Printable View
What do you think will be the next big technological advancement ? OR What advancement would you like to see ?
Personally I think the next big technological advancements need to be:
#1 Batteries need to be able to store much more energy
#2 Need a new medium to store data (Hard drives are reaching their limit)
#3 New type of processors
What I would like to see is more advancements in med-tech, fuel, but what I think we'll get is new social media/network apps.
A new arithmetic in which 2+2 = 5 for very large values of 2. BB
teleportation! no just kidding :D
since i got everything that i need, i can't think up any new ideas..
Nanotechnology. Nuff' Said.
1) Batteries.
2) Batteries.
3) Batteries.
If you could build a battery that had 1/10th the energy density of gasoline, all gas engines would be museum pieces overnight (unless the battery cost THOUSANDS to produce).
With all due respectQuote:
Originally Posted by BlindSniper
1) Get a Mac.
2) I agree
3) Get a Mac.
Seriously. Get a Mac. You'll never go back.
Hey, I'm a poet and I didn't even know it!
BTW, did you know Macs can run Windoze? (yes, I did say Windoze)
So... Macs have new/different types of processors? Please tell us more about this.
If history is anything to go by the biggest advances will be in pornography. Also batteries... but not for the reasons Shaggy gave. [Insert slowly nodding smiley here]
Even the Ancients regretted such a decision.Quote:
Originally Posted by thebuffalo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGI8oNcYkXg
What does that have to do with technological advancements? Apple computers haven't come out with any new technology since the 80s. They've only been playing catch up...except in price, they have always been leaders in that area.Quote:
Originally Posted by moonman239
Because you'll spend the next decade desperately trying to justify getting mediocre hardware for top-tier prices. Since the only way to justify it would be talking about how superior Macs are, you not only will have a computer, you will have the religion that comes with it.Quote:
Seriously. Get a Mac. You'll never go back.
You did. You really did. How old are you, anyways? I thought that phrase went away in the early 90's when OS8 went down in flames.Quote:
BTW, did you know Macs can run Windoze? (yes, I did say Windoze)
But seriously, we all know everybody is waiting for hover cars.
And for the Mac thing...
I have an Asus G74sx, top of the line laptop machinery, 17" screen, 12gb RAM, 1tb HD(2x 500gb), i7 xtreme, Nvidia 560gtm 3gb video card, $1,389
Mac Book Pro, childs toy, 15" screen, 4gb RAM, 750gb HD, Radeon P.O.S 1gb video, lowest i7 made, $2000 ( 17-inch. Starts at $2499. )
'Nuff Said.
Moonman239, None of your original post makes sense, Mac has nothing that is "new".
custom made is even better :D
Most Macs these days aren't that expensive anymore, and even competitive, the same is true of iDevices. But of course nothing will be cheaper than building your own rig.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
And five minutes of battery life. The MacBook Pro is expensive, but really you're paying for powerful hardware, great battery life, in nice aesthetics, it's an all rounder. Your system on the other hand won't yield much battery life at all, but that's not why you bought it. You wouldn't buy a MacBook Pro as a gaming system unless you absolutely wanted OS X rather than Windows. That aside the AMD Radeon HD 6750M is hardly trash.Quote:
Originally Posted by thebuffalo
EDIT: Oh, and it's $1799, the 6750M is 512MB not 1GB and it's got a 2.2GHz i7-2720QM whereas the best the ASUS has is the i7 2630QM. It's also due for an update in like a month.
>>>>>
Speaking of batteries... which is what I thought of before I entered this thread... things look bright if this works out: http://phys.org/news/2012-05-nanostr...batteries.html... nothing like a ten fold increase in Li-po battery capacity :thumb:
Well I read something here about this "New type of single language MSDN" thingy... :p
That keeps swinging back and forth. There was a time where it was MUCH cheaper to build your own....then for a while it was not, and now it definitely is if you want specific features, but is not if you want some fairly basic stuff. It's a hard one to keep track of.Quote:
Originally Posted by Icyculyr
Doggone batteries are kind of like fusion: We are a few years out...and always will be.Quote:
Speaking of batteries... which is what I thought of before I entered this thread... things look bright if this works out: http://phys.org/news/2012-05-nanostr...batteries.html... nothing like a ten fold increase in Li-po battery capacity :thumb:
It still is cheaper, at least today. I'd like to build a gaming rig (I've probably spec'd one up hundreds of times) but I've not got the cash right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Fusion... like this...?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcrocgMBBDI
(Watch from 60s onward)
:cool:
Uhhhh....yeah.
