C'mon, guys, when they aren't even on the same continent, you ought to realize they have their own laws. I know you think American law applies everywhere, but maybe you should try to find some more relevant perspective.

Blizzard is dying. Minecraft confirms it.

While I don't want to provide a detailed how-to, it goes something like this:

1. Go to store.
2. Fill cart with TVs and other expensive goods.
3. Wait for cashier to ask "would you like to save money by opening a credit card?"
4. ???
5. Profit.

I was watching a TV show about Alaska, where some small town had their generator go out and they needed to fly in an engineer. In those tiny villages, the kind where an engineering degree means you can get a job somewhere else that can afford to pay you, remote monitoring and diagnosis is the only option they have. They had one guy in the town who had the keys to the building, knew to keep the fuel tanks filled, and could do some minor mechanical repairs to the system, but that was pretty much the limit of his capabilities.

Nobody in that town would be qualified enough to even understand those notices. Nobody there would likely know what software was being used, let alone visit the home pages of the company providing it. A town like that won't have the money to pay for monitoring services - they're going to be on a repair-only basis. And they're going to be the ideal consumers of a remote solution like the kind these firms are selling.

While this town may be a worst case scenario, it exemplifies the kinds of bad luck circumstances that would lead someone right into this risk, and CERT notices probably won't ever help them much.

I realize you're trying to make a joke in that all things are "things", but there's value in having a phrase that narrows the topic a bit. It's basically a catch-all term, like referring to the Internet's plumbing as "the cloud." The "things" in the Internet of Things are devices that aren't primarily information devices by design. A refrigerator may have a microcontroller to maintain temperature, but it wouldn't be called a computer. Adding internet connectivity to it still doesn't make it an information device, so it falls into the category of "Internet of Things".

Mobile phones, iPads, laptops, computers, these are primarily information devices that are generally not considered part of the IoT, although they may serve the user to interact with the things. And the line is very squishy. An IP-enabled TV set seems to straddle the border, and depending on context may or may not be part of the IoT discussion.

The "things" do offer benefits to people, just not giant big payoffs. A washing machine can alert you that the load needs to go in the dryer, or it can phone home for diagnostic and service information, potentially saving on repair bills. And certainly when the Smart Grid arrives, they will help people save money by managing usage. As many non-connected devices already have microcontrollers, adding a wifi chip and protocol stack may cost only a few extra dollars.

They don't have to be big benefits. As long as they deliver at least small incremental improvements, people will buy them.

I'm not saying that 50% of Americans will run out and replace every device in their house with IoT capable things. But as IoT devices hit the market, more and more people will start to acquire them as they replace their worn out goods. They will not arrive with a big bang, but in about 20 years or so, you won't be able to swing a cat in the homes of affluent Americans without hitting at least one or two IP devices. And what's the IoT going to look like then? Microsoft wants to be a part of shaping that now, because it is going to pay off big later.

Sadly, as for the people who can't afford to fix their cars let alone replace a broken washing machine, the gap is going to widen, and they are going to be left further behind. It's already apparent that they are stuck with bad choices, such as cheap-but-used energy-inefficient appliances. They can't afford to get to a managed, efficient refrigerator that could save them extra money over the long term, because they haven't the capital to spend today. That's part of the nature of an inequitable system. The only hope they'll have is that in 10 or 20 years that today's hand-me-downs can still get online and are energy efficient.

It seems like you really have no grasp on the concept of the Internet of Things. You're inventing ridiculous strawmen to slaughter to make your point. Nobody but you is talking about adding IP to showerheads.

The IoT is recognizing the idea that there are millions of IP enabled devices out there today, and the number is growing rapidly. The most visible examples include replacements like Nest or Honeywell thermostats, but other devices are entering homes, too, such as garage door openers, smoke alarms, light bulbs, and even washing machines. The most popular devices include entertainment systems that now can connect to Netflix or Hulu. Some of these will be successful, others won't. But the numbers are ever increasing, and people are buying them.

The market for them is also poised to go up rapidly. Today, they're primarily owned by early adopters, who are always willing to pay a premium. But there is something unusual about the IoT in that, by reporting back to a cloud, they provide valuable data to the manufacturers. More data gives them more value, so they have incentive to increase market penetration, and that means aggressive pricing and increased competition. This will result in more rapid adoption.

So with these diverse things entering the home, the demand to integrate them will increase. Microsoft has a large portion of the home PC market, and is perfectly positioned to provide that integration, even if it doesn't happen on Windows Phones. That is, as long as they do it well, and handle all the random error conditions that a diverse set of computers can generate. If it's not seamless and perfect, they'll fail again.

wait until you are over 40 and in the software field. you'll find that you MAY get one offer in 6 months of searching.

ask me know I know... ;(

as the kids, today, say, "its because of - well - reasons. that's why!"

you won't get any more explanation than that.

Indeed.

Print encyclopedias had to be picky about editing, because even edited down they were still 100lbs and took up feet of shelf space.

A digital encyclopedia has no such constraints. It can be a repository for everything, at no cost.

The "not notable" constraint is totally artificial and serves only as an outlet for the petty-minded to exert some small degree of power.

DG

Says the "Anonymous Coward".

Oh, the irony.

DG

Where Wikipedia fails HARD though is the article deletion process.

There are people out there who get a weird thrill from deleting articles.

An article that has been in place for *10 years* can be snuffed out just because a motivated moderator decides it isn't "notable" and sets up a "speedy delete".

Notice 6 months after the fact, try and put it back, and the whole friggin' WORLD descends on you.

Wikipedia is ruled by a group of petty, self-nominated bureaucrats. And the system - as horribly broken as it is - cannot be reformed, because there are too many vested interests who want to see it STAY broken.

Let me guess, you're a Wikipedia moderator, right?

It continually amazes me how, in a world where storage is effectively free, where there is literally no cost to hosting articles, that there exist people who seek to suppress knowledge because it doesn't meet their arbitrary standard of "notable".

Give a man the power to say "no", and he says "no" - a lot.

DG

So how many of these people are actually needed in the federal government? It's not like having an extra cyber security guy in the FBI helps make Joe's Dry Cleaning a safer business. Security isn't transitive.