Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Lack of technological progress
Comments
-
Join Date:Posts: 19537
What about the big developments in medical diagnosis. Ultra sound, MRI scanners, CAT scanners, very rapid testing of bloods and many more too numerous to list here. These developments plus micro surgery have been life saving for huge numbers of people.
I do not have any of those things in my home - don't know about you.
The biggest advances currently are to do with computer power - both software and hardware - and medicine. Much of those computer based advances have transferred to medicine. Without a doubt people are surviving life threatening illness that even a decade ago the would not have.0 -
And that's where a lot of the development goes. The technological progress that happens on the production line is rapid. The end result to us might be a slightly better product that's slightly cheaper but the development that had to happen to make that happen can be pretty incredible.Sam Russell wrote: »As things become cheaper, more people can afford them.
The problem today is development is spread out, the company that makes the glue can make it's own advances, the company that makes the CNC mill makes it's own advances and the company putting all the things together makes advances. All these changes may only mean a cheaper phone with the same features as the expensive phone from the last generation to the end user but the work and technology that had to go into that was vast and on a global scale. We just don't see any of that.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19537
Well, if you look at motor cars, electric window used to be only found on the top versions of the top cars, now every car can have them. EBS brakes are now mandatory. Most of the (used to be) expensive extras are now everywhere, and no longer expensive.
Prices for technology based devices have plummeted, mainly due to China becoming a major manufacturer, but cars have continued to rise in price despite the world overproduction.
But this is all to do with price, not technology advancement.0 -
DVDs and CDs are obsolete now. Flash memory was invented in 1987 but this technology revolutionised personalised electronics, from personal audio (MP3 players ), sim cards for mobile phones and smart cards (credit cards, debit cards etc)Sam Russell wrote: »Cds were there and DVDs are just bigger capacity.
Advances in the capacity of flash memory has turned the mobile phone into a multi media device
Flash memory made digital cameras possible and analogue cameras obsolete, and with SSDs, Flash memory drives are starting to replace traditional hard drives and USB drives able to hold 2tb of data are enabling us to carry more information around on our person than anyone could have dreamt possible in the 1980s
The internet in the 1980s was nothing compared to what it is now. But even if the internet can be considered to be old tech, the methods of accessing it are new. Wifi was only invented in 1991, but not available commercially until late 1999 (it took a while to agree on the shared standards to allow various devices to communicate together)The internet was there, just not in the home.
Since then, wifi chips have become ubiquitous and have changed our relationship with the internet, and information access. If the phone is considered a seperate technology to mobile phones, the internet should be considered a seperate technology to wireless internet.
Technology isn't stalled here either. Analogue television signals are dead now, these are being broadcast as digital signals, who cares? Well, nobody yet, but soon the opening up of this spectrum will allow low cost ultra high capacity mobile broadband.
You really have to be jokingMy point is that the 'future' home predicted in the 1950s has not happened yet for most people, just a very few items, and even then they are usually very prosaic changes - less water used in the loo, for example.
If you take out the internet/TV/smart phones, there is not much else.
Right now we have the technology to do all the below:
unlimited access to all the television, music and movies ever made instantly streamed wirelessly to any room of your house
Video conferencing,
Automatic coffee makers
Flat screens on every wall of your house
Touch screen technology,
Voice controlled technology
Robotic autonomous vacuum cleaners,
robotic autonomous lawnmowers,
Video games consoles with photo realistic virtual reality built in,
fridges that can order food for you by themselves,
no iron shirts
Self cleaning windows
home climate control,
remotely controlled lights, ovens, doors (you can pre-heat your oven on the way home from work with an app on your phone)
GPS navigation
Self driving cars (tesla allow you to remotely call your car to drive itself from the garage to your front door)
Personal tablet computers
These technologies and many more are all real and exist today as opposed to being fantasies and visions of the future in the 1950s
If you took your grandparents from their home in the 1950s and brought them into a normal middle class household today, they'd be suitably impressed
never mind the industrial technology, the robots that operate in the Amazon warehouses are futuristic even by todays standards, it's amazing how advanced these are getting and most of it is happening behind closed doors0 -
But the future home from the 1950sw didn't even imagine most of the technology in the home today. They imagined we'd have a big refrigerator with switches all over it doing very basic automated tasks. they didn't really foresee mobile technology, they thought we'd all be eating food pellets rather than being able to make even the most expensive foods available to the majority of people.Sam Russell wrote: »My point is that the 'future' home predicted in the 1950s has not happened yet for most people, just a very few items, and even then they are usually very prosaic changes - less water used in the loo, for example.
The thing is technology is only half the battle, you have to figure out ways of making the technology work and being smarter in how you produce the technology. If you were to include business practices and ways of thinking our technological advances have been huge. It's not just about the actual technology but how it's changed our way of thinking.
But reducing price is done through technological advances. It involves advances at every stage of production. Better cad software means less engineers, advances happen across the board constantly.Sam Russell wrote: »But this is all to do with price, not technology advancement.0 -
But reducing price is done through technological advances. It involves advances at every stage of production. Better cad software means less engineers, advances happen across the board constantly.
Exactly, even something really simple like spreadsheets that everyone takes for granted.
Before Spreadsheets paperwork was stored in binders in filing cabinets. you needed an army of clerks to process basic accounting and logistical tasks like ordering stock, dispaching orders etc.
