The Future of Ubiquitous Computers 145
An anonymous reader writes "Is there any end to this ubiquitous computing thing?
Plants that send thank you notes, player pianos that follow the dancer's movements, and umbrellas that warn you of upcoming rain are just a few of the
uses of embedded computers described in this article from
the NY Times. Laptops seem so dull when it's easy to embed chips, install a Linux
distro and sew them into your clothes.
Do we really need to wear our computers? Why can't the world be happy with a good old desktop? It was good enough for the PC generation."
This is a stupid article. (Score:5, Insightful)
20 years from now (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets all go home. (Score:5, Insightful)
Horses were good enough for getting around with until someone came up with the idea of a car. I don't know why the idea that things are 'good enough' is so prevalent - complacency and familiarity maybe? This question smacks of sentiments like "in my day, we only got 3 TV stations - and we were GLAD for it". Some curmudgeon could start this conversation about any topic, really. What about CPUs - aren't they fast enough?
I could go on, but I think my post is already good enough.
Compromise, compromise (Score:5, Insightful)
The same advances that give us faster CPUs also allow us to have the same speed CPUs cheaper and using less power. That allows the CPUs to be used in situations that were not possible a few years back.
You can now buy 32-bit single-chip CPUs for less that $1 (including RAM, flash etc), and 8-bit micros for less than 50c. These won't run Linux, but they can still do a lot of useful work.
Low power is a very important consideration in many applications. Some products will live on a single factory installed coin-sized battery for their whole lifetime (5 years +) without needing a recharge. Achieving this requires very careful and frugal coding and is not something you'd try with Linux etc (well not for a long time), and might not even use C for.
Thus there is still a need for the curmudgeons that can build a system that has only 100 bytes of RAM and a 50kHz CPU and always will be.
Re:Compromise, compromise (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't really see this as curmudgeony as much as I see it as practical. Sometimes all you need is 100 bytes of RAM.
But the submitter seems to be saying flat out that all this ubiquitous computing stuff is useless, and you should all just get a desktop instead. Instead of saying "be practical, use the right tool for the right job", the message seems to be the rather subjective notion that "This ubiquitous computing is nonsense; it can't possibly do anything new of value, or do anything better than a desktop PC, so just get a Desktop PC."
Nonsense. Just like with more powerful processors in home PCs, someone will think of something, if they haven't already.
This is a stupid post (Score:5, Insightful)
Ubiquitous motors (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do we need little motors in everything?
There used to be just a few big motors in most peoples' houses: the vacuum cleaner, the washing machine, and the refrigerator. Then suddenly they started using them in things like electric drills, blenders, and food processors. And then tiny motors started showing up everywhere.
What was wrong with the old way? What's the fetish with motors, motors everywhere? Just because modern magnetic materials and electronic controls make it possible doesn't mean we should do it.
Ubiquitous, but dumb (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of the "ubiquitous computing" ideas are silly. There's all this information collection, but the systems don't have the actuators or smarts to do much with the information except bother some human.
Something you can buy right now, yet few buildings have, is really good HVAC control. You can get air sensors that sense temperature, humidity, CO, CO2, and particulates. You can get heating units, fans, dampers, and chillers that will talk to a network. You can get control systems that can manage all this to provide an optimal indoor environment as occupants come and go. A system like this will lower HVAC costs. Yet such systems are rare.
We still don't have good cleaning robots. The iRobot Scooba is about as good as it gets, but it's very dumb, frequently gets stuck, and can't refill, clean, or recharge itself.
Most of the "kitchen automation" stuff is just inventory control, not automated cooking.
The "ubiquitous computing" people haven't even been able to deliver a good meeting room automation system, one that gets lights, audio, and projector to play well together.
That is not “ubiquitous computing”. (Score:5, Insightful)
There is an important distinction between independent gadgets responding to simple environmental conditions, and the pervasive information architecture shared across ubiquitous computing devices. The latter can be loosely described as systems that continuously record metrics about you and your tasks, then interact with disjoint systems to establish needs or contribute to goals.
