Why the 'Internet of Things' may never happen

It's also a lousy name for a great idea that is doomed from the start. Here's why. 

 

Computerworld - Research firm Gartner says the "Internet of Things" will have 26 billion connected devices by 2020.

Maybe. But connected to what? And how? Here's what you need to know about the "Internet of Things" phenomenon.

There will be no 'Internet of Things'

The label "Internet of Things" is used to describe Internet-connected devices that communicate without human involvement.
For example, as you read this article, you're using the regular Internet. You're a human being who is communicating with another human being (Yours Truly), and this communication is facilitated by many other human beings (editors, web designers, engineers, etc.). Like Soylent Green, the Internet is made out of people -- and computers whose main purpose is to help people use the Internet.
The "Internet of Things" is different mainly in that it's not made out of people.
Let's imagine a scenario 10 years into the future when the "Internet of Things" is supposed to be established. You come home with a hypothetical "smart toaster," which connects to the Internet. You plug it into a kitchen outlet. The toaster boots up, finds the home Wi-Fi network and sends out a query to all the other smart devices registered to you. Your alarm clock, smart toothbrush, TV, smartphones, tablets, PCs, smart glasses, smart smoke detector, home automation base station, smart clothes, smart fridge, smart washer and dryer and smart kitty litter box each in turn introduces itself to the toaster, telling its unique identifiers and what they're capable of doing. The toaster responds in kind. In the future, the toaster can send and receive instructions from other devices.
For example, you have friends over for breakfast and make several slices of toast. There's a lot of heat and a little smoke, and your smart smoke detector suspects a fire. So it sends out a message to the other devices saying, in effect, "is anyone creating heat and smoke?" The toaster can respond the equivalent of: "Yeah, it's me. No fire here and nothing to be alarmed about." So the smoke alarm doesn't sound.
"Things" are connecting to each other and interoperating without human involvement. That's one consumery example of the "Internet of Things." (There will be industrial and other applications on a massive scale.)
The "Internet of Things" is a bad name because "things" don't have their own Internet. They use the regular Internet. There is no separate "Internet of Things."
"Things of the Internet" would be closer. And "things that interact with other things without human involvement" would be even more accurate.
Another reason why the "Internet of Things" is a bad name is that the devices can make these connections without using the Internet. Some can connect peer-to-peer, or over a local network, without going online. The ability to connect to the Internet is not a necessary criterion for inclusion in the "Internet of Things" category.

Oh, and one more (fatal) problem

There's one more problem with the label "Internet of Things" -- it implies Internet-like compatibility and universality of communication standards that may never happen.
The basic standards for the Internet were developed before there were powerful companies with a vested interest in excluding competitors from markets. By the time the big Internet companies were rich enough to throw billions of dollars around to get their way, the standards, such as TCP/IP and others that make the Internet universal, were already well established.
This is not the case for the Internet of Things. The phenomenon is arising in an industrial environment of powerful companies that each want an unlevel playing field in their favor, or that have strong and mutually exclusive ideas about how the industry should work.
Former Apple executive Jean-Louis Gassée calls it the "basket of remotes" problem.

 

Batman vs Superman pushed back to 2016 by Warner Bros

Warner Bros has pushed back the release date of the as yet untitled film that will bring together superheroes Superman and Batman, delaying it by almost a year to May 2016, the studio has confirmed.

Ina statement, it said this was to "allow the filmmakers time to realize fully their vision, given the complex visual nature of the story.”
The sequel to last year's hit Superman film Man of Steel was revealed at the Comic-Con convention in July by director Zack Snyder, who said the two DC Comics' caped crusaders will face off against each other.
Replacing the Man of Steel sequel slot of 17 July, 2015 will be a still untitled production of Peter Pan, directed by Atonement's Joe Wright.
"We are happy to take advantage of these coveted summer dates, which are perfect for two of our biggest tentpole releases," said Dan Fellman, president of domestic distribution.
Many comic bookfans were dismayed by the announcement that Ben Affleck would play Batman
In August last year, Warner Bros President Greg Silverman confirmed Ben Affleck would play Batman in a decision that proved controversial among fans of the DC Comic hero.
Affleck, 41, who won multiple awards as the director of Iran hostage crisis film Argo earlier in 2013, will appear alongside British actor Henry Cavill, star of Superman reboot Man Of Steel.

Snyder said in a statement that Affleck will provide an “interesting counter-balance” to Cavill’s Superman.

“He has the acting chops to create a layered portrayal of a man who is older and wiser than Clark Kent and bears the scars of a seasoned crime fighter, but retain the charm that the world sees in billionaire Bruce Wayne,” Snyder said. “I can't wait to work with him."