The earliest spreadsheets, lotus 123 and Visicalc had row limits of 8192 rows per sheet
The first versions of excel had a maximum number of rows per sheet of 16,384
From Excel 1997 to Excel 2007, this row limit changed to 65,536
From 2007 to current versions, the limit is 1,048,576 rows per sheet
This is one simple example of how better technology makes business more efficient. It is much easier to manage data on a single sheet compared with multiple sheets in multiple folders. It could take much longer to do the same exact admin task in 1997 compared with 2007. This is before we even talk about all the additional formating and automation features that are possible with modern spreadsheets that weren't available before. 'Shared worksheets' used to be saving it on a floppy and handing it to a colleague so they could work on it.
Logistics and accounting are a huge part of production0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19537
DVDs and CDs are obsolete now. Flash memory was invented in 1987 but this technology revolutionised personalised electronics, from personal audio (MP3 players ), sim cards for mobile phones and smart cards (credit cards, debit cards etc)
Advances in the capacity of flash memory has turned the mobile phone into a multi media device
Flash memory made digital cameras possible and analogue cameras obsolete, and with SSDs, Flash memory drives are starting to replace traditional hard drives and USB drives able to hold 2tb of data are enabling us to carry more information around on our person than anyone could have dreamt possible in the 1980s
The internet in the 1980s was nothing compared to what it is now. But even if the internet can be considered to be old tech, the methods of accessing it are new. Wifi was only invented in 1991, but not available commercially until late 1999 (it took a while to agree on the shared standards to allow various devices to communicate together)
Since then, wifi chips have become ubiquitous and have changed our relationship with the internet, and information access. If the phone is considered a seperate technology to mobile phones, the internet should be considered a seperate technology to wireless internet.
Technology isn't stalled here either. Analogue television signals are dead now, these are being broadcast as digital signals, who cares? Well, nobody yet, but soon the opening up of this spectrum will allow low cost ultra high capacity mobile broadband.
You really have to be joking
Right now we have the technology to do all the below:
unlimited access to all the television, music and movies ever made instantly streamed wirelessly to any room of your house
Video conferencing,
Automatic coffee makers
Flat screens on every wall of your house
Touch screen technology,
Voice controlled technology
Robotic autonomous vacuum cleaners,
robotic autonomous lawnmowers,
Video games consoles with photo realistic virtual reality built in,
fridges that can order food for you by themselves,
no iron shirts
Self cleaning windows
home climate control,
remotely controlled lights, ovens, doors (you can pre-heat your oven on the way home from work with an app on your phone)
GPS navigation
Self driving cars (tesla allow you to remotely call your car to drive itself from the garage to your front door)
Personal tablet computers
These technologies and many more are all real and exist today as opposed to being fantasies and visions of the future in the 1950s
If you took your grandparents from their home in the 1950s and brought them into a normal middle class household today, they'd be suitably impressed
never mind the industrial technology, the robots that operate in the Amazon warehouses are futuristic even by todays standards, it's amazing how advanced these are getting and most of it is happening behind closed doors
Yes, all of that is possible now, but very little of it was predicted in the 1950s, or even dreamed of in the wildest dreams of the time. Many of the predictions, such as everyday space travel, or other fancies just never happened.
I remember listening to a BBC Radio 4 programme about Milton Keynes, a new town started in the 1960s. In it, they said all houses built in Milton Keynes had to have enough room for a yacht. Not that they expected many to actually have a yacht, it was just they expected that hobbies would require that amount of space, and by the year 2000, people would have so much leisure time, they would need a hobby. However, the complaint now (after the year 2000) that people in work do not have any time for hobbies, and everyone has to work.
Advances in technology are there and continuing apace, but they are unpredictable and do not benefit everyone. Some advances have changed the way we live and some have not improved life at all. There is less quality TV than 30 or 40 years ago, but there is a lot more of it.0 -
I guess the problem for people in the 1950s was that all this stuff was new. They had no idea where it would go and just went with the popular themes of the time. The space race seemed like the way the human race would go, but technology as a whole wasn't in a position to take advantage of space. They needed to find a customer before you can start selling space.Sam Russell wrote: »Yes, all of that is possible now, but very little of it was predicted in the 1950s, or even dreamed of in the wildest dreams of the time. Many of the predictions, such as everyday space travel, or other fancies just never happened.
When it comes to leisure time, if we wanted the lifestyle of someone in the 1950s we could be at home, but the fact is the economy kind of forced us to stay at work and use our new found time to make more products in the same amount of time, increasing profits. The achilles heal of mass production is that you need to mass produce. You reduce the cost of your production by making more products in the same amount of work hours, so you can't just produce the same amount and go home or you're not reducing the cost, your labour costs are still the same..0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19537
I guess the problem for people in the 1950s was that all this stuff was new. They had no idea where it would go and just went with the popular themes of the time. The space race seemed like the way the human race would go, but technology as a whole wasn't in a position to take advantage of space. They needed to find a customer before you can start selling space.
When it comes to leisure time, if we wanted the lifestyle of someone in the 1950s we could be at home, but the fact is the economy kind of forced us to stay at work and use our new found time to make more products in the same amount of time, increasing profits. The achilles heal of mass production is that you need to mass produce. You reduce the cost of your production by making more products in the same amount of work hours, so you can't just produce the same amount and go home or you're not reducing the cost, your labour costs are still the same..
