Things that should be here technologically already/Technology suppression

IvaBigWun · 14-08-2014 11:38PM #1

If we can send man to the moon and and un-manned missions to Mars why cant we fully charge a smartphone in 60 seconds or a Tablet in 2 minutes?

Ive a funny feeling Apple already have the capability to give us the specs of the iPhone 10 tomorrow, but that would get in the way of things like making money

What are some of the things that you think should be here technologically already and what technology do you think is suppressed?

wretcheddomain · 14-08-2014 11:40PM

IvaBigWun wrote: »

If we can send man to the moon and and un-manned missions to Mars why cant we fully charge a smartphone in 60 seconds or a Tablet in 2 minutes?

I'd like to know why they haven't sent a woman to the moon yet, specifically Linda Martin.

darkpagandeath · 14-08-2014 11:40PM

IvaBigWun wrote: »

If we can send man to the moon and and un-manned missions to Mars why cant we fully charge a smartphone in 60 seconds or a Tablet in 2 minutes?

Ive a funny feeling Apple already have the capability to give us the specs of the iPhone 10 tomorrow, but that would get in the way of things like mmaking money

What are some of the things that you think should be here technologically already and what technology do you think is suppressed?

Laws of physics/thermodynamics ? No superconductor works at room temperatures. Well yet.

The_Valeyard · 14-08-2014 11:44PM

Screw that,
Bring on Replicator technology.

bleg · 14-08-2014 11:44PM

Spellcheck.

Tail Docker · 14-08-2014 11:45PM

A car that does 200 mpg. Where's the profit in that? Going by the computer industry, we should have cars that cost €3000 and do that mileage in their sleep.

dxhound2005 · 14-08-2014 11:45PM

IvaBigWun wrote: »

If we can send man to the moon and and un-manned missions to Mars why cant we fully charge a smartphone in 60 seconds or a Tablet in 2 minutes?

Ive a funny feeling Apple already have the capability to give us the specs of the iPhone 10 tomorrow, but that would get in the way of things like mmaking money

What are some of the things that you think should be here technologically already and what technology do you think is suppressed?

What does a funny feeling feel like?

IvaBigWun · 14-08-2014 11:47PM

dxhound2005 wrote: »

What does a funny feeling feel like?

Like this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-JFPePh6yM

MS.ing · 14-08-2014 11:59PM

IvaBigWun wrote: »

If we can send man to the moon and and un-manned missions to Mars why cant we fully charge a smartphone in 60 seconds or a Tablet in 2 minutes?

Ive a funny feeling Apple already have the capability to give us the specs of the iPhone 10 tomorrow, but that would get in the way of things like making money

What are some of the things that you think should be here technologically already and what technology do you think is suppressed?

they have that one already, just not ready for market yet (needs fancy 'designed' user friendly design, and a bit of shrinkage before they will cell it)

Tail Docker · 15-08-2014 12:04AM

MS.ing wrote: »

they have that one already, just not ready for market yet (needs fancy 'designed' user friendly design, and a bit of shrinkage before they will cell it)

I see what you did there.

kumate_champ07 · 15-08-2014 12:07AM

wireless power is already available but not very common, http://ie.farnell.com/texas-instruments/bq51010byfpt/integrated-wireless-receiver-dsbga/dp/2400938?in_merch=New%20Products&in_merch=Featured%20New%20Products

alan4cult · 15-08-2014 12:08AM

Because we didn't send a man to the moon.

Tail Docker · 15-08-2014 12:11AM

alan4cult wrote: »

Because we didn't send a man to the moon.

Oooh Yes we did! Oooh No we didn't! Off we go...

Sir Arthur Daley · 15-08-2014 12:27AM

IvaBigWun wrote: »

If we can send man to the moon and and un-manned missions to Mars why cant we fully charge a smartphone in 60 seconds or a Tablet in 2 minutes?

Its just not possible to deliver a substantial amount of charge into a battery at the time you have proposed. Its that apples and oranges arguement.

