digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

The Network Of Everything

sciencedaily.com — Wireless experts believe that, by 2017, personal networks will have to cope with at least a thousand devices, like laptops, telephones, mp3 players, games, sensors and other technology.

Who dugg this? Made popular Nov 24, 2008

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

65 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • inactive, on 11/24/2008, -5/+26Doesn't matter much. The world ends in 2012 anyway - we all know that!

    >.>

  • carondelet, on 11/24/2008, -1/+17Life: the biggest MMORPG ever.
  • kingleego, on 11/24/2008, -0/+15more like Security Jobs
  • PaulCurrier, on 11/24/2008, -1/+15And Cars, Trains, Busses, Planes, Apartments, Homes, Offices, Community WAN's and Cluster (of devices) Ownership....
  • RandoTheKing, on 11/24/2008, -0/+13Job security, my friends.
  • hirro, on 11/24/2008, -0/+11I tried playing that but there were too many Chinese currency farmers.
  • doublefelix, on 11/24/2008, -1/+11I can't wait to hack in to your moms vibrator.
  • inactive, on 11/24/2008, -1/+11what about Humans?
  • inactive, on 11/24/2008, -0/+9Humans, what about them?
  • RealmDown, on 11/24/2008, -0/+8Cybermen
  • smrekar, on 11/24/2008, -5/+11Thousands huh? I don't have thousands of devices right now.
  • ivanmarsh, on 11/24/2008, -4/+10I don't own 1000 devices.
    I can't see tecnological advances leading to my owning 1000 devices.
    Isn't it more likely that I'll have a single device that does the job of multiple current devices?
    ...and beyond that, so what? If NAT is employed properly 1000 devices will still only need one public address.
  • trejrco, on 11/24/2008, -2/+8Some believe that you will, whether intentionally or not, own 1000s (yes, plural) of devices ... home automation, increasingly networked "things" ... and NAT breaks stuff, time to start seriously(!) thinking about IPv6 ...
  • flashboy131, on 11/24/2008, -0/+6Wireless charging would be nice, the more wireless I get the more power adapters I am accumulating. And longer lasting batteries please.
  • ATL, on 06/20/2009, -0/+5[Citation Needed]
  • theadvinci, on 11/24/2008, -0/+5Humans, animals, lamps, tables (already have), hair dryers...
  • Schooley02, on 11/24/2008, -1/+6Can't stop progress...unless we are in the Matrix!
  • mokki, on 11/24/2008, -2/+6http://digg.com/tech_news/The_Network_of_Everythin ...
  • schnikies79, on 11/24/2008, -1/+5As long as I can unplug..
  • Asdfglpwglion, on 11/24/2008, -1/+5...and 640K of memory ought to be enough for anyone, five computers ought to be enough for the whole world, and various other things, too...
  • reyalp, on 11/24/2008, -0/+3Sensors don't need IP communication
  • feureau, on 11/24/2008, -0/+3*****
  • thetayloreffect, on 11/24/2008, -0/+3I know.. I'd rather have all my devices using a public IP address - that way instead of having to manage a simple DHCP daemon I can manager thousands of firewalls on my TVs, Radios, and MP3 players.

    It will make life a lot easier.

  • bob1029, on 11/24/2008, -0/+3By 2017 we should have a cure for the disease that causes people to write about future events and crackpot ideas as though they are inevitable fact.
  • JoeSpaceTime, on 11/24/2008, -0/+3Okay, I'll get on it right after this.
  • dusanmal, on 11/24/2008, -0/+3Their idea is not that you'll own 1000's of devices but that 1000's of devices will be in your range... How and to what to "attach" and exchange info is a big issue in such environment.
  • smrekar, on 11/24/2008, -0/+3Why must you insist on blogspamming every one of your posts?
  • DotFreelance, on 11/24/2008, -0/+3Before you know it there will be a national/global network that we'll connect to with neural implants, we won't even need those devices. We'll have cyber crime fighting divisions called Section 9 with cyborgs who, for whatever reason, can't be bothered to wear clothes.

    That, or there will be a zombie apocalypse. I've got my copy of Left4Dead and I'm preparing now. I suggest you all do the same.
  • derekmas10, on 11/24/2008, -0/+3As long as these things don't get in the way of my wireless beer inventory/temperature monitor, I'll be just fine.
  • keiths, on 11/24/2008, -0/+3Obviously. The article is about devices that aren't networked right now might be networked in the future. Toasters, microwaves, cars, lights, etc..
  • TheUngod, on 11/24/2008, -1/+3...could you please rephrase the question?
  • griz, on 11/24/2008, -0/+2I tend to agree, just because everything will be network capable, doesn't mean one person will own every one of those devices. I don't see 1000 electronic devices in my home needing to be online.
  • buenit, on 11/24/2008, -1/+3Yeah I would imagine by that time we'll be running IPv6 , so you won't even need NAT.
  • cubicledrone, on 11/24/2008, -1/+3Not for Americans.
  • hyperionshift, on 11/24/2008, -0/+2Omebodysay ackedhay ymay eyboardkay osay Iyay ancay onlyay ypetay innay igpay atinLay! eyThay alsoway otgay ymay enspay!
  • inactive, on 11/24/2008, -0/+2Just imagine the kinds of crazy programs Backtrack 10 will have.
  • Lith25, on 11/24/2008, -0/+2Not enough bloom for me.
  • mondoman89, on 11/24/2008, -3/+5even more reason for ipv6. I would hate having to deal with DHCP for that many devices. With ipv6 every device can have its very own ip!
  • inactive, on 11/24/2008, -2/+4don't be jealous that your (original) submission 9 days ago got less diggs.

    No, wait. Do be jealous.
  • hbyrne, on 11/24/2008, -0/+2what about energy, the grid? like Thomas Friedman suggests in his new book?
  • ivanmarsh, on 11/24/2008, -1/+3Home automation only requires one public address for the central control unit of the automation system. What need would you have to give indivual sensors public addresses?

    Only public devices need public addresses.
  • techsquirrel, on 11/24/2008, -0/+2Yeah read HaltinG StatE by Charles Stross.
  • TyrannousDotNet, on 11/24/2008, -0/+2Fluid Karma
  • Culyt, on 11/25/2008, -0/+2There is no reason that you can't have a firewall that will block traffic to your devices without needing to NAT everything internally. All the devices will go through one gateway.
  • JKAL, on 11/24/2008, -0/+2yes but your are not a gadget whore, this only applies to people who have to have the latest version and the most gadgets.
    e.g. Apple, M$, Nintendo and Sony fanboys
  • feureau, on 11/24/2008, -0/+2You mean... there are more people with lives than there are people who play WoW...?
  • HappyMonk, on 11/24/2008, -0/+2disagree , it was like back in days of big mainframes they said you need whole office block just to house the mainframe in future. Well look what happened. :D
  • h0dges, on 11/24/2008, -0/+2The title almost makes me feel sorry for these personal networks :S
  • ravage86, on 11/24/2008, -0/+2You'd "hate having to deal with dhcp"? So instead of having your router automatically assign the devices an IP address, which is such a hassle, you'd rather manually configure a static IP on each of the device? That won't be time consuming or tedious.
  • BooLag, on 04/23/2009, -0/+1That's what SHE said!
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 65 of 65 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...

© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.