Exactly.
We have used extra production as if it was an increase in wealth, when in fact it meant an increase in work to pay for the extra product. Since the second world war, Governments have increased public debt to pay for increased social security. The private individual has increased private debt to pay for housing, and buying new (sometimes unnecessary replacement) products.
If car manufacturers had produced better cars in the 60s and 70s - cars that could be repaired easily, with sustainable (rust-free) structure, these would not have been scrapped so quickly. Scrapping them led to a significant loss of wealth.
Companies that used to employ thousands of employees now produce more with hundreds of employees. Many people spend their working day looking at a computer screen. This is what technical advance has led to - greater debt and boring work.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Debt isn't all bad though, nobody's forced anybody into debt, we all have the option to do without. Banks being able to loan people and businesses money has allowed for rapid development too. It allows the likes of poorer countries to borrow so they can invest in infrastructure that allows them to build industry and increase the wealth of the country.Sam Russell wrote: »Exactly.
We have used extra production as if it was an increase in wealth, when in fact it meant an increase in work to pay for the extra product. Since the second world war, Governments have increased public debt to pay for increased social security. The private individual has increased private debt to pay for housing, and buying new (sometimes unnecessary replacement) products.
When you give people the option to buy now and let the product pay for itself over it's lifetime, they'll take that over being left behind while they save up to buy the machine they need. Not so much applicable to an end consumer that just buys shiny things but to a business or country it allows them to be competitive without being cash rich.
It's not all bad and while banks have lapsed on their responsibility to ensure they can afford their loans numerous times, it's ultimately the person or institution getting the loan to decide whether they can realistically pay back the loan. Some people do gamble with loans but for the most part loans are an integral part of business today and the world wouldn't be operating at the rate it is without them. In reality loans can stop monopolies from happening because if there's an opportunity for someone to undercut the major players it's an easy opportunity to take advantage of because of loans.
I'm no fan of the current banking system, but it is the best system we've had to date when you put it in the context of the rapid development that's happened thanks to easy access to money.
But that would be stagnation, development in cars would grind to a halt. We have an over romanticised view of products in the past, cars from the 60s and 70s were terrible in many, many ways. They broke down constantly, were extremely dangerous and very fuel inefficient.If car manufacturers had produced better cars in the 60s and 70s - cars that could be repaired easily, with sustainable (rust-free) structure, these would not have been scrapped so quickly. Scrapping them led to a significant loss of wealth.
People get in debt because they buy stuff on credit. You're work day doesn't really cost you more today, your food is a smaller percentage of your wages and your car is more efficient. New costs have come in but on the basic parameter of the percentage of your wages that go towards buying and fueling a car could well be lower.Companies that used to employ thousands of employees now produce more with hundreds of employees. Many people spend their working day looking at a computer screen. This is what technical advance has led to - greater debt and boring work.
I'm sure if our grandfathers that toiled away in dangerous factories or on the land could see us in front of our computers they'd swap jobs instantly. They probably did work much longer hours for a smaller wage and had less stuff to spend their money on.0 -
What is scary is that in a recent study it was found that in 15 years up to 50% of the jobs in the labour market in the United States can be done by computer and with companies striving to make bigger profits you can see where thats heading. Also with the advent of 3D printing could also destroy a lot of manufacturing jobs.0
-
Join Date:Posts: 19537
Debt isn't all bad though, nobody's forced anybody into debt, we all have the option to do without. Banks being able to loan people and businesses money has allowed for rapid development too. It allows the likes of poorer countries to borrow so they can invest in infrastructure that allows them to build industry and increase the wealth of the country.
Tell that to the Greeks - or even us. We as a nation were forced by the ECB to take on the massive debts of the banks. We were instructed how to cut our budgets and deny people medical care and living expenses to repay that debt to bondholders - who were originally other European banks.
Every country in Europe with very few exceptions (I think Luxembourg) are in continually rising National debt, year on year. Only rising GNP has kept the boats afloat. Luxembourg are very flexible when it comes to taxation of large companies.
I agree that poorer countries need to borrow, but mainly because multinational companies do not pay their taxes - and certainly not in third world countries.0 -
I don't think there will be any more significant technological progress and we won't be able to sustain this type of technologically advanced society due to depleting resources. Reversion to a more primitive society, perhaps at an 18th century level of technology is a possibility. Certainly the space program is unsustainable. The cost and difficulty to put up the ISS for example is prohibitive and would probably dissuade future attempts. Beyond exploring a few planets in the solar system, which has been completed, there really is no point in space exploration, there are too many impositions against it with regards to distances, radiation, weight, fuel etc.0
-
Join Date:Posts: 19537
Google is perhaps the greatest technological advance in the last twenty years. How could there not be another one in the next twenty years?
We have medical advances to look forward to, software and hardware developments as well - any of which could be world changing.
