Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Things that should be here technologically already/Technology suppression

13

Comments

  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 10,606 Mod ✭✭✭✭5uspect


    Will they hurry up with affordable 3D printers so I can download a house, a car and a gun. Just to answer the anti-piracy dips.

    You can download then right now. Who says you have to print them?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,363 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN


    Totally wireless headphones, just little buds that fit in your ears.

    Totally wireless electrical items.


  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 10,606 Mod ✭✭✭✭5uspect


    Dayum wrote: »
    We can send robots to discover Mars and yet large aviation companies are still working with 60's technology. We should be eating breakfast in Dublin and Dinner in Sydney at half the price we're paying now.

    Erm, okay. How does that work? Modern gas turbines are some of the most powerful and energy efficient things on the planet. There's nothing 1960s about them.

    The 1960s era RAM and SCRAM jets needed for such high speed travel are massively inefficient since you're relying on systems of shock waves to compress inlet air.

    How do you imagine a syatem that allows that level of high speed transport will work without tearing the arse out of the environment?

    The simple matter is that it makes both engineering and economic sense to cruise at subsonic speeds where fuel burn and airframe stress are minimised.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 6,524 Mod ✭✭✭✭Irish Steve


    Charge a battery in 10 seconds. Already happening, have you looked at the energy recovery systems that are in use now in the new Formula 1 cars. There would be the slight problem that putting something the size of a car to your ear might be challenging. I have model helicopter batteries that are way higher capacity than a phone battery, and they can be charged in a short time period, but the downside of that is the fundamental issue that LiPo batteries can be dangerous, and unstable, which is not a good idea if millions of people are using the technology.

    There is no doubt that we've not been seeing the real potential of alternate energy for vehicles and home heating and energy, the main reason being that there's no benefit in reducing energy consumption for governments, despite their weasel words and actions with things like carbon taxes and the like, because they get HUGE tax revenues from Oil, gas and electricity sales, can you imagine their reaction if we were using 10% of the energy we use now?

    It would make huge sense to have a massive upgrade programme for home insulation, to help reduce the cost of keeping people comfortable in their homes, but the down side of that would be a huge reduction in revenue to the government, which they would have problems replacing. The reality is that it would make more sense to flatten a high proportion of the existing housing stock (even a lot of the relatively modern property) and rebuild them with new technology, but the "value" put on property makes that an impossible option, even though modern heating, water systems and other advances would reduce the cost of living in such houses by a massive percentage.

    In the same vein, why do food products on sale in supermarkets have to have an expensive cardboard box that's twice the capacity of the plastic bag that's inside the box, and does a totally acceptable job of keeping the contents contained? That box costs a lot of money to produce, print, assemble and subsequently recycle or otherwise dispose of, increases the transportation and storage cost considerably, and it has very little relevance to the contents of the bag that's inside the box.

    why has the beancounter mentality become so entrenched in society. They know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

    Why does the simplest of jobs now require 2 or 3 health & Safety committee meetings, a method statement that's the size of a small novel, a sheaf of licences and certificates that's almost as big, and the person doing the job to be either e member of a small and exclusive "club" that's allowed to do the job, or a member of a massively expensive regulatory body that is (supposedly) supervising the profession.

    Why does recyclable waste have to be laboriously hand sorted before it can be properly recycled?

    Why do high tech devices have menu structures with the most used user option at the bottom of the menu, with the options that get used once a year (like initial setup) at the top of the menu?

    Why can't we have entertainment, (like TV or cinema) without the accursed adverts. All they do is produce generations or people who have at best a 20 minute attention span.

    Why do modern entertainment systems have to have a forest of wires coming out of the back of them, with no way to make them tidy short of making massive holes in the furniture and walls in the area around them.

    Why are things like lawnmowers, chilled delivery vehicles, waste collection trucks and the like so accursedly noisy?

    Why is it so hard to get a reliable and acceptable speed internet access service regardless of the size of the community?

    Why have computer operating systems become so large, bloated and unreliable when the hardware that they run on has become so fast, small and reliable?