Jezebel might not win for feminism with Lena Dunham's body

US site Jezebel has proudly published the results of its hunt for the pre-Photoshopped Vogue photos of Lena Dunham. But what does this achieve?

This week the US website Jezebel offered $10 000 to anyone who could provide the original, pre-Photoshop images of Lena Dunham's American Vogue cover story. Within two hours it had received six allegedly untouched images from the Annie Leibovitz shoot and published them, complete with a list of alterations. Dunham, the writer, and star of the hugely successful HBO series Girls, and the recipient of a $3.5-million book deal, has become a poster girl for her generation. Yet, she is in danger of being celebrated more for her nudity than her deft writing, humour or acting ability. It seems, even after three seasons, that all anyone can think about is Dunham's body.
I won't say Dunham has a normal body, because what does normal even mean? Five minutes in a communal swimming pool changing room will soon present you with a smorgasbord of flesh, a veritable feast of different shapes, sizes and colours of bodies. It is far easier to recognise what is not a normal body type: impossibly skinny, taut, hard, tanned, with breasts that defy gravity – the kind you see all the time in magazines, on television, and in films. Dunham does not have one of these abnormal bodies.
Dunham is also known for her robust attitude to those who try to "fat shame" her. She responded to bloggers who bitched about the size of her uncovered thighs: "Get used to it because I am going to live to be 100, and I am going to show my thighs every day till I die". Yet, despite such shrewd retorts, Dunham keeps being forced to defend her body, because people keep questioning it, as if they can't quite compute that she's actually standing there, all fleshy and real, without an Instagram filter.
Jezebel claims it has acted out of anger at US Vogue for retouching Dunham's image, saying that the editor-in-chief, Anna Wintour, "fixed" Dunham to make her "Vogue-worthy". By publishing the original pictures, Jezebel wants to declare Dunham as its own: a feminist, positive body image role model. Which is great, but it has actually acted at odds with its own beliefs. Offering money to expose images of Dunham as retouched, as opposed to any of the other myriad stars that have graced Vogue's pages, is yet just another form of obsession with the star's figure. The site seems outraged that the photos don't look like the real Lena Dunham. Well guess what? No one in Vogue looks like that in real life. Singling out one woman to out in this way is just another form of body shaming. It is no great win for feminism.
The damaging implications of retouched images, particularly on teenagers and young adults, have been widely discussed. In 2011, 76% of British MPs felt that airbrushing contributed to an unhealthy body image. About 40% thought secondary schools should have mandatory lessons on body image. As of yet, this is only recommended practice. There are no laws in place. Questioning the widespread use of retouching is a welcome discussion. Making an example of one woman's case detracts from the moral questions at play.
Vogue is a high-end fashion magazine and its capital is fantasy. As such it has provided a set of beautifully lit, whimsical images of Dunham that fit its illusory modus operandi. Vogue has delivered a very clear "after" to the naked and non-airbrushed "before" images of Dunham with which her Girls audience – largely made up of teens and young adults – are familiar. It is impossible to view the Vogue images and not comprehend the impact of retouching.
Whether Wintour intended it, Dunham's Vogue shoot has the potential to enlighten a generation to the gap between reality and retouching. That is the real win for feminism. – © Guardian News and Media 2014

Sunanda Pushkar's death sudden, unnatural, reveals autopsy report

2.30 pm: In some starling revelations, the Board of senior AIIMS doctors who conducted the autopsy on Sunanda Pushkar, concluded that the post mortem suggests that it was a case of 'sudden unnatural death'.

However, Dr Sudhir Gupta, Autopsy Board AIIMS ruled out the presence of poison in her body. Dr Guota also mentioned that there were i njury marks on Sunanda's body.

Her remians have been handed over to Shahsi Tharoor who is in the ambulance with Sunanda's body.
2.15 pm: The post mortem of Sunanda Puskhar's body has been completed at AIIMS and her remains handed over to husband Shashi Tharoor. The last rites of Pushkar are likely to be conducted at the Lodhi Road crematorium later on Saturday evening.

Sources said some of Pushkar's family members, including her brother and son Shiv Menon, visited AIIMS where the autopsy was conducted by a three-member panel of senior doctors.

12.30 pm: A board of three doctors, led by Dr Sudhir Gupta, on Saturday began conducting the post mortem of Sunanda Puskhar, wife of minister of state for Human Resources Development Shashi Tharoor, who was found dead in a Delhi hotel room. All proceedings are being videographed.

Earlier, a day after Sunanda was found dead, police suspected it could be a case of accidental overdose (accidental poisoning) of medicine leading to failure of respiratory system.

They have been informed by forensic experts in the absence of normal tell-tale signs of suicide. This possibility is quite high.

