What are your top 5 technologies of the next 15 years?

[Geckothan]

1. No thanks
2. Touch screen interfaces are stupid
3. No thanks, I'd rather pay with cash if I'm buying something in person
4. No I won't
5. It already does, if internet porn counts?

Also, smart phones and tablets are stupid.

...so, you're a luddite?

No, I just dislike those particular technologies. None of those things are true advances (other than the first one, which I dislike because it takes away control from the user, while bringing no real benefits to 'advanced users', which in this case refers to good drivers) and add nothing valuable to the user experience, other than adding a little convenience for some users and taking away a little convenience for other users.

Flexible screens already exist, btw, and they're quite usable, just not durable or reliable enough for real-world use yet. RFID technology and voice control aren't exactly revolutionary, either.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I'm pretty sure we covered this before, but your singular objection to robotically driven cars would be easily addressed by simply retaining the optional steering wheel and giving drivers a choice.

 

[Smellincoffee]

1. Trains, because peak oil will kill planes and cars.
2. Bicycles, because peak oil will kill busses and cars.
3. Biodigesters, because the world needs sanitation and we can't afford just cleaning waste up and then dumping it.
4. Mixed-used urban planning.
5. I imagine those touch-interfaces will become more ubiquitous.

 

[gturner]

1. Trains, because peak oil will kill planes and cars.
2. Bicycles, because peak oil will kill busses and cars.

It will take far more than 15 years just to build a new train line from LA to San Francisco, and those are two dense cities. And even people in New York prefer Vespas to bicycles. Of course, all that is irrelevant because the cities won't survive the first year of starvation once farmers try to pedal their crops a hundred miles to the nearest train station, which is actually feasible once their crops are limited to what they can sow and harvest by hand.

 

[Deks]

1. Fully automated vertical farms (growing organic food) being implemented in larger quantities.
2. Extraction of water from the sea using desalination and from the atmosphere (both are old technologies that could have been implemented on a global scale a LONG time ago).
3. Carbon nanotubes, synthetic diamonds and graphene usage in electronics and other areas/industries.
4. Larger usage of full EV's and possibly more widespread implementation/use of mag-lev transit systems.
5. Molecular manufacturing, 3d printing and far more robotic/computer automation/mechanization of everything (further reducing the general population purchasing power and people not being able to train fast enough for 'new' jobs because technological automation will be implemented MUCH faster - already happening actually).

 

[Geckothan]

Vertical farms are a good idea, though when you say organic, do you mean free of synthetic pesticides, or free of all synthetic substances?

I say this because hydroponic vertical farming would be rather awesome.

There's nothing wrong with using synthetic salts as nutrients, and in fact, plants grown hydroponically with synthetic nutrients tend to yield far better (as the levels of each nutrient can be tuned to cater to particular varieties of plant), and are significantly less vulnerable to root rot-like diseases (if H2O2 is added to the water at least, which kills many microorganisms and helps keep the water oxygenated). Larger, healthier plants are more resistant to some of the diseases spread by pests, and the higher yield reduces the impact of losses from pests munching on the plants.

Nothing 'synthetic' ends up in the final product as long as the salts are of decent quality (and if they're not, the chances are the plant will just die anyway rather than produce any contaminated yield).

Not to mention that a hydroponic system would make such a set-up far easier to maintain, with a single tank that can be cleaned/refilled from the ground.

 

[MacLeod]

1. No thanks
2. Touch screen interfaces are stupid
3. No thanks, I'd rather pay with cash if I'm buying something in person
4. No I won't
5. It already does, if internet porn counts?

Also, smart phones and tablets are stupid.

...so, you're a luddite?

No, I just dislike those particular technologies. None of those things are true advances (other than the first one, which I dislike because it takes away control from the user, while bringing no real benefits to 'advanced users', which in this case refers to good drivers) and add nothing valuable to the user experience, other than adding a little convenience for some users and taking away a little convenience for other users.

Flexible screens already exist, btw, and they're quite usable, just not durable or reliable enough for real-world use yet. RFID technology and voice control aren't exactly revolutionary, either.

Is taking the control away from the user always a bad thing?

No real benefits, well that depends on what you class as a benefit. On Motorways robot control cars could in theroy travel at higher speeds more safely than human controlled cars. So instead of having say a 70mph limit, a train of robot control cars could travel at twice that speed.

Roads in some areas are very congested, having motors controlled by computer would likely mean that exisiting roads can be better utilised so instead of building moree roads, widening existing roads we are better able to use exisiting capacity.

As the roads would be used more efficentently there could be an econmic benefit, enviromental benefit.

So there are potential real benefits.

 

[Geckothan]

Is taking the control away from the user always a bad thing?

No real benefits, well that depends on what you class as a benefit. On Motorways robot control cars could in theroy travel at higher speeds more safely than human controlled cars. So instead of having say a 70mph limit, a train of robot control cars could travel at twice that speed.

Roads in some areas are very congested, having motors controlled by computer would likely mean that exisiting roads can be better utilised so instead of building moree roads, widening existing roads we are better able to use exisiting capacity.