Maybe even nuclear fusion.:)0 -
Advertisement
-
I don't see how we could revert just because resources run low. We won't just forget what we know. The fact is while the resources we're dependant on now are becoming financially less viable we do have many more waiting in the wings to take their place. Electric cars are quickly becoming as good as petrol, in some cases they're already much better. It's just petrol is cheap and easy, I think we'll switch to electric before fuel runs out but even if the fuel did run out we have alternative transport it just needs a slightly more developed infrastructure to support it. Fossil fuels aren't the be all and end all of energy, they're just convenient.nyarlothothep wrote: »I don't think there will be any more significant technological progress and we won't be able to sustain this type of technologically advanced society due to depleting resources. Reversion to a more primitive society, perhaps at an 18th century level of technology is a possibility.
Space isn't unsustainable, there are more resources floating around space than we would know what to do with. Part of the problem for NASA is they don't have the budget to innovate like they did in the past, they're reusing a lot of old ideas to keep costs down. But we can now see that private companies are quickly taking up the slack and making space flight much more economical. Another part of the problem with moving into space is that our economy probably isn't going to work up there. With many minerals becoming almost infinitely abundant pretty much everything will become worthless.Certainly the space program is unsustainable. The cost and difficulty to put up the ISS for example is prohibitive and would probably dissuade future attempts. Beyond exploring a few planets in the solar system, which has been completed, there really is no point in space exploration, there are too many impositions against it with regards to distances, radiation, weight, fuel etc.
I don't think there's any resource that we're lacking that would prevent us from continuing to explore space in the future. The new materials and technology we're coming up with today will make space travel much easier in the future. I do see us colonising the rest of our solar system, probably won't be going much further than that for a while but our solar system is doable.
If you look at modern society we're actually preparing for life in space. Recycling, energy efficiency, redundant systems will all be crucial to living in space. The population of earth will get to the stage where we might as well be living on a managed space ship and I think we will be forced into space.0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,550 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 90788
Not a chance.nyarlothothep wrote: »I don't think there will be any more significant technological progress and we won't be able to sustain this type of technologically advanced society due to depleting resources. Reversion to a more primitive society, perhaps at an 18th century level of technology is a possibility.
Things like bicycles and toilets and water treatment plants and hygiene are all kinda handy as are sticky plasters. Reversion is unlikely.
Yes we need more recycling and a move away from asset stripping natural resources. But solar and wind energy are here to stay as is hydro. But stuff like better public transport, better insulation , longer lasting products and cutting back hard could give most of us a lifestyle only available to the rich from previous generations. Private cars weren't that common in the past. Even today most people in Ireland don't own cars.
OK two different things here.Certainly the space program is unsustainable. The cost and difficulty to put up the ISS for example is prohibitive and would probably dissuade future attempts. Beyond exploring a few planets in the solar system, which has been completed, there really is no point in space exploration, there are too many impositions against it with regards to distances, radiation, weight, fuel etc.
Yeah the ISS is a complete money pit. Excluding govt contracts the amount of commercial money invested in science on the ISS is negligible.
Another money pit is the USA re-inventing spacecraft. SLS is re-inventing flight proven Shuttle components. ULA is busy replacing all their Soviet gear and not too proud to use ESA's orbital modules.
The other side is that as a species we have to expand beyond this planet or face extinction.
Regarding cost. India got to Mars for less than Disney lost on John Carter. It was less than Disney lost on Mars Needs Moms. For surveying the Earth or for telecoms satellite can be very very cost effective.0 -
nyarlothothep wrote: »It all seems so lacklustre, instead of actual cool technologies we seem to be living in an era of gimmick tech. Has the low hanging fruit been harvested? Discuss.
Ive often thought along similar lines. 2 things come to mind.
1) Silicon Valley the home of techonology, California home to the best universitys, various aerospace industrys etc etc, ... currently baking and dying on its feet from thirst.
I guess they are working on an APP for this or maybe Google or Facebook have some plans on how to monetize water and send it over wifi... anyways my point is California dried out while technology fiddled...
2) In the early 60s, James Lovelock (founder of the GAIA and earth warrior) was working at NASA and discussing what directions to follow with Carl Sagan. Now Lovelock was a serious engineer in his own right, he had developed the first microwave as a pet project and NASA had a great future mapped out for him. Basically he felt there wasnt much of interest on any of the planetary objects that were close to Earth, he felt it was a waste of money to send expensive probes out. He felt we should be spending the money on earth and examining, understanding how it worked and caring for it. Sagan disagreed as did NASA, so they all parted ways. And we all know how things have worked out since
Lovelock took up the challenge of promoting care for the Earth, spent his life on teh fringes and looked on as a crank or weirdo and Sagan and NASA went onto great fame in hollywood and we have probes in space that can tell us how fast we are destroying our own planet.
On the other hand all credit to some of the advancements that have been listed earlier in the thread.0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,550 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 90788
Some stats say that agriculture uses 80% of the water. If they had the same restrictions as everyone else then that would have saved more than everyone else used to use. Other stats say otherwise. Also re agriculture IIRC pays less for water than other consumers in Calif.Colonialboy wrote: »Ive often thought along similar lines. 2 things come to mind.
1) Silicon Valley the home of techonology, California home to the best universitys, various aerospace industrys etc etc, ... currently baking and dying on its feet from thirst.
I guess they are working on an APP for this or maybe Google or Facebook have some plans on how to monetize water and send it over wifi... anyways my point is California dried out while technology fiddled...