Imagine this hypothetical scenario. Your car measures engine performance, tire wear, oil quality (and so on) to determine when maintenance is necessary. It also learns your route habits and shares that information with automotive shops which may provide the necessary service. Those shops can then respond with offers to win your business and—perhaps—preemptively order whatever parts and materials are necessary. Following acceptance, computers on behalf of both parties will arrange optimal schedule blocks based on previous trends (e.g., where you go and when, spatially proximate tasks, historical service times).
It helps to think of this in terms of “what you see is what you need” as applicable to all actors. Your information is ever-present and optionally shared, with other agents in such an environment doing the same. With intelligent use of that data, interactions may emerge organically and with little or no effort on the part of the participants.
At the moment, this is far outside our technological reach, and goes well beyond gimmicky talking umbrellas.
Re:Lets all go home. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:This is a stupid article. (Score:5, Insightful)
Technology vs. living your own life (Score:4, Insightful)
You know, much as one can fantasize about living in a science fiction world, I can't see that it would be all that good in reality. All these extensions to our abilities are, in a way, extra senses - and we simply don't have enough brain capacity to process it. Take our visual cortex, for example: it has a certain size that matches the visual ability of our eyes. There is no extra capacity in there; it wouldn't make evolutionary sense to build in more capacity than needed, as it would cost resources that could have been used more productively elsewhere. If we add artificial 'sensory apparatus' to our natural set of senses, it will take capacity away from other areas - maybe we would be able to 'see' the internet, but we would not be able to see or hear the physical world anymore, or something like that.
This kind of technology won't make us happier - the way to be happy is by learning to live in the body and the reality that we find ourselves in. We won't escape that until we die.
Re:Lets all go home. (Score:4, Insightful)
-AK-47, built in 1947
-Subsonic passenger jets
-The horse, fastest way to get around for thousands of years.
-C, SQL
-The car, versus the "flying car".
Why development of something plateaus has everything to do with limits to optimization, efficiency, network effect, cost benefit analysis, diminishing marginal returns, return on investment, political and legislative situations. Complacency and familiarity are important, but there are certainly many, many more factors involved.
Sure I'd like an infinitely fast CPU, a commercially viable fusion reactor and a flying car while I'm at it. Some things are hard, and breakthroughs are difficult to schedule.
Re:Technology vs. living your own life (Score:2, Insightful)
When was the last time you actually discovered something that has never been discovered before, by yourself, without any aids? Data is always going to be generated by the makers; machines just format this data into more usable form. Some discoveries can not be made at all without aid of computers. Sure, humans can look at things, but it takes years of computer analysis to actually discover that what you were staring at for years was actually quite a lot more interesting than you thought.
"Enhanced senses that can 'see' or 'hear' not just what the natural eyes and ears can, but also, say UV, IR, radio, microwaves etc etc?"
We had this for years... Night vision goggles/scopes? Amplifiers? They all have many uses. No one is saying that you should be able to see in night vision, UV and microwave at the same time!
"we simply don't have enough brain capacity to process it."
'We' have been processing all the radio/UV/IR/microwave data and many many more just fine for years. Not all at the same time of course...
"There is no extra capacity in there; it wouldn't make evolutionary sense to build in more capacity than needed"
First of all 'Need' is not a constant but a variable in that formula. Secondly computers help filter the bulk of unnecessary data so we only see the interesting bits that fit well within our sensory "capacity". Thirdly we are not evolving fast enough to start loosing our use of legs just because we sat in offices for a couple of hundred years. It would take several thousand generations of sitting in an office to evolve out of using our legs for transportation and into Darlek-like beings. Same goes for any other appendage and/or sensory apparatus god/evolution gave us.
"This kind of technology won't make us happier"
Speak for your self. And by the way what are you doing on Slashdot? This is exactly the kind of stuff that makes us (slashdotters) very happy indeed.
A question of fashion (Score:2, Insightful)
Brainstormed pictures of the future (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Technology vs. living your own life (Score:2, Insightful)
Surely that isn't the kind of thing you are talking about, but it is the kind of thing that is going to come out of the tireless march of technology. I am sure that there will be lots of people that wrap themselves in a ridiculous cocoon of technology, but most people will use technology the same way they have used it for the last 5,000 years -- to spend less time doing things they don't enjoy and more time doing things they enjoy or find rewarding in some other way.