The problem is todays 'technological advancements' is that they aren't that.
The smart phone [some would say] is a real technological advancement. It isn't. But then it really comes down to the definition of a technological advancement.
Remember, we have had the very same desktop computer (mac, pc, amiga, smart phone, or whatever) for over 30 years - it really has not changed. Technology improvements? Yes. Advancements - real, life changing advancements? Not so much.
But then, perhaps we are exposed to so much science fiction that when a truly life-changing technology comes along, we are very much blase about it and apply it to making our facefriend.com life [sic] easier to manage.
I will agree that battery power density, while a boring theme and is a well known research paradigm, is going to be a breakthrough that will really change our lives. Incremental changes have certainly made our lives easier, but the ability to reach the energy density of natural resources like oil is a game changer.
Energy is the key to prosperity and the ability of humans to take control of their own lives. To deliberately and consciously deprive others of energy is to sentence people to a live of miserable poverty riddled with disease and death.
4 hours running visual studio 2010 on high performance, about 7 on battery saverQuote:
Originally Posted by Icyculyr
Teleportation!
Or at least a better/faster way for transportation.
Or... (something more realistic) I don't really know how to explain this, but here it goes:
An organization to search job positions in your area even if the position is taken.
In the case when person A in location A, works at location B. And Person B in location B works in location A. If those 2 ppl have the same position (programmer let's say). Then switch the job locations so that both people work in their own area.
I thought of another advancement that would change the world.
More efficient Solar panels.
If we could go from 7% to 50-90% efficient solar panels there probably wouldn't be any problems with producing energy
Will a 20 year lightbulb suffice http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17788178
"But right now, in Lafourche parish there is a monopoly in who owns the energy company. Why would I want to pay more money to the [not nice word] that own the energy company? " -- how is that relevant to batteries and more efficient means of producing energy?
"I would like a 80 year lightbulb that cost ~$1" -- right, that's going to happen. There's actually a reason why lightbulb technology hasn't really changed in the last.... oh what, 100 years or so.... there's no incentive to do so.
Same thing with battery technologies ... what incentive do they really have to create batteries that will last? They only last as long as they do because of competition. But beyond that, they're all about selling a product, and if they create something that lasts for years and years and years, they would sell less. If they sell less, then they'll have to jack up the price to make up for the loss. That's one of the reason CF bulbs and LED bulbs are more than conventional incandescent.
Besides... a well built incandescent can outlast any CF or LED - http://www.centennialbulb.org/
-tg
Well I'd like to live in a utopian society where everything is abundant and free, but here we are. Maybe you can buy the 20 year ones and inhale paint often, that way the bulb will last longer than you.
And a dog's fart produces more light than that bulb. It's not just about how long it works, it's how well it works.Quote:
Originally Posted by techgnome
I agree completely. It's a business like anything else. Why would they charge less if people are willing to pay more. Same goes for petrol prices. I wont pretend that I'm a geologist, but knowing what kind of people are behind it, I wouldn't be surprised that the petrol reserves aren't going dry (at least not as soon as they're telling us they will), but that they're just saying it to drive the prices up.
Exactly. If they came with a cheap (or at least at same cost) alternative which would be eco friendly, who'd buy all the oil. So lets first sell off the old stock, then we can sell the new stuff.
Like my amazing engine that runs on vacuum energy from an alternate dimension.
Too bad I can't say more about it, OPEC and the automotive cartel won't let me. Remember, you didn't hear about the Casimir Effect or sonoluminescence here.
No you don't. You want a light bulb that lasts as long as you need it. Two very different things.
If you really wanted something that lasts a long time, do you still have your very first cell phone? I'm sure you upgraded 'because you can' rather than because it broke [sic]. (of course, a lot of modern devices are designed to last as long as the thought of your average consumer).
Out here, we complain about the energy monopoly, too, which is kind of funny, since we have the second cheapest electricity rates in the country (behind the TVA region). We see increases, but we have a LONG ways to go to catch most of the rest of the country. That doesn't stop the complaining, though.
I switched all my lights to CF. Unfortunately, I did that before I had been in the house long enough to lay down a baseline cost, so I can't quite say how much I saved. A buddy of mine switched over after a couple years, and thinks that his electric bills were cut in half. They weren't all that high to begin with, though, so that may be a whole lot less impressive than it sounds ($20-30 a month, I think). I was thinking the other day how I haven't changed a bulb in eight years, with the exception of the two bulb-eating lights in the house, and I have pretty much figured out how to deal with them (leave out a couple bulbs).
