Technological Stagnation

Discussion in 'Science and Technology' started by Into Darkness, Sep 9, 2013.

  1. RAMA

    RAMA Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 1999
    Location:
    NJ, USA
    This is true really, transportation lags behind on an everday level..though there is a lot of research behind the scenes. Basically it seems as if our normal mode of transport is so ingrained there has been no need for a quantum leap from concept to commercial use. There is in fact some good development with flying cars (but I don't think these will ever be very useful). Also with efficient cars and robot vehicles; hyperloop is bringing an old tech that never matured back out with a potential to revolutionize med-range travel; Virgin Galactic is looking to bypass SST altogether and go straight to spaceplane commercial flights; space travel development is busier than it's ever been with multiple countries developing heavy lift rockets, as well as commercial companies easing into the new space race. The revolution there is in making it common and therefore cheaper.

    http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/18/vi...-replace-the-concorde-for-terrestrial-travel/
     
  2. publiusr

    publiusr Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
  3. GalaxyX

    GalaxyX Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2004
    Location:
    Canada
    I'd be happy with Phasers.

    Flying Cars and Technology to make the blind see would both be kick ass second choices.
     
  4. Argus Skyhawk

    Argus Skyhawk Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2001
    Location:
    Argus Skyhawk
  5. GalaxyX

    GalaxyX Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2004
    Location:
    Canada
    Interesting.

    The technology you're working with seems to be made to stimulate leftover retinal cells.


    I've seen two other variations. One which is similar to the one you showed me, except that an entire artificial retina is placed and connected to the optic nerve directly.

    The other one is where they hook up electrodes directly to the visual cortex, and a camera/computer combination translates the data from the camera to impulses that stimulate the brain to "see" patterns.

    What's your take on these technologies compared to the one you're working with?

    I'm wondering if the day will come when they can grow new eyeballs for people and do a successful transplant "Minority Report" style.


    I would gladly give up the dream to own a phaser if it meant that a successful technology to give the blind their eyesight back were possible.
     
  6. JarodRussell

    JarodRussell Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2009
    Why is a weapon your first choice?
     
  7. RAMA

    RAMA Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 1999
    Location:
    NJ, USA
  8. Mr. Laser Beam

    Mr. Laser Beam Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    Location:
    The visitor's bullpen
    And in a very real sense, flying cars would also be weapons. Much more than non-flying cars could ever be!
     
  9. Lindley

    Lindley Moderator with a Soul Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2001
    Location:
    Bonney Lake, WA
    In their ability to reach a target, possibly.

    In the amount of explosives they would be capable of carrying were the driver so inclined, probably not.
     
  10. Mr. Laser Beam

    Mr. Laser Beam Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    Location:
    The visitor's bullpen
    ^ Wasn't talking about explosives, as such. Just the extreme danger of having a flying car coming right for your house or your own self. Think about it - at any time, a car could come dropping out of the sky and land on you. If that's not a weapon, what is?
     
  11. Lindley

    Lindley Moderator with a Soul Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2001
    Location:
    Bonney Lake, WA
    If you're determined to crash a flying object into a person you don't need flying cars to do it.

    If you're talking about accidents, then you don't really mean "weapon" as such. Threat, possibly.
     
  12. GalaxyX

    GalaxyX Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2004
    Location:
    Canada
    To answer the question "Why is a weapon my first choice"

    Without getting into a huge gun control debate (what's even the point?), I have been a "weapons" fan for over a decade, owning several firearms, knives, and even a couple of cool toys, such as really powerful hand held lasers (I have a 2W flashlight sized blue laser, which will light matches and pop balloon immediately, and burn thru most plastics in seconds) and even a sonic cannon (will generate a sound up to 140db at adjustable frequencies and will scare the shit out of any backyard pest)

    In short, I believe in self defence, and I believe in making it as intimidating as fuck, and at the same time as safe as possible.

    Even if I load really soft rounds on my 12 gauge (like 7 1/2 birdshot let's say), a potential thief would probably not receive a lethal hit, but he'd sure fucking bleed like gushers and permanent scars might be left, and worse, he'd probably still come lunging at me or my family. The only way to "stop" him, is most likely to use more powerful shells that will likely "stop him" forever.

    Firing my laser at him would be intimidating as hell (picture a bright blue beam being fired at your chest) but not likely to do anything. If he is armed and insists on coming towards me, only option is to fire at his eyes and permanently blind him. Not acceptable.

