Some guy created a 2012-2040 timeline for "future techs" which looks quite cool (even if I don't quite understand half of the names :P).
It can be found here:
envisioningtech.com
It got me thinking - do you think in 2040 those of us who will still be alive will watch the new techs "from outside", with the same sense of bewilderment and apprehension as people in their 60s and 70s do now - or are we a generation of "early adopters" that will be much more at ease with this new stuff (in the same way, our generations, raised on computer games, play them well into adulthoods, whereas our parents are largely viewing them as not entertaining or worth their time).
The rate of advance is so much more rapid that people now have less and less time to become accustomed to any one way of doing things. Every advancement in technology *increases* that rate, too, so it's a self-perpetuating system. I think we are better equipped than the previous generation to adjust to new technology, yes. And I think our children will be even better at it.
Technological advance has already outrun human capability to adapt to it. I think psychologically we can deal with the changes, but practically, no.
...Wait, space elevator? This guy's so full of shit.
unlinked, didn't cut and paste - udcap
Quote from: Viking on November 03, 2011, 01:07:01 PM
unlinked, didn't cut and paste - udcap
Yeah, I guess Mart was bewildered and apprehended by the Internet.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 03, 2011, 12:56:16 PM
Technological advance has already outrun human capability to adapt to it. I think psychologically we can deal with the changes, but practically, no.
...Wait, space elevator? This guy's so full of shit.
Would you say his space elevator doesn't go all the way to the top floor?
What could you possibly need a 200TB hard drive and 750GB of RAM aside from Virtual Reality or AI? Most people will never need a computer that powerful.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 03, 2011, 02:27:28 PM
What could you possibly need a 200TB hard drive and 750GB of RAM aside from Virtual Reality or AI? Most people will never need a computer that powerful.
super HD porn.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 03, 2011, 02:27:28 PM
What could you possibly need a 200TB hard drive and 750GB of RAM aside from Virtual Reality or AI? Most people will never need a computer that powerful.
Yeah, 640kb is more than enough for anybody.....
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 03, 2011, 02:27:28 PM
What could you possibly need a 200TB hard drive and 750GB of RAM aside from Virtual Reality or AI? Most people will never need a computer that powerful.
I don't know if you are being ironic, but that's exactly what was said about our computers 20 years ago.
Quote from: PJL on November 03, 2011, 02:51:59 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 03, 2011, 02:27:28 PM
What could you possibly need a 200TB hard drive and 750GB of RAM aside from Virtual Reality or AI? Most people will never need a computer that powerful.
Yeah, 640kb is more than enough for anybody.....
:)
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 03, 2011, 02:27:28 PM
What could you possibly need a 200TB hard drive and 750GB of RAM aside from Virtual Reality or AI?
Did you answer your own question there?
In any event, HD video is pretty storage intensive.
Quote from: PJL on November 03, 2011, 02:51:59 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 03, 2011, 02:27:28 PM
What could you possibly need a 200TB hard drive and 750GB of RAM aside from Virtual Reality or AI? Most people will never need a computer that powerful.
Yeah, 640kb is more than enough for anybody.....
He's claimed that's a misquote. He never actually said it.
Quote from: Slargos on November 03, 2011, 03:11:15 PM
He's claimed that's a misquote. He never actually said it.
I'd claim I never said it either.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 03, 2011, 02:27:28 PM
What could you possibly need a 200TB hard drive and 750GB of RAM aside from Virtual Reality or AI? Most people will never need a computer that powerful.
VR Pron for our touch sensitive Pron bodysuits.
Sex program for my sexbot.
I'd imagine the near-human-level recording apparatus you'd need for a competent sexbot would hit terabyte levels fast.
Certainly a pretty and well done site but he is on crack.
Space elevator? In the next 30 years? err no.
Arcologies? too much sim city....
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 03, 2011, 02:27:28 PM
What could you possibly need a 200TB hard drive and 750GB of RAM aside from Virtual Reality or AI? Most people will never need a computer that powerful.
My first windows PC had a 2gb hd and 16mb of ram and that was top of the range, more than enough.