You only have to look at what diverting water from two rivers with a combined flow of the Nile to grow cotton in a desert has done to the Aral sea to recognise that unsustainable is unsustainable.
Then again a lot of these problems aren't technical. It's political agri-business stuff. There's no point in spending a lot on tech to reduce water demand only to subsidise a commercial interest that couldn't afford the water otherwise.
In China they are diverting a lot of water northwards when moving the food would be easier. Globally the Saudai's and India are buying up land in Africa because importing the food is cheaper than irrigation back home.0 -
Capt'n Midnight wrote: »Some stats say that agriculture uses 80% of the water. If they had the same restrictions as everyone else then that would have saved more than everyone else used to use. Other stats say otherwise. Also re agriculture IIRC pays less for water than other consumers in Calif.
You only have to look at what diverting water from two rivers with a combined flow of the Nile to grow cotton in a desert has done to the Aral sea to recognise that unsustainable is unsustainable.
Then again a lot of these problems aren't technical. It's political agri-business stuff. There's no point in spending a lot on tech to reduce water demand only to subsidise a commercial interest that couldn't afford the water otherwise.
In China they are diverting a lot of water northwards when moving the food would be easier. Globally the Saudai's and India are buying up land in Africa because importing the food is cheaper than irrigation back home.
We seem to have gotten bogged down in a water debate.
Everything is connected.
good points, its a web of interconnected issues, as you say technical, geo political, social, economic. one might even use the term a 'complex web' , and we all know you need smart people to untangle a complex web.
But I think we have made alot of bad turns along the way.
And given that technology is supposedly full of the most intelligent people, who can absorb and analyse things on many levels (supposedly) shouldnt they have seen all the traps laid by politicians and the money men, I would have liked to see technology (on a massive scale) follow societys 'needs' and not the money.0 -
Advertisement
-
Society does announce its needs (and wants) through the pursuit of money. Companies don't really make a product and then try and force people to buy that product. Companies generally meet the demand of people.Colonialboy wrote: »And given that technology is supposedly full of the most intelligent people, who can absorb and analyse things on many levels (supposedly) shouldnt they have seen all the traps laid by politicians and the money men, I would have liked to see technology (on a massive scale) follow societys 'needs' and not the money.
I think the global economy over the last few decades has given us unparalleled technological advancements that normally only happened in wars. Technology itself has become almost like an evolving organism and people have become unwitting biological influences on the system. The constant battle between software engineers and system cracker/hackers is acting like the battle between diseases and organisms immune systems helping to improve the robustness of potential AI in the future.
We might only notice big features in our new technology, like faster processors or higher resolutions but that's only surface technology it probably only makes up a tiny percentage of the work that goes into a new device.0 -
Society does announce its needs (and wants) through the pursuit of money. Companies don't really make a product and then try and force people to buy that product. Companies generally meet the demand of people.
so what your saying is technology services the lowest common denominator ...
You seem to be mixing societys "needs and wants" into your point just to add some validation to it.
As I said I would have liked to see technology (on a massive scale) follow societys 'needs' and not the money.
"Companies don't really make a product and then try and force people to buy that product"" ... ahem cough cough ..... ADVERTISING, MAD MEN, MARKETING, TVC, THE SHOPPING CHANNEL, 4AM PURCHASES OF MIRACLE HAIR RESTORER ....0 -
Colonialboy wrote: »so what your saying is technology services the lowest common denominator ...
You seem to be mixing societys "needs and wants" into your point just to add some validation to it.
As I said I would have liked to see technology (on a massive scale) follow societys 'needs' and not the money.
"Companies don't really make a product and then try and force people to buy that product"" ... ahem cough cough ..... ADVERTISING, MAD MEN, MARKETING, TVC, THE SHOPPING CHANNEL, 4AM PURCHASES OF MIRACLE HAIR RESTORER ....
Its called retail therapy, people buying stuff they dont actually need. Which is where a lot of the tech advances go into these days.0 -
Let’s make Britain wild again and find ourselves in nature
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/16/britain-wild-nature-rewilding-ecosystems-heal-lives?CMP=fb_gu
Rewilding – the mass restoration of ecosystems – can heal not only the living world, but much that is missing in our own lives
.....
dont worry in a few years our house Robot that wipes our bum after we poop will develop his own AI own, will look with pity on our technology filled lives and will say 'Master... you should plant some trees and get back to nature ' ... and the technocrats will tell us all ..."now you see the benefits of technology we could never have figured that out for ourselves'
but having said that technology has done alot of good for modern life... you sees everythings connected0 -
I get the distinct impression from reading through this thread that there is a popular belief in so-called Eureka moments, when flashes of genius result in the conception of a whole new technology. The truth is that such events are extremely rare – most technological advances are incremental, heavily based on what went before.0
-
Join Date:Posts: 19537
I get the distinct impression from reading through this thread that there is a popular belief in so-called Eureka moments, when flashes of genius result in the conception of a whole new technology. The truth is that such events are extremely rare – most technological advances are incremental, heavily based on what went before.
The Victorians believed in Eureka moments but following the discovery that if you employ people to invent thing, they invent things. It is called industrial research. Also large groups of researchers are more productive at invention than the same number in smaller groups tend to be.