    A perfect phaser as depicted in Star Trek, on the other hand, would be an excellent non lethal weapon. It would have the incredible intimidation factor of seeing a huge motherfuckin' energy beam being fired at you, capable of completely disabling the perp, with the added bonus that he is extremely unlikely to have suffered any permanent damage at all.

    I'm not sure if that is ever going to be possible, but for what it represents, I think it's an amazingly cool technology that I'd love to have.

    Flying Cars would be as safe as Helicopters and Planes are, once they get a viable technology mass produced, but I admit true "Delorean style" flying vehicles are not likely to appear in the next 40-50 years, except with very niche organizations (Police, airports, high end transportation?)
     
  13. publiusr

    publiusr Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
  14. DarthTom

    DarthTom Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Location:
    Atlanta, Georgia
    Police have access to the next best thing - Tasers which essentially do the same as a phaser set on, "stun."


    Boeing is supposidly working on anti-gravity technology for the US Defense Department. The flying car isn't happening until any such tech is not only declassified but also introduced comercially.

    BTW to the original poster. If Boeing has actually tested anti-gravity technology successfully that would represent a qunatum leap in aviation technology. I wouldn't expect the defense dept however to declassify any such technology soon.

     
  15. JarodRussell

    JarodRussell Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2009
    If there were as many private helicopters and planes as there are cars, helicopters and planes would not be safe anymore. Even with fancy antigravity technology. You simply can't have flying things in city streets. If things go wrong, you have cars crashing into the 50th floor of a building, or dropping straight on the ground on people from 200 meters.

    Air traffic works the way it does because it is dominantly a public transport that takes place mostly outside the cities.
     
  16. DarthTom

    DarthTom Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Location:
    Atlanta, Georgia
    The FAA will obviously have to regulate such technology and autopilot tech would obviously have to guide any such devices for the most part. Commercial airplanes can take off and land today without the aide of the pilot In fact they believe the Korean Airlines accident that occured a few months back at SF International airport was because the pilot turned off the auto navigation.

    It's worth noting that the FAA estimates there will be 30,000 + private drones whizzing over our heads at any given time by 2020 which is just 6 years from now.

    Business Insider
     
  17. JarodRussell

    JarodRussell Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2009
    The thought of having modern city street traffic in the sky is still just insane. It will not work. Full autopilot navigation in city street traffic will not even work for cars on the ground.

    30,000 drones over the whole US? How about 30,000 drones just over downtown Manhattan? On a Sunday.
     
  18. FPAlpha

    FPAlpha Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2004
    Location:
    Mannheim, Germany
    It's just a matter of available infrastructure although with absolute gigantic need for investment and security.
     
  19. Lindley

    Lindley Moderator with a Soul Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2001
    Location:
    Bonney Lake, WA
    I don't think we're anywhere near having things flying around inside urban canyons.

    Outside the cities, yes. Dominantly a public transport? That depends on how you define it. In terms of person-miles flown, sure. In terms of pure number of aircraft, maybe not. There are a *lot* of private planes up there. Still nowhere near as many as there are cars on the ground, but they tend to outnumber the commercial aircraft in many areas on a nice day. (In the weather, things change a bit.)
     
  20. GalaxyX

    GalaxyX Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2004
    Location:
    Canada
    A phaser is guaranteed to stun a person, and has different stun settings. Usually a stunned person will stay down for a few mins at least. Also you can spray phaser a whole crowd and stun them all if necessary. That would be an awesome defense strategy if, let’s say, a group of 8 thugs was ganging up on you.

    IMO though, the best part of it is the fact that you might be able to stop people from ganging up on you simply by firing a warning shot in their direction (I’m sure people who are not hopped up on drugs would definitely be intimidated by a motherfuckin’ beam of light being fired in their direction)

    A taser has to be aimed properly, you only get to shoot it at one person at a time, it has no intimidation value at all, since it’s just a couple of wires with dart probes, and thick clothing is likely to completely negate the effects of it. Also if a person is high on some crazy shit, it’s not likely to take them down at all.

    That’s pretty cool. Working anti-gravity technology is the key to make flying personal vehicles commercially viable.

    I don’t disagree. It will be a tough thing to setup safety wise, even if the technology is possible.