These days...I couldn't even run a computer with that.
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2011, 02:52:35 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 03, 2011, 02:27:28 PM
What could you possibly need a 200TB hard drive and 750GB of RAM aside from Virtual Reality or AI? Most people will never need a computer that powerful.
I don't know if you are being ironic, but that's exactly what was said about our computers 20 years ago.
I remember having a conversation with my college roommate about how 32 megs of RAM was "a shitload" and "why would anyone ever need that much?" :D I think that was before the Gates mis/quote was common knowledge.
I've got 6GB of RAM now, but honestly I think the only reason a lot of it gets used is poor optimization. Like, Firefox and associated processes will utilize a good gig by itself.
Quote from: Caliga on November 03, 2011, 06:52:53 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2011, 02:52:35 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 03, 2011, 02:27:28 PM
What could you possibly need a 200TB hard drive and 750GB of RAM aside from Virtual Reality or AI? Most people will never need a computer that powerful.
I don't know if you are being ironic, but that's exactly what was said about our computers 20 years ago.
I remember having a conversation with my college roommate about how 32 megs of RAM was "a shitload" and "why would anyone ever need that much?" :D I think that was before the Gates mis/quote was common knowledge.
Look how great graphics look when running a game like Crysis with just 4 gigs, I think we'll hit photo realistic graphics with like 100-150.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 03, 2011, 02:27:28 PM
What could you possibly need a 200TB hard drive and 750GB of RAM aside from Virtual Reality or AI? Most people will never need a computer that powerful.
You
might be able to get Crusader Kings to run on it without pausing at the start of every month.
:D
Quote from: Caliga on November 03, 2011, 06:52:53 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 03, 2011, 02:52:35 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 03, 2011, 02:27:28 PM
What could you possibly need a 200TB hard drive and 750GB of RAM aside from Virtual Reality or AI? Most people will never need a computer that powerful.
I don't know if you are being ironic, but that's exactly what was said about our computers 20 years ago.
I remember having a conversation with my college roommate about how 32 megs of RAM was "a shitload" and "why would anyone ever need that much?" :D I think that was before the Gates mis/quote was common knowledge.
I remember when 32 megs of RAM was a lot.
Maybe I'm missing something, but much of the tech he's got slated for the near or in some cases distant future is already well advanced if not commerical.
You'll need it because software engies are lazy & don't try to optimize anything. What's the point anyway.
Post-scarcity economy? Space elevator? Domestic robots (unless we're talking about the Roomba)?
The best thing I can say about this is it doesn't include power produced by nuclear fusion.
When did he envision a fully formed Eurabia?
Quote from: Neil on November 04, 2011, 01:48:25 PM
Post-scarcity economy? Space elevator? Domestic robots (unless we're talking about the Roomba)?
The best thing I can say about this is it doesn't include power produced by nuclear fusion.
It's like Tim wrote it. It's ridiculously optimistic.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 04, 2011, 02:46:29 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 04, 2011, 01:48:25 PM
Post-scarcity economy? Space elevator? Domestic robots (unless we're talking about the Roomba)?
The best thing I can say about this is it doesn't include power produced by nuclear fusion.
It's like Tim wrote it. It's ridiculously optimistic.
Tim would have included fusion. Tim loves fusion the way that JR loves wine, grumbler loves arguing and Martinus loves feet.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 04, 2011, 02:46:29 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 04, 2011, 01:48:25 PM
Post-scarcity economy? Space elevator? Domestic robots (unless we're talking about the Roomba)?
The best thing I can say about this is it doesn't include power produced by nuclear fusion.
It's like Tim wrote it. It's ridiculously optimistic.
Brazen says he conservative. Doesn't she write for a science magazine or something?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 04, 2011, 04:24:32 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 04, 2011, 02:46:29 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 04, 2011, 01:48:25 PM
Post-scarcity economy? Space elevator? Domestic robots (unless we're talking about the Roomba)?
The best thing I can say about this is it doesn't include power produced by nuclear fusion.