I haven't had a reliable cell phone since my Nokia, a whole 8 years ago.
Interstellar engines. You have to be crazy if you don't want to know what mysteries lies among the stars.
Heck, I would like to see what the world is like in 200 years.
I was just driving home from Yellowstone yesterday and wondering what the place would look like in 100 years, or 200 years. Had I been there 200 years prior to yesterday (1812), I would have found no roads, few people, and everything else would have looked roughly the same (it was a good thing they built the roads to connect all those toilets). Furthermore, people of that day would have been hard pressed to imagine what I was doing and seeing. Being pessimistic about the future of the human race, I would not be at all surprised to find out that in 200 years the roads were being reclaimed by the vegetation and all the buildings were falling into disrepair.
If current trends are any indication Yellowstone will be some combination of a small theme park, overgrazed pasture, open pit mines, petroleum refineries, and industrial waste dumps.
Just saving you the trip.
http://images.pcworld.com/reviews/gr...bage_slide.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
The future: in 2030.
I was at Yosemite maybe 20-25 years ago. I went back a few years ago. It is now paved flat, with multiple car parks, and you don't need to walk far from one fast food joint to another.Quote:
Originally Posted by dilettante
While this make it' accessible' to those with possible handicaps (being fat?) what have you made accessible?
More effort should be put into making the 'handicapped' not handicapped rather than making the world conform to the handicap. On a related note, several people have died on Mt. Everest.
LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by SJWhiteley
Perhaps they didn't reach the McDonalds on the summit in time.Quote:
Originally Posted by SJWhiteley
I think the supervolcano under Yellowstone will have erupted before then, so you'll find pretty much nothing but lava flows, McDonald's and those electric chairs you have in the US for the near-terminally fat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Either one of 2 things will happen in the next 30-50 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by SJWhiteley
1) The United States of America will become the United Fatties Of America.
2) A pill or some sort of really easy to use product will come out that will take no personal effort from you, and make you lose 10 lbs a day.
3) IQ's will continue to drop, people will forget how to count, read, and speak correctly.
Hasn't #1 happened already http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity..._United_States But I guess as long as we keep seeing beautiful and thin people on TV it's OK.
Oh, and here's something serious I'd like to see as soon as possible. A toilet or plumbing system that wont use drinking water to flush our ****. I don't think anything even comes close in being such a horrible and sad waste (no pun intended).
Well, that statistic goes by a false consideration of "obese". For example, I am 5'9" and 190lbs, I am not fat, but considered "overweight". Overweight should be considered by your body fat percentage along with your height and weight, not just height and weight. Also, I know plenty of people my same height, but have 20-30 lbs on me, and still are not fat but they are "overweight".
As for the toilet water.. I do not drink tap water because there is chemicals in it that I do not approve of, chlorine being one of them. If they lowered the standards I would be even more displeased because I would be showering in poop water. If they came up with a split plumbing system that divided my drinking water from my poop and shower water, I would be fine.
wait, is obesity attracting the death penalty in the US now? Not before time, I say. I've heard that the obesity problem in the States is the reason magentic north and geographic north don't line up.Quote:
those electric chairs you have in the US for the near-terminally fat
That's the idea and these systems already exist (it's not exactly complicated to do). The problem is there's no real motivation for builders to include them in new builds and retro-fitting them is very expensive (you have to replace the whole plumbing system) so existing home owners are unlikely to adopt them. If we want to see large scale uptake of them (and I think it would be a good thing) then government is going to need to incentivise them.Quote:
If they came up with a split plumbing system that divided my drinking water from my poop and shower water, I would be fine
Unfortunately people wont do it unless they see a direct financial benefit from it. And since water is cheap, I think my water bill is about 10% of what I pay for electricity, it might not happen soon. After a few Google searches I came upon this: http://www.innerlineplumbing.com/products/sloan-aqus/ not a bad idea. I'm not sure what the cost would be of such a system.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
Just remember: The water in the tank is potable, but the water in the bowl is not.
It's a good thing to remember if you live in an area prone to being cut off from all services due to a hurricane. I remember that advice from my years in the Florida Keys.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Vw2CrY9IgsQuote:
Originally Posted by baja_yu
Libertarian extremists live pretty dog-eat-dog and often turn into fascists. In the end they're generally taken care of one way or another.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PD75cLjvRwA
Well, flushing poo with one kind of water or another doesn't really make a difference to you, so you can't compare it with having apples in a happy meal. You wont see any difference one way or the other. So I don't know why you would oppose such government imposition. Do you really need studies to tell you that flushing feces with drinkable water is a waste? A billion people in the world don't have clean drinking water and we're bathing our excrements in it.