Uriel. · 15-08-2014 12:29AM

Sir Arthur Daley wrote: »

Its just not possible to deliver a substantial amount of charge into a battery at the time you have proposed. Its that apples and oranges arguement.

But mostly,its just not commercially viable.

Uriel. · 15-08-2014 12:30AM

Tail Docker wrote: »

Oooh Yes we did! Oooh No we didn't! Off we go...

The moon doesn't even exist. It's all an illusion engineered by the US government and moses

DazMarz · 15-08-2014 12:37AM

We had supersonic air travel already; Concorde (and to a lesser extent the Russian/Soviet version, the Tupolev Tu-144. Imaginatively dubbed "Concordeski" in the West). Of course, we all know what happened to Concorde. Retired ignominiously in 2003 following a single crash three years previous.

Concorde was a thing of beauty. I was lucky enough to see one in flight. This was no mere machine. This had a soul. It was graceful, beautiful, breathtaking and awe-inspiring. It was also the only successful commercial supersonic passenger jet in history (Concordeski stayed behind the Iron Curtain mostly and was never that successful).

Since the demise of Concorde, only military jets achieve supersonic speed any more.

Of course, there is now more money in quantity, not quality. This has led to the creation of mammoth, ugly planes like the Airbus A380. A cattleshed with wings. But when you can cram 800+ passengers into it, it pays for itself.

Concorde was a marvel of engineering. However, only capable of holding roughly 100 passengers, it was not economically viable.

However, with all our technological marvels of the modern day, is it not about time we could cross the Atlantic in 3 hours (or less) again? No more fúcking endless 12-hour flights? Bring back supersonic air travel again. Make planes more than just about function. How many young lads were inspired to become pilots by seeing Concorde taking to the air?

Supersonic air travel. Let's be having you back!!!

Sir Arthur Daley · 15-08-2014 12:37AM

Uriel. wrote: »

But mostly,its just not commercially viable.

Is it though i think its just not possible though.

There is only so far one can optamise and perfect an item or technology, take the combustion engine they have reached their peak in engineering and alot of the current diesels are a nightmare with issues. They have reverted back to the petrol engine with the small engine again and turbo charging it to optamaise it.

You can never make a race horse out of a donkey as they say.

Marsden · 15-08-2014 12:44AM

The three sea shells from demolition man.

IvaBigWun · 15-08-2014 11:33AM

DazMarz wrote: »

Of course, there is now more money in quantity, not quality. This has led to the creation of mammoth, ugly planes like the Airbus A380. A cattleshed with wings. But when you can cram 800+ passengers into it, it pays for itself.

Concorde was a marvel of engineering. However, only capable of holding roughly 100 passengers, it was not economically viable.

Why cant they just design a Concorde that holds 400 people (800 at that speed is ambitious) and charge passengers an extra premium? Its a no brainer.

Dublin to New York in 3 hours should be more than do-able by now.

FortuneChip · 15-08-2014 11:37AM

Timetravel machines should have been invented by now, but it wasn't.

Valetta · 15-08-2014 11:50AM

FortuneChip wrote: »

Timetravel machines should have been invented by now, but it wasn't.

They will be invented three years ago.

BeerWolf · 15-08-2014 12:03PM

Fast Broadband for rural users... we can thank Eircom for monopolising the market.

/rabble rabble rabble.

SEPT 23 1989 · 15-08-2014 12:06PM

A Death Star

This Isn't the Petition Response You're Looking For

By Paul Shawcross
The Administration shares your desire for job creation and a strong national defense, but a Death Star isn't on the horizon. Here are a few reasons:

The construction of the Death Star has been estimated to cost more than $850,000,000,000,000,000. We're working hard to reduce the deficit, not expand it.
The Administration does not support blowing up planets.
Why would we spend countless taxpayer dollars on a Death Star with a fundamental flaw that can be exploited by a one-man starship?
However, look carefully (here's how) and you'll notice something already floating in the sky -- that's no Moon, it's a Space Station! Yes, we already have a giant, football field-sized International Space Station in orbit around the Earth that's helping us learn how humans can live and thrive in space for long durations. The Space Station has six astronauts -- American, Russian, and Canadian -- living in it right now, conducting research, learning how to live and work in space over long periods of time, routinely welcoming visiting spacecraft and repairing onboard garbage mashers, etc. We've also got two robot science labs -- one wielding a laser -- roving around Mars, looking at whether life ever existed on the Red Planet.