    Why can't any medical professional anywhere in the country get 24/7 instant access to any information that is needed about my medical history, my present medication regime, and any other issues that might be significant to my treatment?

    Why can't my computer see my thoughts and convert what I'm thinking into text without the use of a slow keyboard?

    Shore, if it was easy, everybody would be doin it.😁



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    Batteries as they are used now with chemicals are just a pain in the ass anyway. It is amazing some of the stuff that can exist but it isn't profitable so doesn't get made.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,949 ✭✭✭A Primal Nut


    There is no doubt that we've not been seeing the real potential of alternate energy for vehicles and home heating and energy, the main reason being that there's no benefit in reducing energy consumption for governments, despite their weasel words and actions with things like carbon taxes and the like, because they get HUGE tax revenues from Oil, gas and electricity sales, can you imagine their reaction if we were using 10% of the energy we use now?

    Given that so many governments around the world have introduced deeply unpopular carbon taxes which can only lose them votes; I think the environmental lobby have more sway than the oil companies.

    Why does the simplest of jobs now require 2 or 3 health & Safety committee meetings, a method statement that's the size of a small novel, a sheaf of licences and certificates that's almost as big, and the person doing the job to be either e member of a small and exclusive "club" that's allowed to do the job, or a member of a massively expensive regulatory body that is (supposedly) supervising the profession.

    Builders and tradesmen like to complain about all this Health & Safety stuff; but they'd also be the first to sue if they did got injured on the job and proper H& S procedures had not being followed by the company.

    I agree with some of your points; mostly the answer is cost.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    IvaBigWun wrote: »
    why cant we fully charge a smartphone in 60 seconds or a Tablet in 2 minutes?
    ....
    What are some of the things that you think should be here technologically already and what technology do you think is suppressed?

    Its a little known fact that we are being duped by a cartel of evil power transformer magnates, you can charge you phone in that minute and save on the costs of those expensive unbreakable transformers by simply wiring in a normal plug instead of your expensive flimsy adapter for you favorite piece of electronic equipment.
    Bingo one minute charge times

    ps seriously though Supersonic passenger travel was rightly died because at its most basic it was about subsidising a pointless massively inefficient form of travel for the wealthy, to me thats progress.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 847 ✭✭✭Bog Standard User


    BeerWolf wrote: »
    Fast Broadband for rural users... we can thank Eircom for monopolising the market.

    /rabble rabble rabble.

    why is eircom to blame??

    upc couldnt be bothered to install services in rural areas

    nor could many other ips's why? cos its not profitable to do so.. only eircom bothered because the government forced them too.. eircom make a huge loss supplying broadband to boggers


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,428 ✭✭✭.jacksparrow.


    The portable dyson Hoover's cost 300 euro but only give you 8 mins of hoovering then its recharge for 6 hours.

    Surely there is the technology for more than 8 mins.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 847 ✭✭✭Bog Standard User


    The portable dyson Hoover's cost 300 euro but only give you 8 mins of hoovering then its recharge for 6 hours.

    Surely there is the technology for more than 8 mins.

    had one of those and it is now gone to the great recycling center in the sky... luckily i was a prize in a raffle so didnt cost me anything.

    i have a cheap tesco vacuum cleaner does the job far better than that stupid dyson did


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,266 ✭✭✭✭whisky_galore


    An electric car that (with a few exceptions) isn't a glorified milk-float.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 34,808 ✭✭✭✭smash


    For technology supression, i'd imagine the electric car.

    It's a fad and it's going to be a nightmare. Batteries as an energy source are outdated and have a shít lifespan. The cost of replacement batteries for electric cars is huge and manufacturers only give a limited warranty. When these cars hit the 2nd hand market they're going to be a money pit for the new owners.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,810 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    Mandatory mood control chips for all women, implanted at birth and fatal if removed. They'd be just like the indigenous wild women we have in our midst now, but less mental and prone to the random outlandish emotional highs and lows which often times threaten the very future of the species. No need to overcomplicate it, we only really need 3 moods, happy, horny and silent - everything else you need can be derived from those 3 basics. Oh, paradise:D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 847 ✭✭✭Bog Standard User