The Eureka moments come when something unusual is noticed. For example, the guy that noticed that the marsbar melted in his pocket when he walked close to the microwave aerial and so invented the microwave oven. [It needed a lot of industrial research to turn the idea into a product].
Other progress comes from stretching existing applications to new areas. For a long time the laser was a solution looking for a problem to solve.0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,550 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 90788
Most "inventions" are developments that take place as new materials / technologies become available.I get the distinct impression from reading through this thread that there is a popular belief in so-called Eureka moments, when flashes of genius result in the conception of a whole new technology. The truth is that such events are extremely rare – most technological advances are incremental, heavily based on what went before.
Konrad Zuse invented the computer. It's an example of something that would be invented/discovered anyway since all the basics were there.
It's like the printing press depended on cheap paper which was only available when people were rich enough that clothes rags became available. Also spectacles were new so it was worth learning to read because you could be still be able to later in life. It's not so much that the printing press was invented but that the conditions and economics were in place.0 -
I'm disappointed that we don't have antimatter engines or a dedicated Mars program with a clear vision. Nasa's Orion is a neat idea in terms of its flexibility (adding modules and tech over time) but there's no way they're getting to Mars with chemical rockets. There was talk of antimatter engines 9 years ago but I see nothing! Not only that why aren't they thinking about how to generate artificial gravity. The reality of the Mars mission at this current stage demonstrates how technologically unadvanced we are.0
-
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,550 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 90788
Antimatter at best is just an energy store. We can make antimatter in CERN so a total of about 60 nanograms has been made. About 240 Watt hours so the equivalent of 5c worth of electricity. Of course none of that has been stored.nyarlothothep wrote: »I'm disappointed that we don't have antimatter engines or a dedicated Mars program with a clear vision. Nasa's Orion is a neat idea in terms of its flexibility (adding modules and tech over time) but there's no way they're getting to Mars with chemical rockets. There was talk of antimatter engines 9 years ago but I see nothing! Not only that why aren't they thinking about how to generate artificial gravity. The reality of the Mars mission at this current stage demonstrates how technologically unadvanced we are.
If you leave out SpaceX then you've got a lot of re-inventing the wheel in the US space industry these days. The Orion service module is being built in Italy because it's a re-badged ATV that ESA used to send to the ISS. Orion is both heavier and smaller inside than Soyuz or Shenzhou. Orion will use the same heat shield technology as Apollo. India had a crew capsule re-entry test last year and they aren't throwing anything like the same sort of money at it. SLS is another gigantic money pit re-inventing flight proven technology.
If the political climate was different you could dust down the plans for Energia , you could even invest a few shekels into re-usable flyaway boosters for it.0 -
Well that just confirms how meh Orion is. I kind of want to believe in it but as you say, it's smaller, based off an old design and could be built cheaper. The shuttle program was more inspiring as it felt like they were really building a proper spacecraft. I think though the glacial pace of space technological progress is attributable to the fact that it's just too hard to figure out how to create a sustainable environment in space whilst travering vast (on our scale) distances. It's like an arena of technology that's millenia outside our current knowledge and we've mostly got a pseudo version of real space exploration. It may be that we are forever destined to be earth bound, the technological challenges may be too great and if we can't figure out ftl, if indeed it's at all possible then it renders space exploration rather moot.0
-
Advertisement
-
I've been reading through this thread and there are several references to AI. The most important thing to appreciate about AI is the A part. Artificial means that it just looks like intelligence, but it is not.
No machine has yet been devised that can think abstractly. Every AI device has to be precisely instructed as to what it does. There is no fundamental difference between the AI devices of today and the Jacquard looms which were invented in the early 19th century.
Sometimes what looks like dramatic technological progress is no more than refinement of existing technology. There is no real step change involved. Motor cars today look very different to the cars of 100 years ago but the power source, the internal combustion engine, has not really changed at all since its invention.0 -
But I've read that AI research is increasingly encompassing neuroscience as well. Unlike the internal combustion engine, there is a drive to understand what sentience is and to replicate it through non-biological means, therefore artificial. I think when AI comes into being it must be accompanied by an AI rights movement. What happened to hitchbot was typical of the lowest human behaviour and I can see us enslaving machines which will be morally wrong as we have no right to hold an equivalent if not superior sentient race in subjegation. We will be obliged to treat the first real AI as a lifeform with the same rights as humans as it will sentient just like us if not moreso assuming it's able to evolve at a faster rate.0
-
Join Date:Posts: 19537
I've been reading through this thread and there are several references to AI. The most important thing to appreciate about AI is the A part. Artificial means that it just looks like intelligence, but it is not.
No machine has yet been devised that can think abstractly. Every AI device has to be precisely instructed as to what it does. There is no fundamental difference between the AI devices of today and the Jacquard looms which were invented in the early 19th century.
Sometimes what looks like dramatic technological progress is no more than refinement of existing technology. There is no real step change involved. Motor cars today look very different to the cars of 100 years ago but the power source, the internal combustion engine, has not really changed at all since its invention.
Have you looked at a Tesla car? No internal combustion engine there!
Have you looked at Google and how it can search and find in next to no time answers to the most bizarre request. Remarkable. No jacquard loom technology there!
Sometimes when you look out of the window, you realise how far you have travelled.0 -
Sam Russell wrote: »Have you looked at a Tesla car? No internal combustion engine there!
