Important advance: IBM nanotube chip

[RAMA]

A predicted tech that will continue to accelerate Moore's law, IBM has placed and tested 10,000 nanotubes on one chip. The fragility of such material has been a problem, and it's important to test it to make sure a minimal number of tubes are damaged for them to work.

http://www.nature.com/nnano/journal/....2012.189.html

http://www.kurzweilai.net/carbon-nan...ce-silicon-ibm

Other breakthroughs abound:

http://www.kurzweilai.net/strengthen...rbon-nanotubes

[sojourner]

Yep, science marches on, like it always has.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

They'll figure out a new gadget to play music back on, for sure.

And still no one has any idea how to download a "mind" into a machine. None.

[gturner]

sojourner wrote:

---

Yep, science marches on, like it always has.

No, this is a great leap backwards. One of the greatest advances we made was going to solid-state electronics, but nano-tubes aren't solid, they're hollow. They're also tubes.

So now when your iPhone gets flaky, a service technician at the Apple store will shake it around and say, "Well, don't really know. I reckon one of the tubes burnt out."

(In the future we'll also talk like cowboys on Firefly.)

[gturner]

My Name Is Legion wrote:

---

They'll figure out a new gadget to play music back on, for sure.

And still no one has any idea how to download a "mind" into a machine. None.

Perhaps we should ask the underpants gnomes.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

gturner wrote:

---

Perhaps we should ask the underpants gnomes.

What's their leader's name, Kurz-something?

[RAMA]

sojourner wrote:

---

Yep, science marches on, like it always has.

Yes, exponentially.

[RAMA]

My Name Is Legion wrote:

---

They'll figure out a new gadget to play music back on, for sure.

And still no one has any idea how to download a "mind" into a machine. None.

Which is of course, not to say that there are many technologies and research heading in that direction. Yes, it doesn't exist in 2012 if that's what you mean, but again, you are tedious.

Edit: I absolutely loooove this quote from Dennis and I'll be posting it at SIngularity discussions on other forums/discussions I have. It absolutely defines the unthinking acceptance of linear perception most of us have. Different-but-the-same...yeah we'll have better music players....classic.

RAMA

[sojourner]

Tediously right.

[RAMA]

sojourner wrote:

---

Tediously right.

Considering the advances touch every aspect of human existence and endeavors, I don't think we talk about it nearly enough. Of course that is changing.

Frankly, talking about flying cars and the different-but-the-same mentality often in evidence is really the tedious part. The implications I'm talking about are much more far reaching and important.

RAMA

[sojourner]

RAMA wrote:

---

The implications I'm talking about are much more far reaching and important.

And much more fictional.

[RAMA]

sojourner wrote:

---

And much more fictional.

Considering the facts we have now to make such speculations, not really.

RAMA

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Yes, really.

It was ten or eleven years ago that a lot of us came to TrekBBS, mainly because of a new series called Enterprise.

A lot of us will still be around in another ten years, pointing out all the silly "Singularity" predictions that never came to pass and are no closer.

[Robert Maxwell]

Let us all remember that Ray Kurzweil's predictions are frequently far off the mark, especially when he extrapolates more than a handful of years into the future. He is occasionally right, but wrong much more often. Given how poorly he and his followers have managed to speculate even 10 years into the future, one wonders how their claims stretching 50 or 100 years into the future could have even the slightest shred of credibility.

Technology will certainly advance, as it always does, but not rigidly adhere to the rate and direction Singularitans promote.

[RAMA]

Robert Maxwell wrote:

---

Let us all remember that Ray Kurzweil's predictions are frequently far off the mark, especially when he extrapolates more than a handful of years into the future. He is occasionally right, but wrong much more often. Given how poorly he and his followers have managed to speculate even 10 years into the future, one wonders how their claims stretching 50 or 100 years into the future could have even the slightest shred of credibility.

Technology will certainly advance, as it always does, but not rigidly adhere to the rate and direction Singularitans promote.

While I hardly pin this down to simply Kurzweil's predictions, you're completely wrong in your statement. I believe he has 85% accuracy in his 100+ predictions, however, another 5-10% actually exist but not to the extent of his predictions. That's 95% accuracy....no one else comes close.

Yes, he has actually defended his predictions directly to several crtics publically and quite frankly he came out on top. Even his critics admit he has high accuracy though.

The thread of info technologies is so intertwined no no one propoenet of the Singularity can claim to being what spurs it on.