Clothes Make the Network 179
Roland Piquepaille writes "Howard Rheingold is looking at how "wearable computers create ad-hoc wireless communities." Here is the main idea, introduced by Gerd Kortuem, a 38-year-old assistant professor, who recently moved to Lancaster University in England from the University of Oregon's Wearable Computing Lab. "As he sees it, the crowds who surround us every day constitute a huge waste of social capital. If you live in a city for instance, there are many who pass within a few yards of you each day who could give you a ride home, buy an item you're trying to sell, or consider you as dating material. Dynamic networking makes it possible to tap those resources through a momentary alliance among transient interest groups." Check this column for a summary or the full article if you have more time."
Sun's next slogan (Score:3, Funny)
Does anyone know what Rheingold does? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Sun's next slogan (Score:1, Funny)
Sun: The Panties are the Computer
Imagine a beowulf cluster of these...
*ducks*
Re:Sun's next slogan (Score:1)
will work for food (Score:3, Funny)
Re:oh yeah, this is my big fear... (Score:2)
Re:oh yeah, this is my big fear... (Score:2, Insightful)
So, I wouldn't worry about virtual panhandlers spamming. I'd worry about targeted spam from vendors you'd rather not have other people know you frequent. Imagine walking past a bar with your AA friends and you're beamed a frequent customer perk. You're with your ladyfriend (who think's she's the only lady friend) when Victoria Secrets sends you a frequent customer discount - but those sexy undies you got were all intended for a diffrent lady friend (or worse, yourself!)
Reading targted spam (or junk mailings) can let you know alot about the target of said spam/mailings. (You'll find gun stuff, camera stuff, computer stuff, and aviation junkmail all over my mailbox and e-mail box for example.)
Re:oh yeah, this is my big fear... (Score:2)
In fact, it's so small, it's completely inside out... us women call it a "vagina."
Targeted spam hasn't really gotten all that targeted yet, I'm afraid. (I wish it would hurry up!)
Re:will work for food (Score:2)
...and I haven't got a penny
for to buy no more whiskey
I'll have to go on home
--
j.wokky
Attachment: jabberwokky-brother_my_cup_is_empty.ogg
Re:will work for food (Score:2)
Obsolete before it starts (Score:3, Funny)
Why 'wearable'? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why 'wearable'? (Score:1)
a heads up display could be very helpful when you need both hands for driving, or shopping.
a hands free data entry system -- perhaps sub-vocal sound interpreter could let you change the destination on your GPS heads up display.
going the wearable route is the same as trying to make computing less conspicuous, less cumbersome, and easier.
driving? (Score:1)
Re:driving? (Score:5, Interesting)
Who says you have to read emails while driving? Think new applications. You could receive audiovisual driving instructions, alerts, traffic updates, etc. Traffic signs could broadcast a wireless signal so you see them a mile away no matter if they are covered in snow or grime.
In general, the main thing about about wearable computing is about improving the user interfaces. A T9 keypad and an LCD display the size of your thumb just don't cut it.
obligatory clippy joke (Score:2, Funny)
Honk 17 times for no.
Re:Why 'wearable'? (Score:5, Funny)
STEP TWO!! (Score:2)
Damn (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Damn (Score:1)
So can you get an e-wedgie? (Score:1)
Dumbest..Idea...Ever...
Re:Why worried? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:So can you get an e-wedgie? (Score:1)
Re:So can you get an e-wedgie? (Score:1)
Finally! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Finally! (Score:2)
Re:Finally! (Score:2)
in the eatery (Score:2, Funny)
Great... (Score:1)
Yay! (Score:2)
Serving suggestion (Score:2)
You are not like the others. You can be assimilated.
Dont they have something like this. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Dont they have something like this. (Score:1)
Re:Dont they have something like this. (Score:3, Interesting)
Not quite the same thing, but equally frightening.