Making (forcing) us to flush with gray water doesn't bring those without clean drinking water any closer to that reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by baja_yu
In addition, is flushing with clean, sanitary, water a problem? Is it a health risk? If it doesn't make one difference or another, why do it? Is there truly 'no burden' in actually converting to a dual water system? If so, why are we not doing it now? (I'm certain if we followed this argument it would eventually end in the Godwin-like Big Oil barrier).
Oh boy what a derail....A thread about possible shiny new tech just went down the toilet :( lol
Literally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
lol literally :eek2:
Well, that depends on the spectator. To some, a way to conserve clean drinking water is a big technological advancement, and to others it's the next iPhone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
My excrement is too righteous for simple drinking water. Before I flush, I sneak into a church to kipe enough holy water for the job at hand. I then return home, fill the reservoir with the holy water, push the lever, and exclaim......well, you know the rest.Quote:
Originally Posted by baja_yu
Where did I say this should be done because flushing with clean water is unsanitary or a health risk? You're arguing with statements that I've never made.Quote:
Originally Posted by SJWhiteley
I'm simply saying is that it's a waste of a pretty valuable resource, and that steps should be made to conserve it. I'm not advocating for a dual water system, that might in fact be the most expensive solution especially if you were to retrofit it to existing buildings.
EDIT: And you already have laws limiting the amount of water per flush to 1.6 gallons, so how would a similar (and reasonable) mandate be different? But I guess you flush twice just to spite the government.
Confining your excrement to the toilet bowl and pipes is unethical. You should be advocating for more free range excrement that would be free to roam around lush grassy fields and enjoy company of other excrement thus having a rich and fulfilled life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
I never mentioned forcing, I said incentivising. That said it would, of course, be your tax dollars paying for the incentives.Quote:
Making (forcing) us to flush with gray water doesn't bring those without clean drinking water any closer to that reality.
In addition, is flushing with clean, sanitary, water a problem? Is it a health risk? If it doesn't make one difference or another, why do it? Is there truly 'no burden' in actually converting to a dual water system? If so, why are we not doing it now? (I'm certain if we followed this argument it would eventually end in the Godwin-like Big Oil barrier).
Yes there is a burden in converting to a dual water system: The one time cost to set it up. The benefit will be a hugely decreased cost to deliver your water on an ongoing basis. Sanitising water has a high energy cost, both in financial and enviromental terms. I'm willing to bet you don't care about the latter but hopefully the former might get your attention. Further, we're reaching the point where sanitising water isn't producing enough volume and we're start to de-salinate sea water instead. That has a HUGE cost.
Ultimately, whether it's worth doing or not depends obn whether the benefit outweighs the cost. I'm willing to bet that the need to de-salinate will be the tipping point on that equation.
Just to clear up another miss-understanding. America adopting grey water won't directly help any children in Africa get clean drinking water. The benefit is in reduced costs and lessened enviromental impact. It could probably be argued the lessened enviromantal impact would indirectly help deliver clean water to Africa but it's almost impossible to prove.
No, you offered no argument at all: I was trying to determine what your argument was for government intervention beyond 'it's the right thing to do, or, as you say 'it's a waste'. Therein lies the problem: you think it's a waste, i do not. Regulating waste where no harm is done (of course that is a point for debate - which funkydexter, quite rightfully brought up; that advances the discussion) is not for one person - or a majority - to make a decision over another.Quote:
Originally Posted by baja_yu
And to follow through with my comments, flushing with used water will create unsanitary conditions - that is why we flush with sanitary (or rather 'clean') water.
The problem with government incentives is that they really don't have the effect one would think - i will concede that you didn't say 'forcing' that was my word, but it ultimately is the only effective 'incentive' the government has: you have to make something an offense. The reason it has to go this far is because the cost is extortionately high.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
It's also why we see 'incentive by law' applied to manufacturers and service providers. Two examples: it is not illegal to use 100W light bulbs, but is illegal for retailers to sell them; it is not illegal to flush more than 1.6 gallons, but it is to sell such flushing systems. While some regulation is of a reasonable cost, the increasing regulation, even at such reasonable costs gradually burdens the consumer. Wile some would say the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, the actuality is that the poor, as a group, gets larger, without any of these riches going to the rich. Their riches are maintained because the added 'cost' burdens are not an equal percentage.
We are at a point where regulation is exercised for the sake of regulation - with the associated costs - with little to no gain. To come back on-point; you cannot regulate into place technological innovations.