If somebody consumes overdose of anti-depressants, the person, all of a sudden, discovers he/she can't breathe since it leads to paralysis of lung muscles.

Sunanda Pushkar

Police sources said on Saturday at the time when her body was discovered, she was on the bed, in the normal sleeping posture, wearing a night suit (top and pyjama). They said she had covered her body with a blanket, but did not cover her face.

"Nothing unusual was found inside the room to suggest there were any signs of her struggle," police sources had said, adding, there were some blue marks on her body, but forensic experts had said earlier, sometimes it happened naturally after a person's death. 

Read more at: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/nothing-ususual-in-sunandas-room-to-suggest-struggle-sdm-to-probe-death/1/338448.html

Barack Obama bans spying on leaders of US allies, scales back NSA program

Addressing privacy concerns: US President Barack Obama speaks about the surveillance techniques used by the NSA. Photo: AFP

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Washington: The United States will no longer monitor the personal communications of friendly heads of state, President Barack Obama has announced in a speech detailing a series of reforms created in response to leaks by the fugitive National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden.
The President said the US government would no longer hold the bulk phone data gathered by the NSA. Instead under a new program a third party would be created to hold the raw data, to be accessed only with the authorisation of a judge.
 

Advertisement

In a speech at the US Justice Department Mr Obama sought to reassure American allies, saying: "The leaders of our close friends and allies deserve to know that if I want to learn what they think about an issue, I will pick up the phone and call them, rather than turning to surveillance."
He also detailed what sort of intelligence America would pursue and how it would – or would not – be used.
"The United States does not collect intelligence to suppress criticism or dissent, nor do we collect intelligence to disadvantage people on the basis of their ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation, or religious beliefs. And we do not collect intelligence to provide a competitive advantage to US companies, or US commercial sectors," he said.
"In terms of our bulk collection of signals intelligence, US intelligence agencies will only use such data to meet specific security requirements: counter-intelligence; counter-terrorism; counter-proliferation; cyber-security; force protection for our troops and allies; and combating transnational crime, including sanctions evasion."
And he said the US would take the "unprecedented step" of extending some privacy protections to foreign citizens, including limiting the time its agencies can hold personal information and restricting its use.
But the President showed no sign the US was softening its attitude towards Mr Snowden, whose leaks prompted the public debate over the NSA that lead to the reforms.
"Given the fact of an open investigation, I'm not going to dwell on Mr. Snowden's actions or motivations," he said.
"I will say that our nation's defence depends in part on the fidelity of those entrusted with our nation's secrets. If any individual who objects to government policy can take it in their own hands to publicly disclose classified information, then we will never be able to keep our people safe, or conduct foreign policy."
He said the sensational way in which the disclosures had "often shed more heat than light" and had damaged America's intelligence gathering operations "in ways that we may not fully understand for years to come".
Mr Obama mounted a defence of the NSA and American intelligence operations.
"Now let me be clear: our intelligence agencies will continue to gather information about the intentions of governments – as opposed to ordinary citizens – around the world, in the same way that the intelligence services of every other nation does. We will not apologise simply because our services may be more effective," he said.
And he said it could be frustrating that America was held to a higher standard than other world powers. "No one expects China to have an open debate about their surveillance programs, or Russia to take the privacy concerns of citizens into account. But let us remember that we are held to a different standard precisely because we have been at the forefront in defending personal privacy and human dignity."
Speaking shortly before Mr Obama made his address, Glenn Greenwald, the journalist who published Mr Snowden's leaks, accused the President of engaging in a publicity stunt.
"It's really just basically a PR gesture, a way to calm the public and to make them think there's reform when in reality there really won't be. And I think that if the public, at this point, has heard enough about what the NSA does and how invasive it is, that they're going to need more than just a pretty speech from President Obama to feel as though their concerns have been addressed," he told Al Jazeera America.
Another critic of the program, Democratic senator Mark Udall, said he was pleased by the changes, tweeting: "After my years of bipartisan work and ongoing efforts, President Obama took big steps forward today on NSA reform."
Rand Paul, the libertarian Republican senator who has led Congressional opposition to the NSA's programs, said he was disappointed by the changes, telling Politico they resulted in "the same unconstitutional program with a new configuration".
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, still occupying Ecuador's London embassy, CNN: "It's embarrassing for a head of state like that to go on for almost 45 minutes and say almost nothing."

Fact file

• All data searches now require approval by a court.
• Records only be examined if a contact is two, rather than three, steps removed from a phone number connected to a suspected terrorist organisation.
• Government will not hold bulk metadata.
• It will not monitor communications of close allies without "compelling national security purpose".
• Secret data requests to private entities will no longer be "indefinite" but "terminate within a fixed time."
• Asks Congress to create a panel of public advocates to oversee Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act process.