The Internet Of Objects – Ideal Or A Path To The End Of Everything

In the 1980’s and into the 1990’s there was a movement in technology towards objects. The idea was than any and all data, applications, devices etc. could be broken down into a series of discrete pieces of information, and the use of this information could be described in a consistent way. This would allow everything to work together harmoniously without complex pre-work to describe what everything was.

The issue (at that time) was that for most types of data the meta-data to describe it was actually much larger than the data itself, and this was a huge problem when networks were slower than the spoken word and data storage was more expensive than postage. So the idea slowly died and morphed, and we have been left with a really messy series of standards which make sharing data and devices complex and expensive.

Now I know that I am paraphrasing the whole issue here, but there is no doubt that where we are, is not where we want to be in terms of integrated systems.

Imagine if every piece of data was wrapped in a consistent set of metadata (data about the data).

Imagine if you were sent an email with a specific type of data attached to it, that the data would self-describe its value, keep a record of who created it, what application was needed to use it, and even where the code to use it resided.

Imagine if every internet connected device could provide details on its use, location and current state when asked. So when you enter a house and you could automatically be part of that houses network. Your environmental preferences would automatically be shared with the house, and your entertainment preferences would be available on each device in the house. Obviously assuming that you had the approval of the houses prioritized users.

Imagine that when you program your phones map app to take you to a specific place, your diary and the diaries of everyone you are meeting that day are automatically updated with travel times and arrival times. And the systems in the place you are going to are updated with your drink and food preferences and a desk is reserved for you automatically for when you arrive or the meeting room you are planning to use is automatically chosen based on the number of people who are meeting.

Imagine if in an emergency all the connected devices in a building on fire could be viewed by those trying to help. Every temperature sensor and video feed was automatically available to them, and any phone picked up would automatically connect to the on-site emergency teams without any buttons needing to be pressed. All water, gas and power would be selectively turned off or on by the emergency teams as needed.

Imagine if the sensors in every car, street light and road sign were shared amongst themselves, providing a mesh of knowledge available to every road user, and that journeys were planned with the knowledge about the current conditions, dynamically updated with the planned journeys of every other road user.

Imagine if a doctor was able to review the health data of a patient collected by the patients watch, phone, home and pharmacist building a profile of the patient’s history to help diagnose from subtle changes in their physical condition important early diagnosis of problems allowing for much better treatments.

If every piece of data and every internet connected device could describe itself in a consistent and meaningful way, the possibilities are endless.

There are of course risks associated with easier communication, risks that actually may be greater than the benefits.

It’s almost an evolutionary level risk.

Within a species a continual flow of random mutations creates the likelihood that some variants will survive in any type of changing environment or to put it another way diversity is good.

If all information systems were to follow a single standard, then the possibility would exist of total destruction of the entire system. We have already seen that computer viruses designed to attack windows systems can impact millions of systems at the same time. Smug mac users have always felt safer, but that safety only comes from the simple fact that they are a separate sub-species. It is very hard for an infection to spread across species (biological or technical), but in a world where all data and devices were unified behind one standard, that standard itself could become a risk.

The value of total interconnectivity is immense, but the implications of everything being compromised would be too terrible to consider.

Is it possible to create an interconnected would that is secure enough to be viable?

That is the cold war not just of this century but probably for the whole future of humanity.


The only way is to “keep it moving”











Who Writes the Epitaph?

Consider Gore, Al.  For a guy who was never president, he’s incredibly well known for a great many things.  Which one will rise to the top and be his final 1-line epitaph?  Some possibilities include:

– 1/2 of the fiery young Clinton-Gore presidential team for 8 years who drove the “Reinventing Government” initiative to cut waste and red tape in Washington, DC

– Inventing the Internet (and making us capitalize “Internet”)

– “Inventing” the Global Warming issue (or the GW myth if you’re skeptical), and winning the Nobel Prize for it

– Losing his home state of Tenessee (with 11 Electoral votes) in a presidential election he lost by 5 Electoral votes

Candidate Gore’s famous on-stage kiss

– The icky, creepy on-stage, on-air erotic kisser of Tipper “Parental Advisory record labels” Gore

– Hanging chads and the most controversial election result in generations

– Co-founder of “Current TV” network (with Joel Hyatt)

…Or will Mr. Gore just be best remembered for being a hilarious “head-in-a-jar” (a preachy, boring one at that) on the animated TV show Futurama?

So, will Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. best be remembered for something “positive” or something “negative?”

There’s a saying from an Australian philanthropist, lifesaver and pubbuilder known as Sheepshagger John which may help you predict the answer, “You know, a man can do a thousand great things, but if you “shag” one lousy sheep…”– (5) (7)


Why 3D just isn’t good enough

Eyes are amazing devices. When you look around your eyes focus on what you are staring at directly, and everything else you see becomes softer in focus. But as soon as you move your focus the new thing you are looking directly at comes into focus.

Continually your eyes are moving changing the place you are focusing on. Everything in your field of vision is available to focus on.

But when you go to see a 3D movie. The director (through the lens of cameras) has chosen what you should focus on, keeping everything else in soft focus. This is okay for a flat image, because it shows you where to look on the screen. We have become used to it (to some extent) and see it as artful direction.

But when we go to see a huge screen (such as an IMAX movie) in three dimensions, this just does not work.

When you are looking at a massive screen in 3D and only a small proportion of it is in focus, it is just annoying. The issue is that for a 3D movie to be totally immersive, you need to be able to see everything in sharp focus, not just the center of the director’s intent.

When you are watching a forest in a movie (such as Avatar) you want to see all the vines in sharp focus. This gives you the impression of being totally immersed in the movie. But the director chooses to keep just the section when the camera is focused in sharp focus and the rest in soft focus. This just ruins 3D.

Now when a scene is computer generated (CGI) there is no reason to create a depth of field. And when they choose to keep everything in focus, it works so much better. All of a sudden you are totally immersed in a 3D world. That’s how 3D should be!

The only 3D movies worth seeing on a big screen are computer generated. Cameras with lenses need to be focused on a specific spot. That technology just doesn’t do it for 3D.

As filmmakers learn to shake of the shackles of 20th century movie making and adopt a pure system for 3D making, the genre will have a future. If they continue to hold onto depth of field photography along with low frame rates to add creative blur to movies then the life of the cinema may be coming to an end.

If when you go to the movies to watch a 3D movie, and you find the effect makes you a little queasy then that is because of the low frame rate, and forced soft focus. If the whole image is created using CGI and is at a faster frame rate, you would feel you were part of a 3D world on screen, and not on a rollercoaster of blur and enforced head shaking movement.

I suspect the move to create move immersive 3D movies has a couple of groups fighting against it.

Firstly there will be those who are firmly convinced that “traditional” rules are film making must be enforced, in the same way that those who though movies were better without sound fought for their art (and the jury is still out on that one of course).

And secondly if a movie is made to be an immersive 3D experience (as I’ve described) the costs of production would be much higher and the resulting film wouldn’t look as good without a massive 3D screen, reducing the revenue possibilities from smaller theaters and home viewing.

So the chance of seeing really great 3D is limited my tradition and greed.

Two huge factors which are (if history is any guide) likely to win.

Here’s hoping for fully immersive 3D


Businesses: Shoot Thyself in Foot Much?