Have you looked at Google and how it can search and find in next to no time answers to the most bizarre request. Remarkable. No jacquard loom technology there!
Sometimes when you look out of the window, you realise how far you have travelled.
Tesla is a car powered by electric motors. Electric cars pre dated the ICE car and were in use in the 1880s.
Google is facilitated by computers, which were first designed conceptually by Charles Babbage in the 1820s as mechanical, rather than electronic, devices. But the principles are still the same.
Sometimes, when you look 'under the bonnet', you realise how short a distance you have come.!0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19537
Tesla is a car powered by electric motors. Electric cars pre dated the ICE car and were in use in the 1880s.
Google is facilitated by computers, which were first designed conceptually by Charles Babbage in the 1820s as mechanical, rather than electronic, devices. But the principles are still the same.
Sometimes, when you look 'under the bonnet', you realise how short a distance you have come.!
The magic of the Tesla is not the electric motor but the battery. It uses mobile phone batteries by the thousand, and it is this that allows it to be recharged quickly. Rockets were first used by the Chinese eons ago so space travel is not new by that measure - but it is.
Technical advance comes from using old technologies in new combinations.
As for Babbage, he was just extending the abacus.:) And his never worked.0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,550 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 90788
Yes it's the batteries. Electric cars held the landspeed record at one stage.Sam Russell wrote: »The magic of the Tesla is not the electric motor but the battery. It uses mobile phone batteries by the thousand, and it is this that allows it to be recharged quickly.
If we had cheap batteries renewable energy would wipe out nuclear and coal.
If we had cheap and light batteries then the internal combustion engine would become obsolete.
If they were cheap and light enough then even jet engines would be under threat for subsonic flight, the power per Kg is comparable. An electric motor bypasses the Carnot cycle and so would need only need half the energy to do the same job. It's really a case of whether we could build something like a methanol fuel cell cheap and light and efficient enough to off set the greater energy density of jet fuel.
The step changes were high energy liquid oxidisers, better materials and design, and better maths.Rockets were first used by the Chinese eons ago so space travel is not new by that measure - but it is.
For example the German V2 had internal tanks, since then tanks have been an integral part of the structure to save weight. The fuel was also 20% water to keep the temperature down. And the rocket motor didn't swivel , just used inefficient vanes.
The space shuttle external tanks was lightened by about a third by new materials and technology over time.Technical advance comes from using old technologies in new combinations.
As for Babbage, he was just extending the abacus.:) And his never worked.
A lot of technological advance comes from new uses for old tech, refreshing old tech with new materials, and more people being able to afford tech. The telephone answering machine wasn't popular until the 1960's because of a combination of affordability and need. Before then the devices were too expensive for mass market and besides one's valet could be relied upon to take messages.
Babbage wasn't the only one building mechanical computers. Indeed I'd argue that the modern computer was' discovered' rather than invented. Konrad Zuse developed pretty much everything on his own, Turing complete computer and high level language. He didn't use valves. In fact the main trick to the modern electronic computer was the realisation that a binary computer could be made with valves running at power levels below those suitable for traditional analog uses.
Google Percy Ludgate
http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/research/pubs/articles/papers/390.pdf0 -
I was talking to a physicist friend who said that we're entering a new period of technological stagnation after the industrial and communication revolutions. I dare say he may have a point, what maketh you all of it?0
-
Your friend is not paying much attention to the world of biology. For example:nyarlothothep wrote: »I was talking to a physicist friend who said that we're entering a new period of technological stagnation after the industrial and communication revolutions. I dare say he may have a point, what maketh you all of it?
http://www.nature.com/news/biohackers-gear-up-for-genome-editing-1.182360 -
Your friend is not paying much attention to the world of biology. For example:
http://www.nature.com/news/biohackers-gear-up-for-genome-editing-1.18236
That's pretty cool and might go somewhere intersting in the future. We were talking about tech in the context of the utterly pitiful amount of progress in space tech. I should inquire further, I think we're going through an information revolution, similar to the invention of the printing press which may set the stage for another revolution that parallels the industrial one.0 -
Advertisement
-
That's just one example. There are a whole range of technological innovations that have emerged in the field of biology, even in just the last 10 years, that is rapidly changing our understanding of how cells and organisms function.nyarlothothep wrote: »That's pretty cool and might go somewhere intersting in the future.
Yeah, fair point. Collaboration is now possible on scales unimaginable in the past.nyarlothothep wrote: »...I think we're going through an information revolution, similar to the invention of the printing press which may set the stage for another revolution that parallels the industrial one.0 -
I have a question about radio/laser signals that the new search for alien life project is meant to uncover. Would it be possible if we did find an alien signal, to decode it? I mean in the sense of say we find a radio signal, would we be able to recompile it and watch alien tv? In other words a window onto a distant world?0
-
Only reading this thread now. WaitButWhy has some great recent articles on several of the topics mentioned earlier:
They're all long reads (the SpaceX/Mars one is very long) but well written, entertaining, and definitely worth the time of anyone following this discussion.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19537
nyarlothothep wrote: »I have a question about radio/laser signals that the new search for alien life project is meant to uncover. Would it be possible if we did find an alien signal, to decode it? I mean in the sense of say we find a radio signal, would we be able to recompile it and watch alien tv? In other words a window onto a distant world?