    Mandatory mood control chips for all women, implanted at birth and fatal if removed. They'd be just like the indigenous wild women we have in our midst now, but less mental and prone to the random outlandish emotional highs and lows which often times threaten the very future of the species. No need to overcomplicate it, we only really need 3 moods, happy, horny and silent - everything else you need can be derived from those 3 basics. Oh, paradise:D

    you forgot to add the say what you mean bit too

    are you ok love? her reply when she says im fine = it should mean yes i am fine not anything else


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 687 ✭✭✭Dayum


    5uspect wrote: »
    Erm, okay. How does that work? Modern gas turbines are some of the most powerful and energy efficient things on the planet. There's nothing 1960s about them.

    The 1960s era RAM and SCRAM jets needed for such high speed travel are massively inefficient since you're relying on systems of shock waves to compress inlet air.

    How do you imagine a syatem that allows that level of high speed transport will work without tearing the arse out of the environment?

    The simple matter is that it makes both engineering and economic sense to cruise at subsonic speeds where fuel burn and airframe stress are minimised.

    It makes economic sense to allow the market to work. If we have the tech to fly at faster speeds then that should command a higher price. It's government regulation that is slowing down progress.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,237 ✭✭✭✭jimgoose


    Dayum wrote: »
    It makes economic sense to allow the market to work. If we have the tech to fly at faster speeds then that should command a higher price. It's government regulation that is slowing down progress.

    Noise, structural airframe considerations and the efficiency of modern high-bypass turbofans means supersonic air travel is very costly relative to your regular Airbuses and Jumbos and so on. Airlines aren't "fans" (badum-TISH!!) of it these days, largely on economic grounds. I'd say the future of ultra-luxury long-distance jet-setting lies in the very outer reaches of the atmosphere, at speeds in excess of Mach 5.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 687 ✭✭✭Dayum


    jimgoose wrote: »
    Noise, structural airframe considerations and the efficiency of modern high-bypass turbofans means supersonic air travel is very costly relative to your regular Airbuses and Jumbos and so on. Airlines aren't "fans" (badum-TISH!!) of it these days, largely on economic grounds. I'd say the future of ultra-luxury long-distance jet-setting lies in the very outer reaches of the atmosphere, at speeds in excess of Mach 5.

    Which is what I am thinking of....such as the aircat a1.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 7,935 ✭✭✭Calibos


    Dayum wrote: »
    Which is what I am thinking of....such as the aircat a1.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_Engines_A2


  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 10,606 Mod ✭✭✭✭5uspect


    Dayum wrote: »
    It makes economic sense to allow the market to work. If we have the tech to fly at faster speeds then that should command a higher price. It's government regulation that is slowing down progress.

    It's doing nothing of the sort. The market is simply showing that high speed flight is economically unviable. Of course we can potentially build aircraft like wave riders that can fly at hypersonic speeds (we would need a lot of new technology in propulsion and materials) but the cost is enormous and the reliability is non-existent. This is why only military projects are looking at this and not commercial aircraft manufactures.

    The vast majority of aerodynamics research is currently focused on efficiency, because this is what the market demands. The other side is commercial spaceflight. This makes are more sense than luxury long haul flights.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 687 ✭✭✭Dayum


    5uspect wrote: »
    It's doing nothing of the sort. The market is simply showing that high speed flight is economically unviable. Of course we can potentially build aircraft like wave riders that can fly at hypersonic speeds (we would need a lot of new technology in propulsion and materials) but the cost is enormous and the reliability is non-existent. This is why only military projects are looking at this and not commercial aircraft manufactures.

    The vast majority of aerodynamics research is currently focused on efficiency, because this is what the market demands. The other side is commercial spaceflight. This makes are more sense than luxury long haul flights.

    What market exists in the airline industry when governments won't even allow failed companies to die? Or intervene in efficiency when one airliner seeks to merge or acquire another? Why don't all airlines fly to the US? Because they're not allowed! The routes are divided up among operators (by government). There is no competition and that's just commercial flights.