The Sony eMarker, RIP September 2001 (Score:2)
A good description of them with some background and an explanation of how they worked is here [bricklin.com]. They were never given away but sold for ~US$20 and just didn't catch on, at least never enough to recoup their support costs.
Now gone the way of the iTag [edgereview.com], the CueCat [slashdot.org] and the Modo [techtv.com].
Looks like I can do that too! (Score:2)
Right Here [kazaalite.com]
it will e-mail you where you can buy that wine, on-line
Right Here [winehq.com]
Re:Dont they have something like this. (Score:1)
Re:Dont they have something like this. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Dont they have something like this. (Score:1)
Re:Dont they have something like this. (Score:1)
Re:Dont they have something like this. (Score:2)
So that you can sell each user a unit for every day of the week? I suppose it would be more conveniant if my PDA was my pants instead of just being in them, but friends tell me I need more than one pair of pants, and I can't afford to have eight PDAs.
Mark my words, wearable computing is a doomed industry.
Re:Dont they have something like this. (Score:2)
Hookers (Score:5, Insightful)
As he sees it, the crowds who surround us every day constitute a huge waste of johns and hookers. If you live in a city for instance, there are many who pass within a few yards of you each day who could give you a blow job, hand job, or kick in the jimmy (the fun way).
Ad hoc drug dealing (Score:5, Funny)
No longer will drug dealers have to stand suspiciously on corners or in parks!
Re:Ad hoc drug dealing (Score:2)
hrm (Score:3, Funny)
Something tells me... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Something tells me... (Score:1)
Um... (Score:2, Funny)
Um... This is Slashdot - will that many people consider us geeks as dating material??
(Obligatory smilie here).
Re:Um... (Score:2)
Obligatory... (Score:2, Informative)
just imagine... (Score:1)
Lookin' sexy in that... (Score:2, Funny)
256MB SDRAM, PC133 onboard
20GB IDE Hard Disk Drive, 2.5" Internal, High Shock
24X CD-Rom, IDE, Slim style installed
Chipset Intel® 815EG North, I/O: Intel® Hub 2 (South)
Video On Board (DB15) SVGA, 2D/3D
1x -Serial RS-232,
2x -PS/2 for Keyboard and Mouse
3x -USB Ports, 1-front, 2-rear
1x -Firewire, IEEE-1394, Lucent FW323 Chipset, 400Mb transfer rate
1x -Ethernet Port, Intel 82562ET 10/ 100 LAN controller, RJ-45 connector
1x -Parallel Port
Power on, reset buttons with power On and HDD LED's
Audio Software AC 97 Audio CODEC, 1-line-in, 1-Mic-out, 1-Earphone
With the blue cords and white trim
So when... (Score:4, Funny)
"Woah, I sure hope that's a 802.11b antenna poking into my backside!"
Rogue elements ... (Score:2, Insightful)
LL
Or the people who: (Score:5, Funny)
2) Want to rip you off.
3) Put you in their basement forever.
4) Want to spam you constantly for deals. Can't wait for the first Nigerian coat spam scam.
5) Trolls who will be constantly broadcasting that, "In Russia, you are the wearable computer...Searching for girls named Natilie and grits...First Shirt Post...Hey is this a first of a beowulf of cloths!"
Beep Beep (Score:1)
-You too huh?
A justification for technology, not a reason (Score:5, Insightful)
So why not open your mouth and talk to some of them ?
Re:A justification for technology, not a reason (Score:1)
Turn Ons: X, Y, Z.
Turn Offs: A, B, C.
If there's a reasonable percentage hit burn the energy into em, if not, blow.
Re:A justification for technology, not a reason (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A justification for technology, not a reason (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A justification for technology, not a reason (Score:3, Insightful)
Because your wearable computer (AKA cellphone) can talk to EVERYONE in a 100 yard radius INSTANTLY and determine for you which will be likely to be the most interesting for a voice-based chat.