As the roads would be used more efficentently there could be an econmic benefit, enviromental benefit.

So there are potential real benefits.

Taking control away from stupid users is a good thing, but not everybody wants to be driven around by a robot car.

There are privacy implications, as such a car would almost certainly contain some kind of 'black box' device that records every movement, and could almost certainly be remotely disabled (yes, most new cars already have both of those facilities, with built-in GPS systems/satnavs and 2G or 3G radios that are built directly into the ECU, but 99% of cars from before the mid-2000s are safe from such idiocies), and if they became widely adopted, they would almost certainly end up replacing real cars with real manual controls (or even drive-by-wire ones). Maybe the first few generations would still have steering wheels and pedals as overrides, but I doubt that will always be the case.

As a driving enthusiast with good car control and respect for the laws of the road and other drivers on it, I'd hate to see proper cars taken off the market entirely in favour of idiotmobiles. At the very least, I'm willing to bet that motorways would become robot-car-only for 'safety reasons' or something.

They've already pretty much phased out proper non-drive-by-wire brakes, clutches, manual gearboxes and mechanical throttles in most mainstream cars (other than the few pure enthusiast-centric sports cars with relatively small engines but ridiculously light chassis), which completely sucks, but as much as I hate silly drive-by-wire electronic nanny controls, at least you still have some input into their operation. I dread the day when real cars with real controls no longer exist. Driving aids that can be implemented on top of proper controls (e.g. ABS and power steering, which are effectively passive, and active suspension, which simply reacts to the outcome of your input) are great, however.

 

[MacLeod]

Erm no they haven't

Most cars sold in Europe are Manual transmission so they also have a manual clutch.

^So you dread the day when real cars with real cars get phased out. Well I don't mean to be blunt but none of us is going to lve forever, yes we might have reservation and be resistant to some new technologies, but what of those generations that follow us?

 

[Geckothan]

Outside of Europe, most cars are automatic/semi-automatic/manumatic, but many high-end cars (of many formats) in Europe are now semi-automatic/manumatic. Manual gearboxes won't be going anywhere for a while here, no, but things are still heading in that direction.

I resist such technologies because they do not benefit me. Call me selfish, but hey, at least I'm smart enough to drive safely without an electronic nanny doing it for me, unlike the target market of the autonomous car.

 

[MacLeod]

But the question to ask could those technologies benefit society as a whole?

 

[Deks]

Vertical farms are a good idea, though when you say organic, do you mean free of synthetic pesticides, or free of all synthetic substances?

I say this because hydroponic vertical farming would be rather awesome.

I meant pesticides, chemicals and GMO.
Not everything synthetic is automatically BAD... hardly... but in its current form, most of it IS (because the monetary system focuses on 'cheap' and 'cost effective', not to mention 'profitable').

Omega gardens can grow food up to 5x faster, no need for soil, chemicals, pesticides or gmo.
Combining that with fish farming would create a closed system producing nutrient rich water (from waste made by the fish) that the plants use for food (also this would reduce usage of water by up to 75%).
Fully automated vertical farms if designed properly (using above methods along with hydroponics and aeroponics) can also be made to produce energy (not just consume it) along with water (by extracting it from the atmosphere) - and would completely negate the need for manual labor.

If they go with 'cost efficiency', technical efficiency will be forgotten for the most part, if not greatly sacrificed for the purpose of cutting monetary costs.

 

[Bisz]

Outside of Europe, most cars are automatic/semi-automatic/manumatic

...really? The Indian Tata motors car which retails for like $29.95 is an automatic? I would call BS on your statement and say that outside of North America most cars are manual.

 

[Bisz]

They've already pretty much phased out proper non-drive-by-wire brakes, clutches, manual gearboxes and mechanical throttles ...

And they've pretty much phased out real cars with real horses too, much to the chagrin of the Amish.

 

[publiusr]

There is a new CAD type combo called Winning Program
It combines Catia 3-D design Dymola modeling Simulia simulation Enovia product data:

http://www.3ds.com/company/news-med.../4619/?cHash=0de4ad46d6a8b4295b0eb914a8fa75da

This might also be something scifi-mesh folks might want to use.

More
Make 2D into 3D?
http://programming.itags.org/matlab/10142/?title=matlabconversion+of+2d+image+into+3d+image
Slit scan objects cheaply
http://makeprojects.com/Project/Flatten-3D-objects-using-Slit-Scan-photography/761/1
http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=155626&page=2
http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.1415 Super-camera
http://programming.itags.org/matlab/10142/?title=matlabconversion+of+2d+image+into+3d+image

Artificial retina
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120814213326.htm
Femto-photo http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=16121

Square holes http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=13732

Free software for art
https://www.daz3d.com/i/3d/free-3d-software-overview?home_f_btn=start
Uh oh
http://spacewatchtower.blogspot.com/2012/11/sharp-pics-taken-through-opaque.html

Free 3D model ripper
http://thefree3dmodels.com/publ/how_to_rip_3d_models_from_games/8-1-0-9

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Outside of Europe, most cars are automatic/semi-automatic/manumatic, but many high-end cars (of many formats) in Europe are now semi-automatic/manumatic. Manual gearboxes won't be going anywhere for a while here, no, but things are still heading in that direction.

