IoT and Computer Science

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Systematic
Posts: 346
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 5:29 am

IoT and Computer Science

Post by Systematic »

It seems that computers are taking over our world, making it more automatic. I think that is a good thing except for one point: In order to automate, you must program. You might not have to break out the C++ primer, but you must usually get out your terminal bash commands for Linux. It seems there is a disconnect between the real world and science/technology. Because most people don't need a bash terminal education to turn on an air conditioner or a light switch. So why do they need to program these devices anyway? What good is it doing them to give over control to machines that perform simple functions that they could more easily do by themselves? Especially when you factor in that they do not have programming skills. Think about it. Do you have to be a mechanical engineer to drive a car? Then why do you have to program and engineer IoT technologies? Anyone want to get rich? Then figure out how to start a business that makes automation truly simple--almost automatic.
User avatar
Noax
Posts: 672
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: IoT and Computer Science

Post by Noax »

Systematic wrote: Sat Jun 02, 2018 10:50 pm It seems that computers are taking over our world, making it more automatic. I think that is a good thing except for one point: In order to automate, you must program. You might not have to break out the C++ primer, but you must usually get out your terminal bash commands for Linux. It seems there is a disconnect between the real world and science/technology. Because most people don't need a bash terminal education to turn on an air conditioner or a light switch.
Are you suggesting that the air conditioner would present a Linux interface to the user or that the machine/robot that runs your house, including the air conditioner, would have such an interface? I think neither is the case. My air conditioner is already computerized, and I have a simple remote control that has an on/off button plus a few buttons to set the temp or timer. My thermostat connected to the central air is also programmable with a small set of buttons to convey my weekly schedule to it. That's complex enough to require an instruction sheet at first, but hardly a Linux environment. A good robot would be directed partially with verbal requests.
None of this requires (or should require at least) a programming language education to operate, although a sufficiently advanced appliance would require some with such an education to design and manufacture. This is of course assuming that the machines don't eventually do that task for us as well. I've seen little progress on this front, but maybe I'm not paying attention.
So why do they need to program these devices anyway? What good is it doing them to give over control to machines that perform simple functions that they could more easily do by themselves? Especially when you factor in that they do not have programming skills.
You're going to have to give an example, because I can think of none except my Cygwin window on my laptop. I put it there to program the laptop to do tasks that I very much cannot easily do myself.
wtf
Posts: 1179
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

Re: IoT and Computer Science

Post by wtf »

Systematic wrote: Sat Jun 02, 2018 10:50 pm It seems that computers are taking over our world, making it more automatic. I think that is a good thing except for one point: In order to automate, you must program. You might not have to break out the C++ primer, but you must usually get out your terminal bash commands for Linux. It seems there is a disconnect between the real world and science/technology. Because most people don't need a bash terminal education to turn on an air conditioner or a light switch. So why do they need to program these devices anyway? What good is it doing them to give over control to machines that perform simple functions that they could more easily do by themselves? Especially when you factor in that they do not have programming skills. Think about it. Do you have to be a mechanical engineer to drive a car? Then why do you have to program and engineer IoT technologies? Anyone want to get rich? Then figure out how to start a business that makes automation truly simple--almost automatic.
What are you talking about? Consumers don't have to write programs to use the web browsers and word processors on their computers, or to use snapchat or kik or Facebook on their smartphones. Your post doesn't make any sense to me. Can you clarify your point?

IoT is a new tech that hasn't hit the consumer stage yet so you if you want to get involved with it you have to go in at the technical level.
Impenitent
Posts: 4357
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: IoT and Computer Science

Post by Impenitent »

the machine will live your life for you

-Imp
Systematic
Posts: 346
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 5:29 am

Re: IoT and Computer Science

Post by Systematic »

wtf wrote: Sun Jun 03, 2018 6:24 am
Systematic wrote: Sat Jun 02, 2018 10:50 pm It seems that computers are taking over our world, making it more automatic. I think that is a good thing except for one point: In order to automate, you must program. You might not have to break out the C++ primer, but you must usually get out your terminal bash commands for Linux. It seems there is a disconnect between the real world and science/technology. Because most people don't need a bash terminal education to turn on an air conditioner or a light switch. So why do they need to program these devices anyway? What good is it doing them to give over control to machines that perform simple functions that they could more easily do by themselves? Especially when you factor in that they do not have programming skills. Think about it. Do you have to be a mechanical engineer to drive a car? Then why do you have to program and engineer IoT technologies? Anyone want to get rich? Then figure out how to start a business that makes automation truly simple--almost automatic.
What are you talking about? Consumers don't have to write programs to use the web browsers and word processors on their computers, or to use snapchat or kik or Facebook on their smartphones. Your post doesn't make any sense to me. Can you clarify your point?

IoT is a new tech that hasn't hit the consumer stage yet so you if you want to get involved with it you have to go in at the technical level.
Thank you. That made sense. I guess I'm just impatient.
wtf
Posts: 1179
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

Re: IoT and Computer Science

Post by wtf »

Systematic wrote: Mon Jun 11, 2018 7:14 am Thank you. That made sense. I guess I'm just impatient.
Yeah can't wait for my lightbulbs to talk to my garage door opener while the Chinese and Russian hackers and the NSA listen in.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: IoT and Computer Science

Post by Arising_uk »

wtf wrote:Yeah can't wait for my lightbulbs to talk to my garage door opener while the Chinese and Russian hackers and the NSA listen in.
Will they hear anything interesting? :)

I'd be more worried about 'DoS' attacks with the aim of extortion.
User avatar
Kayla
Posts: 1217
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 6:31 am

Re: IoT and Computer Science

Post by Kayla »

my brother got a bunch of IoT-ready lightbulbs for the house - not only are they energy efficient leds, they can also be remotely controlled and each has its own IP address

the first time we had an internet outage, they suddenly would not work

that problem has since been fixed but i am sure there are more

A tractor salesman is trying to get us to upgrade from the old Belarus to a new tractor with an enclosed cabin and air conditioning and an app that will tell us where the tractor is at any given moment - which can also be achieved by looking outside. Also we can repair the Belarus with tools at hand - but the new tractor would have an on-board computer that can only be fixed somewhere in California - we are keeping the Belarus
Post Reply