Re:A justification for technology, not a reason (Score:3, Insightful)
Striking up conversations with strangers is becoming more and more hazardous - emotionally and, sometimes, physically - and less and less fulfilling.
The success or failure of this new technology is a direct testament to the dis/satisfaction people have with traditional interpersonal communication.
Rather than try and plug up all new and unexplored methods of coping, why don't we step aside, allow technology to give us new methods, and let the people tell us how they feel about the system, and thus, what they see as proper reform?
Maybe this new system will fail. Maybe it will succeed and we will be forced to re-examine the system of interpersonal communication.
Techno geeks pissing on this new development is as backwater, ignorant, intolerant, and close-minded, as those who screamed about the telegraph, radio and television...
incidentally, that article is the exact same one (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Do we really want to meet anymore people? (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of us spend our time deliberately ignoring each other, as even the smallest new interpersonal relationship can only offer so much in exchange for the necessary work.
Perhaps the article is meant to be more of a projection based on how the internet has change how we build relationships. Speaking only for myself, when I'm on my way home or to the office, the last thing I need is yet another social interaction with a stranger. Especially if this interaction is some banal eBay exchange or "hi want to chat?" ping. I already have enough places to meet people for commerce and dating, thank you very much.
Maybe the same folks who use IRC or instant messenging 24 hours a day will like this kind of anonymous mobile communication. Perhaps they will build fluid and mobile communities that move from area to area.
I just don't it fitting into my life, or anyone I spend time with.
Re:Do we really want to meet anymore people? (Score:2)
Re:Do we really want to meet anymore people? (Score:2)
Fair enough, though my initial reaction is "oh great, yet another place I have to filter out the noise to get to any kind of signal."
The wedding ring analogy is interesting, but no longer so accurate. Like any tradition it waxes and wanes over time. Many of my married friends didn't exchange rings. I certainly will not automatically do the ring thing if/when I get "married". Heck, even if I do get married, I probably won't be "married" (if you know what I mean).
Likewise, how this technology adds and changes to interpersonal traditions remains to be seen. Maybe it's because I work in the tech industry, but the less time I spend "connected" lately, the better I feel.
In that respect, I am certainly not "Joe IRC" (though admittedly an early adopter of most tech) so my opinion is just that.
Re:Do we really want to meet anymore people? (Score:2)
Re:Do we really want to meet anymore people? (Score:2)
True. But then what is the point? The whole point of communication devices like this is that they are instant, pervasive and always-on. In fact, this was one of the salient points in the article. The intention is for computer-IM-cellphone tech to be ubiquitous and transparent.
And always enabled.
Re:Do we really want to meet anymore people? (Score:2)
Turn your pants off, the guy looking for a ride won't get a response and will move on. In the meantime, you're also not an open node waiting to get pinged or spammed or make new aquaintances all the time from someone else's skivvies...which was what you were railing against in the first place.
You still have the network available to you this way when you are interested. It's like using your ethernet cable's plugability to be the ultimate firewall. All up to you.
Re:Do we really want to meet anymore people? (Score:2)
While I appreciate the implication of such connectivity (some might say convergence), this statement is what I disagree with. There is, and can never be, anything as tight as the "ultimate firewall". Near ultimate/perfect maybe, but not perfect. It will always be hackable (which was not my main contention anyway) but, more seriously, pervasive tech like this never has a use until one is found for it.
Again, since I would never ask complete strangers for a ride uptown (regardless of the answers I may get) I don't see yet another device helping me much in that regard. Most urban dwellers spend a large part of their time avoiding interpersonal exchanges of any sort with strangers, no matter who depersonalized those exchanges may be. We ritualize these exchanges to the point of abstraction in most cases. I'm talking about how many meaningless and rote exchanges one makes taking a subway to work, getting a coffee and paper on the way, and greeting coworkers you don't actually work directly with on your way to the your cube.