    Take into consideration that the government legislates to the exact millimeter that a bolt can be cut or to the exact centimeter a sandwich can be cut and you're telling me that there is no market for luxury/faster air-travel or that they don't dictate the building of aircraft?! Concorde, launched in the 60's, travelled at twice the speed of a Boeing 747 and good luck with finding an available seat on that.

    But your post is a contradiction of sorts. You say the airline industry is focused on the environment. Fair enough. But why? Because of government regulation. You have huge resources being drained to meet the whims of lobbied politicians. Is there a market for the environment? Only the one government created. Instead of being sued for breaching a contract and polluting the environment, now airline companies are scrambling to meet regulations and in the process they have to pass certain expenses onto us.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭IvaBigWun


    Mandatory mood control chips for all women, implanted at birth and fatal if removed. They'd be just like the indigenous wild women we have in our midst now, but less mental and prone to the random outlandish emotional highs and lows which often times threaten the very future of the species. No need to overcomplicate it, we only really need 3 moods, happy, horny and silent - everything else you need can be derived from those 3 basics. Oh, paradise:D


    :pac:


    http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/6a/8d/5e/6a8d5e2df29b383ce48e26cdb58c3fdb.jpg


  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 10,606 Mod ✭✭✭✭5uspect


    Dayum wrote: »
    What market exists in the airline industry when governments won't even allow failed companies to die? Or intervene in efficiency when one airliner seeks to merge or acquire another? Why don't all airlines fly to the US? Because they're not allowed! The routes are divided up among operators (by government). There is no competition and that's just commercial flights.

    Take into consideration that the government legislates to the exact millimeter that a bolt can be cut or to the exact centimeter a sandwich can be cut and you're telling me that there is no market for luxury/faster air-travel or that they don't dictate the building of aircraft?! Concorde, launched in the 60's, travelled at twice the speed of a Boeing 747 and good luck with finding an available seat on that.

    But your post is a contradiction of sorts. You say the airline industry is focused on the environment. Fair enough. But why? Because of government regulation. You have huge resources being drained to meet the whims of lobbied politicians. Is there a market for the environment? Only the one government created. Instead of being sued for breaching a contract and polluting the environment, now airline companies are scrambling to meet regulations and in the process they have to pass certain expenses onto us.

    No, I said it's focused on efficiency. Why, because fuel costs have soared since the days of Concorde. There you have an industry responding to the market.

    Sandwiches?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,208 ✭✭✭✭Cienciano


    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.

    If holodecks were invented and not that expensive, the human race would die out within a generation, because blokes would never leave.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 24,757 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    Why are there no carbon factories than can pull CO2 out of the air yet?


  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 10,606 Mod ✭✭✭✭5uspect


    Why are there no carbon factories than can pull CO2 out of the air yet?

    They're called trees.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    5uspect wrote: »
    They're called trees.

    Trees aren't very efficient. They're taking up huge swathes of habitable land in central South America and Africa and we're still suffering from global warming.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 34,808 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Trees aren't very efficient. They're taking up huge swathes of habitable land in central South America and Africa and we're still suffering from global warming.

    They were hugely efficient before we chopped most of them down. Even now they're very efficient.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    smash wrote: »
    They were hugely efficient before we chopped most of them down. Even now they're very efficient.

    I not saying they're not effective but they're not efficient because they require huge portions of the Earth's habitable land to be effective.

    A couple nice big factories that convert carbon dioxide to oxygen would take up a fraction of the space.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 24,757 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Trees aren't very efficient. They're taking up huge swathes of habitable land in central South America and Africa and we're still suffering from global warming.

    pretty efficient I reckon, pull in co2, pump out yummy oxygen, make everywhere look nicer, provide timber after doing all of the above, dictate weather, prevent flooding and landslides.

    Trees are great, why aren't there more of them too :D


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    pretty efficient I reckon, pull in co2, pump out yummy oxygen, make everywhere look nicer, provide timber after doing all of the above, dictate weather, prevent flooding and landslides.

    Trees are great, why aren't there more of them too :D
    I'm not saying they don't do their job they just take up too much space while doing it. :P


Advertisement
Advertisement