I resist such technologies because they do not benefit me. Call me selfish, but hey, at least I'm smart enough to drive safely without an electronic nanny doing it for me, unlike the target market of the autonomous car.

And there are enough people out there like you that the auto-driver feature is likely to be either optional (cost extra) or overrideable for people who don't want to be driven around by a robot, or want to be able to drive by hand if they feel like it.

More likely, if you ever have to worry about not having access to a manually driven car, it'll be because you're such a decrepit old geezer that your great grandchildren don't trust you behind the wheel of anything faster than a rascal.

 

[MacLeod]

Outside of Europe, most cars are automatic/semi-automatic/manumatic, but many high-end cars (of many formats) in Europe are now semi-automatic/manumatic. Manual gearboxes won't be going anywhere for a while here, no, but things are still heading in that direction.

I resist such technologies because they do not benefit me. Call me selfish, but hey, at least I'm smart enough to drive safely without an electronic nanny doing it for me, unlike the target market of the autonomous car.

It would be correct to say that a lot of technology that exists on high-end cars eventually filters down to your average car. But a lot of that technology comes out of motorsports esp. Formula 1.

The question have things like ABS, Traction Control and all the other driver aids that are on modern cars made driving safer?

Though of course it is important that drivers understand what these things will and will not do.

 

[RAMA]

Why writing it down? It's just religious faith-based nonsense.

Unlike any of the various Raptures, the Singularity is a technological event, caused by ordinary humans, doing ordinary science, building ordinary technology which follows the ordinary laws of physics. It does not involve any religious or divine powers. It doesn’t involve outside intervention by superior or alien beings. And it’s completely within our control as a species- it will only happen when we go out and make it happen.

Which doesn't change the fact that it is a religious faith-based worldview. The meaningful element here is that you have already internalized your articles of faith:
- The Singularity is coming
- The Singularity will be a good thing
- Those who believe in the singularity will be the first to benefit from it.

The rest of this is you RATIONALIZING what you've already decided to believe. Several times, you attempted to claim that it's not irrational because it doesn't appeal to the supernatural. That is a distinction without a difference; just because you've replaced the Book of Revelations with Ghost in the Shell doesn't make your worldview any less faith-based.

Well of course, this is untrue in general, there is, as always a subculture in almost any belief/endeavor that may believe such things, and as I point out fairly frequently there is enough support to show that the conditions and developments needed are actually happening all the time around us. It's interesting to note that I've seen 2-3 fairly significant developments with AI that have been reported in the last few days, I might be one of the conservative ones with my estimates...

RAMA

 

[RAMA]

1. Trains, because peak oil will kill planes and cars.
2. Bicycles, because peak oil will kill busses and cars.
3. Biodigesters, because the world needs sanitation and we can't afford just cleaning waste up and then dumping it.
4. Mixed-used urban planning.
5. I imagine those touch-interfaces will become more ubiquitous.

I've covered this before but...no one really agrees when "peak oil" will occur, and those energy technologies can be supplanted by renewable energy tech and fusion. Some estimates of peak oil have been in the 2050-2100 range and we are also likely to have workable fusion before that period. In almost every single case, the people who talk about it don't take this into account in estimates(yes I have posted statistics on this)...so dont believe the hype.

Interestingly, I just saw a story today about solar powered combustion engines...hmmm

Touch interfaces will be a good interim technology but will probably be replaced by more advanced input methods in the decades to come.

RAMA

1. No thanks
2. Touch screen interfaces are stupid
3. No thanks, I'd rather pay with cash if I'm buying something in person
4. No I won't
5. It already does, if internet porn counts?

Also, smart phones and tablets are stupid.

...so, you're a luddite?

No, I just dislike those particular technologies. None of those things are true advances (other than the first one, which I dislike because it takes away control from the user, while bringing no real benefits to 'advanced users', which in this case refers to good drivers) and add nothing valuable to the user experience, other than adding a little convenience for some users and taking away a little convenience for other users.

Flexible screens already exist, btw, and they're quite usable, just not durable or reliable enough for real-world use yet. RFID technology and voice control aren't exactly revolutionary, either.

I believe there are statistics to show that automatic cars are safer than man driven ones--since you are perfect and never have been in an accident--but others may not be perfect like you. Personally I don't like the technology myself, but I understand the reason for it's development.

Ten years ago there was a technology discussion here on this BB about how touch screens were not practical and how would never be popular. I explained why they would be and we'd have them before the 24th century. Guess who was right?

Smart phones are a transformative and important technology for the myriads of reasons I've pointed about before. Yes I'm right on this too.

RAMA

 

[Kemaiku]

Double posting to side step every/hadnwave every argument in favour of it "it'll happen, you'll seeeeeeeeeeee".

You'll die and old man like the rest of us with technology better but not anywhere near what you're talking about. And for some reason you either can't or won't accept that.