If I was an investor being courted for such a device or system, I might invest some capital, but would remain solidly skeptical until a real application was demonstrated. I don't see a killer app for this technology right now (except maybe for porn or sex parties), and do not believe that being able to sell bootleg copies of CDs or asking for rides uptown (or whatever -- I'm being deliberately obtuse about the application) are that killer app.
Sorry, but I do not share any amount of enthusiasm for the possibilities. It's cool "geek chic" tech, to be sure, but it has to demonstrate it's ability.
Ironically, the best use will probably only be found once the tech becomes universally used by a chunk of the population. My beef was that I don't see any of the projections in the article as valid.
Re:Do we really want to meet anymore people? (Score:2)
Having a variety of interests and places to interact with other humans is not "133t", nor does it have anything to do with James Bond. It's normal and expected.
I was only speaking for myself, of course. If someone really finds a way to have this type of pervasive technology and communication actually work for them, then all the power to them.
I just don't see it working for me, and the decidely techy folks (we are all in the engineering or software biz) I hang with.
Necessary? (Score:1)
Do you really need the computer for this? If the people are right there next to you, couldn't you... gasp... try actually talking to them? Regarding the dating thing, I would think that the fact that you are wearing a wearable computer would kinda decrease your chances of being considered dating material since the fact that you feel compelled to wear a computer clearly labels you as a dork.
Re:Necessary? (Score:1)
Just what I need...... (Score:1)
Someone got to say it .... (Score:1)
2. Send spam to everyone
3. ????
4. Profit.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Yet another spam delivery vehicle? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yet another spam delivery vehicle? (Score:1)
Re:Yet another spam delivery vehicle? (Score:2, Interesting)
Okay, after further thought. . .
Depending on the range of the devices, it might be possible to simply ignore all messages from more than n hops away. That would cut way down on the number of generalized messages you received.
The article also mentions a sort of "trusting system" that might be useful in filtering out the noise. For example, if the broadcaster had a cryptographically signed certificate verifying that he/she had actually used this method to find a dozen dates or so, your "assistant" would be much more likely to accept the message as being worth your time, and bringing it to your attention.
The certificate could be even more detailed, so that it was possible to verify any piece of information they were broadcasting. It would be nice if I had a digital certificate from the DMV saying that I was over 21, and didn't need to be carded. [1] Or a certificate from the community college attesting to my education. In case I'm ever called upon to mediate a dispute over the implications of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. [2]
It would be interesting to live in a world where these devices were commonplace. These sound like one of those ideas where nobody's sure how they'll work exactly, but it seems likely that they will be useful for more things than we could imagine.
1) Actually, it might take a while to work out the kinks so that it could be used for legal purposes. In the mean time, I'd suddenly find myself having to show evidence that it's really *my* PDA.
2) It could happen.
Right on (Score:2)
I would personally be interested in altering my social interactions with humans by reworking a small Perl script which would inevitably grow to suit my needs exactly. Those who say "just talk to people" are missing the point entirely. This is about the situations where you wouldn't normally talk to someone, and to me, especially about situations where you wouldn't talk to EVERYONE to see what the best fit for your problem-solution is. There are social limitations and time constraints that this could defeat.
I'm looking forward to the day when/if this becomes commercially viable. This technology will be used by a large number of businesses which have to organise things efficiently - such as businesses which put on events or need to set stages.
I think I'm going to look into following this technology on my own. Thanks /.
they know where you've been (Score:1)
Virus (Score:3, Funny)
Nice heat sink.... (Score:1)
-SLAP!-
No, geeks never get any and broadcasting personal preferences in public may get us less.
"Clothes make the network" (Score:2)
Reminds me of Sun's old moniker "The network is the computer". Makes me wonder if Sun bought out a clothing manufacturer.. "We put the 'Sun' in 'Alfred Sung'..."
Spontaneous Fragfests!! (Score:2)
Looks Like Amazon Beat Gerd To The Patent Office (Score:1)
Your keychain as the matchmaker (Score:1)
Before you answer, be sure to read the article When personalization runs amok [slashdot.org]
No Natalie Portman? (Score:2)
This is sort of what the Cybiko tried to do ... (Score:2)
What this article is proposing is basically just an extension of this ...