Think of it the other way.
For alien intelligence to receive our 'intelligent' radio transmissions, they would be unable to receive them for a while because we have only discovered radio recently (well in cosmic terms). That is, they would need to be nearer than 100 light years.
For intelligent alien life forms to exist currently, and within communicable distance, and be of a mind to be bothered communicating, well that would indeed be an unlikely event.
I do not think it is likely at all.0 -
Sam Russell wrote: »Think of it the other way.
For alien intelligence to receive our 'intelligent' radio transmissions, they would be unable to receive them for a while because we have only discovered radio recently (well in cosmic terms). That is, they would need to be nearer than 100 light years.
For intelligent alien life forms to exist currently, and within communicable distance, and be of a mind to be bothered communicating, well that would indeed be an unlikely event.
I do not think it is likely at all.
But would it be possible to reconstruct a 1000 year old alien tv signal for example? I'm not talking about communication, just knowledge of another civilisation.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19537
nyarlothothep wrote: »But would it be possible to reconstruct a 1000 year old alien tv signal for example? I'm not talking about communication, just knowledge of another civilisation.
It is hard enough receiving a signal from Divis at a distance of 100 km, so what chance at a few light years? I doubt that intelligent life forms would watch TV anyway.0 -
Advertisement
-
Sam Russell wrote: »It is hard enough receiving a signal from Divis at a distance of 100 km, so what chance at a few light years? I doubt that intelligent life forms would watch TV anyway.
Why did we send out that message to Alpha Centauri if the signal is going to be so degraded? Would laser communication experience similar signal degradation problems? I would hold the other view, that there is probably more than likely some sort of convergence with intelligent life and imaginative worlds/communication through audiovisual means would be expected.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19537
nyarlothothep wrote: »Why did we send out that message to Alpha Centauri if the signal is going to be so degraded? Would laser communication experience similar signal degradation problems? I would hold the other view, that there is probably more than likely some sort of convergence with intelligent life and imaginative worlds/communication through audiovisual means would be expected.
Look at the speed our communication technology has moved in the last 150 years out of the last 150 million years. We have moved from horse drawn carriages to rocket ships, from semaphore flags to fibre based gigabits/s digital communications. Is it likely that alien civilisations would be at the exact level of development that we are at? Then take into account the distance and time taken to communicate. Whether they are there or not does not matter because we will never meet or greet them.0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,550 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 90788
Probably not.nyarlothothep wrote: »I have a question about radio/laser signals that the new search for alien life project is meant to uncover. Would it be possible if we did find an alien signal, to decode it? I mean in the sense of say we find a radio signal, would we be able to recompile it and watch alien tv? In other words a window onto a distant world?
First of all there's the digital cliff. With analog signals TV signals for example even if the reception is poor you could pick up fuzzy monochrome pictures or fuzzy sound. ET might take a while to figure out NICAD stereo or the colour, but video is very easy to figure out what with all the synch pulses to tell you when to start a new line or new picture regardless of which PAL / NTSC / SECAM you use.
For digital even if you know how to detect and demodulate the signal and know which error correction to use all you'll end up is a stream of data. BTW US, Japan, and the rest of the world use totally incompatible systems. ( technically we use somethYou'd still have to decode the compressed stream then extract the data, and good luck if it's encrypted. Power is is vastly reduced compared to analog systems.
And then there's frequency reuse, Saorsat uses a spot beam and you can pick it up all over Ireland. Go to Wales and apart from the very western extremities you won't pick up anything due to interference from a spot beam for France.0 -
Capt'n Midnight wrote: »Probably not.
First of all there's the digital cliff. With analog signals TV signals for example even if the reception is poor you could pick up fuzzy monochrome pictures or fuzzy sound. ET might take a while to figure out NICAD stereo or the colour, but video is very easy to figure out what with all the synch pulses to tell you when to start a new line or new picture regardless of which PAL / NTSC / SECAM you use.
For digital even if you know how to detect and demodulate the signal and know which error correction to use all you'll end up is a stream of data. BTW US, Japan, and the rest of the world use totally incompatible systems. ( technically we use somethYou'd still have to decode the compressed stream then extract the data, and good luck if it's encrypted. Power is is vastly reduced compared to analog systems.
And then there's frequency reuse, Saorsat uses a spot beam and you can pick it up all over Ireland. Go to Wales and apart from the very western extremities you won't pick up anything due to interference from a spot beam for France.
So if you picked up an alien analogue signal it might be possible to decode it but not likely if there was interference from other sources? What's the point of SETI or that new project funded by the Russian dude if the signals get scrambled?0 -
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,550 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 90788
It's just to pick up new signals.nyarlothothep wrote: »So if you picked up an alien analogue signal it might be possible to decode it but not likely if there was interference from other sources? What's the point of SETI or that new project funded by the Russian dude if the signals get scrambled?
For example we are chucking out lots of power on 50Hz and 60 Hz mains, and radar. No information carried but would stick out on a frequency analyser. Analog radio is being phased out, so just the FM stations left. DAB uses lower power.
Dispersion is another effect that will smear out the information in a signal.
If you set up a licensed radio link here you aren't allowed more excess power than necessary to get through rain fade. The days when people could pickup Band I BBC TV in South Africa are long gone.0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement