Lack of technological progress

nyarlothothep · 29-05-2015 4:55pm #1

It's the 21st century but we don't have warp speed, real AI/artificial awareness, hoverboards etc. Instead we have slightly fancier phones and computers. All the major breakthroughs were last century. NASA's Orion capsule is bereft of imagination or passion, its mission to Mars is over cautious and glacially paced (a problem with funding but even so, where's the daring do of the space race?). Why are there no attempts being made at researching a force field generator to deflect radiation from the ship and so on. Even fusion power is a far off dream. 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.

Eugene Norman · 29-05-2015 4:58pm

I think you're underestimating smart phones but I tend to agree that the rate of technological acceleration is slowing.

Manach · 29-05-2015 5:04pm

On the plus side, the progress is more diffuse. For instance vast areas of Africa are now both using mobile services which percolate through society and act as driver for further change.

ScumLord · 29-05-2015 6:35pm

I don't know that it's slowing but what's left to do is extremely difficult to achieve.

The space race hit a financial wall in more ways than one. Not only is it stupidly expensive but if you take our current economy going into space and bringing back supplies would cripple our economies. All the vested interests in resources like metals would have their monopolies wiped out. Gold would become as common as muck. There's essentially no easy money to be made in space travel. It needs to become much more cost effective and safer to do. the average person can't be strapped to a rocket and shot into space, you still need to effectively be an athlete to survive space travel, even for a short amount of time.. I don't think we'll see affordable space travel until it becomes so easy for us to do that there's little financial risk to doing it.

Technology wise we just seem to have become accustomed to some of the most amazing technology ever created in record time. I grew up on computers, the first one I sat in front of was a BBC micro and a smart phone is like magic compared to it.

The world is immensely different to the way it was even 20 years ago and the human race has adapted to that new lifestyle in record time. Never in history has there been such rapid progress outside of war.

Over the next 20 - 50 years things are going to get really crazy with AI now reaching useable levels of intelligence, nanotechnology, which is already being used in products you buy, artificial limbs are already through the first stages of human trials, self drive vehicles are on the commercial market and set to be on the consumer market over the next 10 years. Google has all the making of a terminator now that they own Boston dynamics and a couple of AI companies.

Technology is advancing faster than ever, we've just become jaded by the rapid development. We expect things to develop faster and faster and even though that is happening we don't seem aware of it.

Eugene Norman · 29-05-2015 10:29pm

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't know that it's slowing but what's left to do is extremely difficult to achieve.

The space race hit a financial wall in more ways than one. Not only is it stupidly expensive but if you take our current economy going into space and bringing back supplies would cripple our economies. All the vested interests in resources like metals would have their monopolies wiped out. Gold would become as common as muck. There's essentially no easy money to be made in space travel. It needs to become much more cost effective and safer to do. the average person can't be strapped to a rocket and shot into space, you still need to effectively be an athlete to survive space travel, even for a short amount of time.. I don't think we'll see affordable space travel until it becomes so easy for us to do that there's little financial risk to doing it.

Technology wise we just seem to have become accustomed to some of the most amazing technology ever created in record time. I grew up on computers, the first one I sat in front of was a BBC micro and a smart phone is like magic compared to it.

The world is immensely different to the way it was even 20 years ago and the human race has adapted to that new lifestyle in record time. Never in history has there been such rapid progress outside of war.

Over the next 20 - 50 years things are going to get really crazy with AI now reaching useable levels of intelligence, nanotechnology, which is already being used in products you buy, artificial limbs are already through the first stages of human trials, self drive vehicles are on the commercial market and set to be on the consumer market over the next 10 years. Google has all the making of a terminator now that they own Boston dynamics and a couple of AI companies.

Technology is advancing faster than ever, we've just become jaded by the rapid development. We expect things to develop faster and faster and even though that is happening we don't seem aware of it.

Except for smartphones -- which I agree are amazing devices -- I don't see that rapid development. Sure it's speculated but nanotechnology and AI are always around the corner.

Capt'n Midnight · 30-05-2015 12:39am

nyarlothothep wrote: »

It's the 21st century but we don't have warp speed, real AI/artificial awareness, hoverboards etc. Instead we have slightly fancier phones and computers. All the major breakthroughs were last century.

it's hard to see changes up close. the interweb makes the development of printing seem trivial. Now most people on the planet carry a device which they can use to communicate with anyone globally. most of these devices can pretty much access the entire sum of human knowledge.

Also forward error correction and low cost of data storage means we can pretty much keep important data forever.

we have hoverboards , google quantum levitation , the world record distance was broken recently too

the great leveller is that most people have tech now, and tech has never been cheaper.

at the turn of the previous century things like cars , phones, airplanes , cinema were all invented. Only cinema was available to most people for the first half of the century.

Antibiotics and the green revolution have wiped out plague and famine. Over 300,000,000 people died of smallpox in the 20th century. Nowadays things like plagues and famines are pretty much non-existent except in war zones.

but we can't change the laws of physics. it takes more energy to travel faster than the speed of sound than just below it. This is why most airliners today resemble the 1957 Boeing 707 and manned flight mainly depends on the original 1957 Soviet ICBM.

yes there is research going on. Moores law keeps going ahead as new discoveries allow smaller devices, and this feeds into solar panel technology, the latest one to impress was that instead of slicing silicon wafers with a saw and wasting the cuttings you can now build up layers with the bottom layer easily disreputable by lasers. Bit like a layer of sun burnt skin peeling off. And all of a sudden you can make devices as thin as you like and that uses less resources and that's way cheaper.

Cheaper energy is what would allow us to do lots of cool stuff.

mickdw · 30-05-2015 12:43am

We are actually going backwards if you consider the grounding of concorde.

nyarlothothep · 30-05-2015 3:09am

The problem with AI is that it's not really progressed beyond low level AI intelligence in terms of algorithims devoted to one task and excelling at that one task specifically. Most of the algorithims that are used in smart phones and Sirri are just sophisticated versions of what were used 20 years ago or so I've read. The rise of the internet parallels the printing press and in many ways I would regard it as a facilitating technology in the same fashion as the printing press or agriculture in that the volume of information exchange that it enables allows for technological progress to be achieved at a much faster and substantial rate in other areas such as space tech. But imo the rate of progress in these areas has left a lot to be desired. TLDR, what I really want are battlestars and cylons, ergo we need kickass spaceships and sentient machines but where are they??? The 20th century was one of substantial progress in "hard" areas of tech but atm I just don't see it.

mg1982 · 30-05-2015 3:16am

Id agree a lot of the technological advances in the last while are gimmicky.

challengemaster · 30-05-2015 4:44am

Depends what you define as "technology", and what you define as "progress".

Self driving cars are just around the corner.
VR headsets
Physical manipulation of holographics
3D scanning and printing
Bionic contact lenses
The first solar aircraft
The first self regulating artificial heart allowing "heartless" life.
The first synthetic organ transplant (trachea)
Development of High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound
Computer chips can be made from wood.
Brain controlled bionics have arrived.
Nano-scale development of all sorts of things is underway.
Graphene
Water-repellent paint

That's mostly the last year. And that's without listing another few thousand major medical advances. There's ample major breakthroughs and progress being made, much more so than any other century. The difference is that there's now so much happening, most of it gets lost amongst the noise.

Also there's a giant fusion reactor in the sky every single day - it might be a good idea to harness that (free) energy before wasting more money developing another one?

NIMAN · 30-05-2015 5:04am

challengemaster wrote: »

Depends what you define as "technology", and what you define as "progress".

Self driving cars are just around the corner.
VR headsets
Physical manipulation of holographics
3D scanning and printing
Bionic contact lenses
The first solar aircraft
The first self regulating artificial heart allowing "heartless" life.
The first synthetic organ transplant (trachea)
Development of High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound
Computer chips can be made from wood.
Brain controlled bionics have arrived.
Nano-scale development of all sorts of things is underway.
Graphene
Water-repellent paint

Those all sound like great developments, but slightly baffled by the wooden chips? Why? What would they offer over current chips?

And water repellant paint, surely thats been around for a long time?

Grab All Association · 30-05-2015 5:08am

Mobile phone cameras and built in storage.

2011 Nokia N8 16GB 12mp camera
2011 Nokia 808 16GB 41mp camera

2014 iPhone 6 16GB 8mp camera.

NIMAN · 30-05-2015 5:18am

MP on a camera does not equate to quality. A common misconception.

Grab All Association · 30-05-2015 5:24am

NIMAN wrote: »

MP on a camera does not equate to quality. A common misconception.

I still have those two phones (N8 and 808) and the cameras on both are far superior to the iPhone 6. Even the Moto G 5" has a better camera. Reep rewards kept rejecting the photos I submitted on my iPhone 6 last week. But when I used my shiny new S6 it worked.

NIMAN · 30-05-2015 5:34am

Maybe Apple are cutting corners on the parts for their new phones?
Putting in cheaper, poorer quality lenses?

After all, they have mega profits to maintain.

Capt'n Midnight · 30-05-2015 9:45am

nyarlothothep wrote: »

The problem with AI is that it's not really progressed beyond low level AI intelligence in terms of algorithims devoted to one task and excelling at that one task specifically. Most of the algorithims that are used in smart phones and Sirri are just sophisticated versions of what were used 20 years ago or so I've read.

ELIZA date's from the 1960's and today's chatbots aren't much of an improvement. Which says more about our understanding the problem than anything else.

Materials science moves on ,
Memory alloy bounces back into shape 10 million times http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-32886000

bio tech and nano tech mean that there are plenty of new developments waiting to be commercialised

But things like Hull Speed , the speed of sound and the energy density of petrochemicals mean that ships can't travel fast efficiently unless they are longer and aircraft will likely to be subsonic for the foreseeable future for all but the very rich.

But cheaper flights and things like VOIP and SKYPE means that distance isn't what it used to be.
.

Eugene Norman · 30-05-2015 10:12am

challengemaster wrote: »

Depends what you define as "technology", and what you define as "progress".

Self driving cars are just around the corner.
VR headsets
Physical manipulation of holographics
3D scanning and printing
Bionic contact lenses
The first solar aircraft
The first self regulating artificial heart allowing "heartless" life.
The first synthetic organ transplant (trachea)
Development of High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound
Computer chips can be made from wood.
Brain controlled bionics have arrived.
Nano-scale development of all sorts of things is underway.
Graphene
Water-repellent paint

That's mostly the last year. And that's without listing another few thousand major medical advances. There's ample major breakthroughs and progress being made, much more so than any other century. The difference is that there's now so much happening, most of it gets lost amongst the noise.

Also there's a giant fusion reactor in the sky every single day - it might be a good idea to harness that (free) energy before wasting more money developing another one?

Graphene isn't last year. Holography is 1950's technology.

In general this thread needs to concentrate on devices in mass production. And please remember the Internet is 30+ years old.

Someone born in 1870 would see bigger changes in 1915 than 1970-2015. For sure.

Eugene Norman · 30-05-2015 10:13am

Chris___ wrote: »

Mobile phone cameras and built in storage.

2011 Nokia N8 16GB 12mp camera
2011 Nokia 808 16GB 41mp camera

2014 iPhone 6 16GB 8mp camera.

NIMAN wrote: »

Maybe Apple are cutting corners on the parts for their new phones?
Putting in cheaper, poorer quality lenses?

After all, they have mega profits to maintain.

Bore off. What is it about the anti-Apple cult that they turn up in every technological thread?

Grab All Association · 30-05-2015 7:17pm

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Bore off. What is it about the anti-Apple cult that they turn up in every technological thread?

I'm anti-Apple?

Taken earlier this year for insurance purposes.

First photo was taken on a iPhone 5s

I have

3GS
4
4S
5S
5C
6
iPod touch 5th generation
iPad mini 2nd generation

I do collect Samsung phones too (mainly the Note/S version) There's stuff I don't like about Samsung too. Mainly the slow roll out of software updates though the networks are to blame too.

djpbarry · 01-06-2015 5:32pm

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Why are there no attempts being made at researching a force field generator...

So science fiction has not become science fact, therefore technological progress is stalling?

Ignoring for a moment the stupendous advances that have been made in telecoms over the last few decades that others have alluded to, it is apparent from the responses so far that many are unaware of the revolution currently taking place in the field of biology. What happened in the field of physics at the beginning of the 20th century is now happening in biology. The ability to sequence and edit genomes with high precision, to image cellular processes with unprecedented resolution and the application of computational methods to analyse biological data are radically altering our understanding of cells and organisms. It would not be surprising if most of you live to be well over one hundred years old.

Disclaimer: I work in cell biology research.

ScumLord · 02-06-2015 12:37pm

Most people don't get to see the advances in manufacturing but if you compare products today to those made 15 or more years ago, today's products are much more shapely, complicated looking. We are able to make more complicated parts cheaper than every before. Compare a 1990 audi to a brand new one and they look very different.

Look up what CNC mills and laths can do on youtube, that kind of manufacturing was barely even possible 30 years ago and the cost of it is tumbling every year.

The first AI that can learn from a normal employee (no coding) is being rolled out now.

Even in the design phase you have programs like inventor that make CAD work so easy someone could pick up the basics of the program in a few minutes.

I guess the big advances in technology in the last decade is making it accessible. 20 years ago I was a weirdo for knowing too much about computers, now I'm like some sort of sage that people come to for advice.

nyarlothothep · 04-06-2015 11:43am

NASA are incredibly slow at getting to Mars, where's the innovation there? The Orion capsule is based off a 60s design, it's ugly as hell. Could they not create new synthetic materials that can shield against different types of radiation but which are also light weight? Also why the slow pace with these ion drives, surely they could get them up to spec and what is being done about landing and taking off from Mars? Surely there could be some novel solutions to get around the fuel problem for this? Nukes for takeoff? It would be the first time humanity would go into "deep space", imagine what the astronauts would see out there. Yet here we are earthbound, mired in trivial political disputes. It's all so frustrating.

cruizer101 · 04-06-2015 12:04pm

I just read this morning how researchers had grown a rat forelimb in the lab, which responded to electrical signals causing the claw to open and close, that fairly advanced to me.

At the end of the day Science Fiction is just that fiction and some things in it are just not possible.

There is an element of we've got the low hanging fruit and further improvements are harder and harder.

Fusion is one thing which is always disappointingly 20 years away.

mg1982 · 04-06-2015 12:06pm

Also the rise in life expectancy has slowed considerably in recent times. Might be down to lack of progress on the medical front. Big pharma arent really interested in curing people as theres more money to be made in keeping people on medication long term.

djpbarry · 04-06-2015 1:32pm

mg1982 wrote: »

Also the rise in life expectancy has slowed considerably in recent times.

Not it hasn't? Average life expectancy has been increasing steadily since the 60's at the rate of about 1 year every 5 years. I would expect to see that accelerate in the future.

mg1982 · 04-06-2015 1:40pm

djpbarry wrote: »

Not it hasn't? Average life expectancy has been increasing steadily since the 60's at the rate of about 1 year every 5 years. I would expect to see that accelerate in the future.

In developed countries the rate of increase has being slowing. Of course in underdeloped countries where the life expectancy was lower it has being increasing at a faster rate.

djpbarry · 04-06-2015 2:02pm

mg1982 wrote: »

In developed countries the rate of increase has being slowing.

Nope, it's still climbing steadily.

mg1982 · 04-06-2015 2:11pm

Sure we will agree to disagree so.

djpbarry · 04-06-2015 2:20pm

mg1982 wrote: »

Sure we will agree to disagree so.

You can view the trends here: http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=sp_dyn_le00_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=region:EAS:ECS:LCN:MEA:NAC:SAS:SSF&ifdim=region&tdim=true&tstart=-302230800000&tend=1338764400000&ind=false&icfg&iconSize=0.5

mg1982 · 04-06-2015 2:25pm

djpbarry wrote: »

You can view the trends here: http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=sp_dyn_le00_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=region:EAS:ECS:LCN:MEA:NAC:SAS:SSF&ifdim=region&tdim=true&tstart=-302230800000&tend=1338764400000&ind=false&icfg&iconSize=0.5

The trends look like there going up steadily there allright. Just i been reading recently in certain publications that it has become slower in western societies.

mg1982 · 04-06-2015 2:37pm

mg1982 wrote: »

The trends look like there going up steadily there allright. Just i been reading recently in certain publications that it has become slower in western societies.

There are actually studies that you can find online of a slowing in life expectancy rate. It seems to be mainly happening in United States but also in Europe too. It could possibly be caused by income disparity along with unhealthy lifestyles.

Thargor · 04-06-2015 3:51pm

Post them then.

Capt'n Midnight · 04-06-2015 4:59pm

nyarlothothep wrote: »

NASA are incredibly slow at getting to Mars, where's the innovation there? The Orion capsule is based off a 60s design, it's ugly as hell. Could they not create new synthetic materials that can shield against different types of radiation but which are also light weight? Also why the slow pace with these ion drives, surely they could get them up to spec and what is being done about landing and taking off from Mars? Surely there could be some novel solutions to get around the fuel problem for this? Nukes for takeoff? It would be the first time humanity would go into "deep space", imagine what the astronauts would see out there. Yet here we are earthbound, mired in trivial political disputes. It's all so frustrating.

There's three main types of Radiation Shields two of which depend on the properties of atoms not materials. For gamma rays you need something heavy like lead. For neutrons you need something light like hydrogen, so water or hydrocarbons are good, ie. food or fuel. For charged particles you can use magnetic fields. It's a mix and match. But weight and power are in finite supply.

Ion drives have been around for ages. Efficient and reliable but slow. Too slow for humans unless you are using them in addition to chemical rockets. Don't believe the hype about VASMIR , the numbers don't include the mass of the fuel or power source.

Nukes for takeoff are out of the question for now. Too many cancer deaths downwind from fallout. You could use nukes when in orbit but that upsets communications satellites, so you'd have to carry them for a good while on a chemical rocket. Assume a 1% failure rate for chemical rockets and you probably don't want to stand downwind.

ScumLord · 04-06-2015 5:04pm

nyarlothothep wrote: »

NASA are incredibly slow at getting to Mars, where's the innovation there? The Orion capsule is based off a 60s design, it's ugly as hell. Could they not create new synthetic materials that can shield against different types of radiation but which are also light weight? Also why the slow pace with these ion drives, surely they could get them up to spec and what is being done about landing and taking off from Mars? Surely there could be some novel solutions to get around the fuel problem for this? Nukes for takeoff? It would be the first time humanity would go into "deep space", imagine what the astronauts would see out there. Yet here we are earthbound, mired in trivial political disputes. It's all so frustrating.

Give NASA a couple of billion dollars and they'll get you to mars no problem. The technology isn't really the issue as such, we can go there it's just going to be ridiculously expensive. Sending a robot is fine but sending humans into space for months along with all the resources like water, food and oxygen that they need means sending a massive vessel.

The cold war was probably a big influence behind us going to the moon, it gave us an incentive. At the moment there's little financial incentive to go past orbiting earth. I know there's the possibility of things like Helium 3 and asteroids made out of gold but our economy wouldn't actually take getting unlimited access to resources to well, it would in effect make all those rare resources worthless once we have them in abundance.

Technologically we're probably ready to start exploring our solar system. Socially we probably aren't mature enough to do it. A lot of our politics and economy structures just wouldn't make any sense in space.

Capt'n Midnight · 05-06-2015 5:19pm

ScumLord wrote: »

Give NASA a couple of billion dollars and they'll get you to mars no problem. The technology isn't really the issue as such, we can go there it's just going to be ridiculously expensive.
...
A lot of our politics and economy structures just wouldn't make any sense in space.

NASA won't get you to Mars for a couple of billion. You'd need a bottomless pit filled with money.

In the past dynasties and religions were able to complete major fortifications and cathedrals that took longer than a human lifetime.

OldieWilson · 05-06-2015 5:22pm

I would consider the fact that I have a device in the palm of my hand that can give my pretty much any information I need, to be pretty impressive

challengemaster · 05-06-2015 11:43pm

How's this for Sci-Fi reality

http://anonhq.com/bye-bye-oxygen-tanks-aquaman-crystal-help-humans-breathe-underwater/

nyarlothothep · 06-06-2015 12:44am

ScumLord wrote: »

Give NASA a couple of billion dollars and they'll get you to mars no problem. The technology isn't really the issue as such, we can go there it's just going to be ridiculously expensive. Sending a robot is fine but sending humans into space for months along with all the resources like water, food and oxygen that they need means sending a massive vessel.

The cold war was probably a big influence behind us going to the moon, it gave us an incentive. At the moment there's little financial incentive to go past orbiting earth. I know there's the possibility of things like Helium 3 and asteroids made out of gold but our economy wouldn't actually take getting unlimited access to resources to well, it would in effect make all those rare resources worthless once we have them in abundance.

Technologically we're probably ready to start exploring our solar system. Socially we probably aren't mature enough to do it. A lot of our politics and economy structures just wouldn't make any sense in space.

I don't think it's possible even now without some serious advances in radiation shielding which we're simply lacking. It's a bit crap imo. In relation to nuclear propulsion I was thinking it could be used by the lander to take off from Mars but meh, it's a crap idea. Fusion on the other hand...but that will be another 20 years. :rolleyes:

Capt'n Midnight · 06-06-2015 11:57am

challengemaster wrote: »

How's this for Sci-Fi reality

http://anonhq.com/bye-bye-oxygen-tanks-aquaman-crystal-help-humans-breathe-underwater/

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140930113254.htm

"When the material is saturated with oxygen, it can be compared to an oxygen tank containing pure oxygen under pressure -- the difference is that this material can hold three times as much oxygen," says Christine McKenzie.

Silicone materials that act like artificial gills allowing someone to breath underwater but needing several square meters of area have been around since 1964. http://boingboing.net/2014/11/04/the-aqua-hamster-and-the-artif.html

The breathing fluid used in the film The Abyss was real as was the rodent breathing it.

Concorde was a toy for the super rich. Economics and the US attitude of "not invented here" killed it. The US tried to make one. But Mach 2 wasn't good enough, but no one stopped to think how much more Mach 3 would cost. For a start it rules out aluminium because of the extra frictional heat. So costs start to spiral. One of the reasons the Tu-144 was faster than Concorde was the colder air flying over Siberia so you didn't heat up quite as much.

And the US groupthink didn't have any idiots on board because any idiot could have told them if you have a plane that goes three times as fast as existing planes then you'd only need to buy a third as many to cover existing routes. So now R&D costs would be spread over a fraction of the number of planes initially envisaged and cost per plane goes up yet again.

There was also the problem of the sonic boom. But considering how much of the earths surface is covered by water , deserts , areas of low population, there'd still be plenty of scope for long haul, if the price was right. Concorde Mark 2 would have had longer legs to enable a lot more options.

The big thing to come out of Concorde was Airbus so not nearly the total waste a lot of people assume it was.

papu · 09-06-2015 2:48pm

3-D Printing,
Intel keeping with moores law,
Internet and internet of things,
mind-controlled prosthetics,
"Robo-rat" controlled by brain electrodes,
Cloning,
Rosetta Comet Landing,

Those are just off the top of my head, you complain about the lack of technological progress.. what are you doing to change this?:rolleyes:

lazybones32 · 14-06-2015 8:04pm

I read only today -or yesterday- that the potential candidates for a manned-mission to Mars were released from their 'captivity' in a module in Hawaii (which resembles Martian environment). The will is there but I don't think the Public demand exists. People seem more preoccupied with *insert triviality here* than with a human setting foot on our nearest Planet. For the 6 month trip to the Red one, I would urge caution. It won't accomplish anything that will justify the expense involved and has very many potential catastrophes attached: 6 months in a module in Hawaii is very different to spending 6 months in Space; a dangerous landing and take-off and a 6 month return journey.

patscally · 22-06-2015 10:21am

Fusion power is 30 years away. It is forever 30 years away. It was so in the 1960's, the 1990's and is still so in 2015. Fusion power seems to be in some type of time warp.

Pookla · 27-06-2015 8:35pm

papu wrote: »

Intel keeping with moores law

Of all the things we've accomplised (or are accomplishing) this is actually the most impressive to me.

I honestly thought that we'd have run out of steam for this decades ago.

Computer engineers certainly are an impressive bunch! :cool:

amen · 27-06-2015 9:45pm

Computer engineers

Id say more like physicists and electronic engineers.

Pookla · 27-06-2015 9:47pm

amen wrote: »

Id say more like physicists and electronic engineers.

Engineers and scientists in general.

I'm impressed by them all.

Capt'n Midnight · 01-07-2015 6:55pm

Pookla wrote: »

Of all the things we've accomplised (or are accomplishing) this is actually the most impressive to me.

I honestly thought that we'd have run out of steam for this decades ago.

There are lots more tricks left

In 1982 it was 15,000 nm. 1991 was 130nm Today it's 14nm and there's plenty of room at the bottom.

One big problem is smaller features can be damaged by smaller dust. One way of increasing is to make smaller chips so reducing the chances of contamination on any particular one. Now that you have smaller chips you can stack them on top of each other and use vertical interconnects , so everything is close so less delays, to connect them. Handy for memory or multiple cores. So you can stuff more into a package even without waiting for Moore's law to catch up.

Sam Russell · 01-07-2015 6:57pm

As an exercise, look around you home for things that could not be there 30 years ago.

Many things that are 'new' could have been there if they could be afforded, or have been improved significantly in performance. The mobile phone (just about but the size of a concrete block and about as useful) is now the smart phone with amazing computational power and able to connect to the world, so that is new. The home computer was there, just not as good or common. The colour TV was there, just not able to get satellite or DVB-t signals but the flat screen is new. Microwave cookers were there.

What else?

mg1982 · 01-07-2015 7:11pm

I suppose the point being that a lot of the progress is involved around the internet and mobile phones and TV. Most of these advances are more entertainment based. In other areas has there been as much progress as we thought there would be say 30 years ago. I would say that is debatable.

Capt'n Midnight · 01-07-2015 8:03pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

As an exercise, look around you home for things that could not be there 30 years ago.

Many things that are 'new' could have been there if they could be afforded, or have been improved significantly in performance. The mobile phone (just about but the size of a concrete block and about as useful) is now the smart phone with amazing computational power and able to connect to the world, so that is new. The home computer was there, just not as good or common. The colour TV was there, just not able to get satellite or DVB-t signals but the flat screen is new. Microwave cookers were there.

What else?

DVD players and DVD's
Internet access
Decent insulation in the walls and fridges reducing energy costs.
Very cheap gadgets.
Lots more foreign food.

And things that were luxuries for the rich and privileged are now within the reach of more, mainly because the technology has gotten cheaper.

There is a concept of mature technologies. Stuff where further improvements reach diminishing returns. The shape of airliners hasn't changed since the 1950's. Today's manned space flights use rockets that are clearly based on a 1950's ICBM. You could design something better from scratch but it wouldn't be much better and it wouldn't be tried and tested.

Someday we'll get true LED TV's , not just backlit. That would save perhaps half the power of existing TV's Flexible TV's are on the horizon.

In the Biotech world we are at the point where the 1990 Human Genome Project was budgeted at $3Bn and take 15 years.

Today $1,000 sequencing of an entire genome overnight looks practical in the near future. Compare that to the cost of health insurance.

Sam Russell · 01-07-2015 8:38pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

DVD players and DVD's

Cds were there and DVDs are just bigger capacity.

Internet access

The internet was there, just not in the home.

Decent insulation in the walls and fridges reducing energy costs.

There was nothing stopping decent insulation, just the developers and builders.

Very cheap gadgets.

That is just a price issue (mostly) but it is true.

Lots more foreign food.

We always had bananas and oranges, and maybe kiwi fruits. True we do have more but that again is a question of cost.

And things that were luxuries for the rich and privileged are now within the reach of more, mainly because the technology has gotten cheaper.

That is all a question of cost. Foreign holidays were always possible if you can afford them, but Ryanair has transformed air travel - but that is just economics.

There is a concept of mature technologies. Stuff where further improvements reach diminishing returns. The shape of airliners hasn't changed since the 1950's. Today's manned space flights use rockets that are clearly based on a 1950's ICBM. You could design something better from scratch but it wouldn't be much better and it wouldn't be tried and tested.

Someday we'll get true LED TV's , not just backlit. That would save perhaps half the power of existing TV's Flexible TV's are on the horizon.

In the Biotech world we are at the point where the 1990 Human Genome Project was budgeted at $3Bn and take 15 years.

Today $1,000 sequencing of an entire genome overnight looks practical in the near future. Compare that to the cost of health insurance.

As things become cheaper, more people can afford them. Technical advances are sometimes very small advances that have a profound impact - like glues or velcro. They are not future changing in themselves but do change the way things are done. 3D printers could revolutionise the spare parts business.

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.

If you take out the internet/TV/smart phones, there is not much else.

patscally · 02-07-2015 10:02am

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.

Lack of technological progress

Comments