It's like Tim wrote it. It's ridiculously optimistic.
Brazen says he conservative. Doesn't she write for a science magazine or something?
If Brazen thinks a SPACE ELEVATOR by 2040 is conservative and writes for a science magazine, she's in the wrong line of work (or maybe the exact right one, considering technophilic but not terribly discerning nerds form the target audience for such magazines). Fortunately, I don't think either is actually the case.
Quote from: Neil on November 04, 2011, 04:22:52 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 04, 2011, 02:46:29 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 04, 2011, 01:48:25 PM
Post-scarcity economy? Space elevator? Domestic robots (unless we're talking about the Roomba)?
The best thing I can say about this is it doesn't include power produced by nuclear fusion.
It's like Tim wrote it. It's ridiculously optimistic.
Tim would have included fusion. Tim loves fusion the way that JR loves wine, grumbler loves arguing and Martinus loves feet.
I think fusion is more likely than a space elevator or a post-scarcity economy (of which there is no such thing, although on human scales you could say there might be an effective one, although not by 2040).
I looked at it again, too--fusion power is certainly more plausible than a Drexlerian utility fog. Jesus.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 04, 2011, 04:50:20 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 04, 2011, 04:24:32 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 04, 2011, 02:46:29 PM
Quote from: Neil on November 04, 2011, 01:48:25 PM
Post-scarcity economy? Space elevator? Domestic robots (unless we're talking about the Roomba)?
The best thing I can say about this is it doesn't include power produced by nuclear fusion.
It's like Tim wrote it. It's ridiculously optimistic.
Brazen says he conservative. Doesn't she write for a science magazine or something?
If Brazen thinks a SPACE ELEVATOR by 2040 is conservative and writes for a science magazine, she's in the wrong line of work (or maybe the exact right one, considering technophilic but not terribly discerning nerds form the target audience for such magazines). Fortunately, I don't think either is actually the case.
I remember about 6 years ago there was an article (don't remember if it was online or not, but I think I read in in a paper) about some grants that were being given out to study space elevator technology, and one of the researchers who was given funding was quoted as basically saying that we didn't really need any more theoreticaly research--he wanted funding to begin actual construction. He claimed that the only barrier to building a space elevator with present technology is financial. Personally, I think he must be nuts.
I only want a space elevator if there's a party on the roof.
To the best of my knowledge, he's nuts, and such statements are irresponsible. The problem isn't engineering per se so much as materials science. Carbon nanotubes may have, in theory, the tensile strength to support a tether-style space elevator, but they have not been proven to have the same tensile strength when scaled up; and a compressive design using diamond or aggregate diamond nanorod is also insufficient.
Now I'd love for a space elevator to be feasible, but my understanding is that it has not been shown to be so. And in any event, you also have economic factors (the "why" of building it in the first place, and the financial capability, which also relies on an unfettered optimism unreflected in anything going on in the present or the reasonably foreseeable present).
Plus there were no space elevators is Star Trek or Star Wars.
Yo, Neil, what've you got against fusion power anyway?
Fusion power is not a realistic energy source.
Quote from: The Brain on November 04, 2011, 05:15:48 PM
Fusion power is not a realistic energy source.
It's the source of all life (and matter, even your precious actinides).
Terrestrially useful, maybe not.
Quote from: Tyr on November 03, 2011, 06:50:00 PM
Arcologies? too much sim city....
depends on what is meant with an arcology probably. given some of the stuff that's been built nowadayw we're getting rather close.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 04, 2011, 05:21:50 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 04, 2011, 05:15:48 PM
Fusion power is not a realistic energy source.
It's the source of all life (and matter, even your precious actinides).
Terrestrially useful, maybe not.
Not all matter. Hell, not even all baryons.
My problem with fusion power is that they've been saying that it's ten or twenty years away for the last fifty years. We're not any closer to economical fusion power than we were when I was a boy.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 04, 2011, 05:08:53 PM
To the best of my knowledge, he's nuts, and such statements are irresponsible. The problem isn't engineering per se so much as materials science. Carbon nanotubes may have, in theory, the tensile strength to support a tether-style space elevator, but they have not been proven to have the same tensile strength when scaled up; and a compressive design using diamond or aggregate diamond nanorod is also insufficient.