Keep in mind, space is no longer just government-only. Private American companies, through NASA's Commercial Crew and Cargo Program Office (C3PO), are ferrying cargo -- and soon, crew -- to space for NASA, and are pursuing human missions to the Moon this decade.

Even though the United States doesn't have anything that can do the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs, we've got two spacecraft leaving the Solar System and we're building a probe that will fly to the exterior layers of the Sun. We are discovering hundreds of new planets in other star systems and building a much more powerful successor to the Hubble Space Telescope that will see back to the early days of the universe.

We don't have a Death Star, but we do have floating robot assistants on the Space Station, a President who knows his way around a light saber and advanced (marshmallow) cannon, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which is supporting research on building Luke's arm, floating droids, and quadruped walkers.

We are living in the future! Enjoy it. Or better yet, help build it by pursuing a career in a science, technology, engineering or math-related field. The President has held the first-ever White House science fairs and Astronomy Night on the South Lawn because he knows these domains are critical to our country's future, and to ensuring the United States continues leading the world in doing big things.

If you do pursue a career in a science, technology, engineering or math-related field, the Force will be with us! Remember, the Death Star's power to destroy a planet, or even a whole star system, is insignificant next to the power of the Force.

Paul Shawcross is Chief of the Science and Space Branch at the White House Office of Management and Budget

lies and spin

just build the fecking thing

sbsquarepants · 15-08-2014 12:11PM

Holodecks

They'd advertise them as allowing you to climb everest or swim with great whites or some such shít - but what you'd probably be more likely to use it for a threesome with kate winslett and scarlett johanson.

kingtiger · 15-08-2014 12:17PM

IvaBigWun wrote: »

If we can send man to the moon and and un-manned missions to Mars why cant we fully charge a smartphone in 60 seconds or a Tablet in 2 minutes?

ahh its been done

http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/07/storedots-bio-organic-battery-tech-can-charge-from-flat-to-full-in-30-seconds/

Skylinehead · 15-08-2014 12:20PM

IvaBigWun wrote: »

Why cant they just design a Concorde that holds 400 people (800 at that speed is ambitious) and charge passengers an extra premium? Its a no brainer.

Dublin to New York in 3 hours should be more than do-able by now.

Since the advent of video conferencing, the demand for being able to get from London to New York in 3 hours has plummeted. It's just more economical to put 500 people on a 747 and have it take 2 more hours.

BeerWolf · 15-08-2014 12:21PM

kingtiger wrote: »

ahh its been done

http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/07/storedots-bio-organic-battery-tech-can-charge-from-flat-to-full-in-30-seconds/

Have away with that - don't you know Ireland's boycotting Israeli products?! :mad:

Plus that demo doesn't tell the capacity of the battery - it could only last 1 hour for all you know.

Davarus Walrus · 15-08-2014 12:23PM

Japanese shîtters. They have heated seats, jets of warm water and warm air, phone docking stations and a modesty button you can press to block out the sounds of a particularly unpleasant movement. None of these features have made it to toilets in Europe.

longshanks · 15-08-2014 12:24PM

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Holodecks

They'd advertise them as allowing you to climb everest or swim with great whites or some such shít - but what you'd probably be more likely to use it for a threesome with kate winslett and scarlett johanson.

Give me some whiskey and two Scarlett Johansons please holodeck. One blonde, one brunette.

What about red headed Scarlett...?

Give me three Scarlett Johanssons please holodeck...

kingtiger · 15-08-2014 12:26PM

BeerWolf wrote: »

Have away with that - don't you know Ireland's boycotting Israeli products?! :mad:

Plus that demo doesn't tell the capacity of the battery - it could only last 1 hour for all you know.

its a prototype

its just shows that its possible

Things that should be here technologically already/Technology suppression

Comments