Scary prospect... (Score:2)
not a new idea (Score:2)
No, it wasn't "introduced" by him. The idea has been kicking around for many, many years. It's found its way into numerous science fiction stories. There have been a number of experiments and demonstrations already as well.
optical networking (Score:2)
Such broadcasting and recognition is followed by point-to-point communications, commonly referred to as "flirting" (if optical) or small talk (if verbal). Various other optical signaling devices are used and selectively made accessible to the other party in order indicate other interests for point-to-point communications, like "books", "newspapers", "wedding rings previously invisible under clothing", etc.
Over the years, the signaling system has changed somewhat. For example, a near-perfect association between actual social status or wealth and clothing used to be assured, but today, many people advertise more of their inner attitudes and desires than actual status using clothing.
What has also deteriorated somewhat is the ability of some people to read and respond to these cues. For example, some people can't tell the difference between "flirting" and "solicitation". That is perhaps while some people are looking for rule-based electronic alternatives. But where is the fun in that? That's like playing chess by having a chess computer tell you all the moves.
A bar scene... (Score:5, Funny)
nmap girl.in.corner.of.bar
Muttering to myself...damn, port 79 is closed...
Did I just post this? Gawd I'm a geek....
Isnt it kinda Clumsy? (Score:2, Interesting)
It is just not possible to have a computer choose for you who you want to talk with. If it misjudges, false alarms will cause clumsy and/or embarrasing situations.
What if you just dont feel like talking and forget to turn it off? Or perhaps it suggests a perfect personallity match, but when you look at the selected person you want to throw up?
Imagine the most likely common scenario that you walk past someone, your device goes off, their device goes off, but for whatever reason you just arent interested to make conversation. Itll be clumsy just ignoring it, or making up excuses.
And even when both sides are willing just to meet random people and talk. It's clumsy and hardly romantic trying to initiate a conversation "hey babe, my beeper just went off, turns out we have a lot in common, wanna f*ck?"
The only use for personal ad-hoc networking technology is in exams
Saying that, widespread use of WLAN devices carried around your person would have one major use - if it supported routing and dynamic route calculation. It could become a free wireless internet. If you wanted to call someone accross the other end of the town, imagine the decice finding a route from person to person, to whomever you are calling... or to the nearest internet gateway...
Incredulous View (Score:2)
So why aren't people already doing that?
A) Nobody thought of it yet.
B) It's equivalent to shouting, "I'm a dork!"
I'm gonna go with B.
terrorist tools now available at The Gap (Score:2, Interesting)
This type of mesh networking is the the ultimate in P2P networking. The FBI can't install their Carnivore network sniffer in a prevasively meaningful way in such a system.
I think, therefore, ken_i_m
Cooperation? (Score:2)
A system where you could express your interests to the network and search for others who share them would have the potential to reduce or eliminate this problem. Say, for example, you're in a crowded parking lot, trying to leave after a show. You try to get through as best you can, not sure if you should let that other guy in or if it's just going to start a flood that's going to hang you up for days. Tempers get short, people jockey for position, and it all becomes a tangled mess.
What if you could somehow communicate with all of those people and decide you were going to go about things in an orderly fashion? Then have the computers instruct you on what to do to follow the "plan." Everyone gets out of the parking lot faster and goes on their way.
That's a pretty hokey example, but it does kind of work. These kinds of situations come up all the time, usually on a more permanent scale (the public goods problem). But it has potential to revolutionize the way we collaborate. Yeah, it will take 50-100 years to get that far, I'm sure, but I plan to still be around!
In a different twist (Score:2)
Maybe you could enter a list of interests, gender and availibility into your wearable, and have it select a partner for you walking around. I know this has been discussed elsewhere earlier, but not while working as ad-hoc proxies.