Now I'd love for a space elevator to be feasible, but my understanding is that it has not been shown to be so. And in any event, you also have economic factors (the "why" of building it in the first place, and the financial capability, which also relies on an unfettered optimism unreflected in anything going on in the present or the reasonably foreseeable present).
Yeah, that's pretty much how I see it, too. Maybe the guy knows something that you and I don't, but even if it's actually technically possible, the financials don't make sense.
Quote from: Neil on November 04, 2011, 06:57:30 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 04, 2011, 05:21:50 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 04, 2011, 05:15:48 PM
Fusion power is not a realistic energy source.
It's the source of all life (and matter, even your precious actinides).
Terrestrially useful, maybe not.
Not all matter. Hell, not even all baryons.
Yeah, misspoke. Virtually all nuclides heavier than Li- and Be-7 though (and most of everything heavier than protium, iirc; the majority of deuterium might have been created in the early universe, but I'm not sure).
(And baryons, with extreme exceptions, were all very early universe. :P )
QuoteMy problem with fusion power is that they've been saying that it's ten or twenty years away for the last fifty years. We're not any closer to economical fusion power than we were when I was a boy.
Fair enough. The problems are pretty major. Solar power seems a far more obvious thing to sink money into, either in (-_-) this world or in space. At least that stuff doesn't involve as many unanswered questions (profitability? sustainability? degradation and contamination of materials?).
E-Cat is where it's at. :yes:
Quote from: fahdiz on November 04, 2011, 05:02:55 PM
I only want a space elevator if there's a party on the roof.
Eventually, there will be a party on the roof, with zero-g concerts and orbital cruise ships. I expect Disney and Carnival to profit extensivly from the space elevator.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbrighthotelier.com%2Fimages%2Farticles%2F08.22.11%2F082211_3.png&hash=8141fb334d837145ba94ce3ff6d58cd489d44beb)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fspectrum.ieee.org%2Fimages%2Faug05%2Fimages%2Fhoist.waystation.jpg&hash=7c4d54e15e135eafbdacb29fe54970843fa1e264)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Ff%2Ffd%2FVoyage_of_the_Damned.jpg&hash=def89c805384091ef94b869b73ca6968e0feec2a)
Not gonna happen.
The big hurdles to a space elevator aren't with the actual technology itself whatever they may or may not be.
The sheer political hurdles of such a mammoth undertaking....I just don't see those being overcome till the end of the century at the least.
The idea of a floating island with a cable into space and the potential horror if it should fall (even if recent ideas prove true and it wouldn't be that bad- people will believe the worst case) and bringing an asteroid into orbit....it just couldn't happen in today's world.
QuoteNot all matter. Hell, not even all baryons.
My problem with fusion power is that they've been saying that it's ten or twenty years away for the last fifty years. We're not any closer to economical fusion power than we were when I was a boy.
True.
However....people have been talking up the rise of China and Brazil since forever and it never happened.
Until now....
Such situations can change.
Quote from: Neil on November 06, 2011, 12:45:04 PM
Not gonna happen.
I agree. Why bother building smokestacks onto a spaceship?
Quote from: Tyr on November 08, 2011, 12:41:10 AM
The big hurdles to a space elevator aren't with the actual technology itself whatever they may or may not be.
The sheer political hurdles of such a mammoth undertaking....I just don't see those being overcome till the end of the century at the least.
The idea of a floating island with a cable into space and the potential horror if it should fall (even if recent ideas prove true and it wouldn't be that bad- people will believe the worst case) and bringing an asteroid into orbit....it just couldn't happen in today's world.
Disagree. Materials science is definitely a big hurdle. Also I don't think a nanotube tether would involve much horror even if things went catastrophically wrong (anyone on it might die, but the individal tethers would burn in the atmosphere, after their anti-corrosion/anti-radiation jackets melted).