a competitor’s operations by calling its cars, then canceling. No matter how explicitly it warns about surge pricing, riders accustomed to a certain way of booking a car ride object.
There’s an established industry that charges people for rides in cars, and it’s been reduced to a set of straightforward points of competition: price, car quality, ease of booking, and — treacherously for Uber and uncharacteristically for “tech companies” in general — the burly and distasteful accumulation of political clout before municipal taxi commissions. Read more…
The Internet of Things allows for real-time data monitoring, which is crucial to regulatory reform.
One under-appreciated aspect of the changing relationship between the material world and software is that material goods can and will fail — sometimes with terrible consequences.
What if government regulations were web-based and mandated inclusion of Internet-of-Things technology that could actually stop a material failure, such as a pipeline rupture or automotive failure, while it was in its earliest stages and hadn’t caused harm? Even more dramatically, what if regulations could even prevent failures from happening at all?
With such a system, we could avoid or minimize disasters — from Malaysia Airlines Flight 370′s disappearance to the auto-safety debacles at GM to a possible leak if the Keystone XL pipeline is built — while the companies using this technology could simultaneously benefit in a variety of profitable ways. Read more…