Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

where are the flying cars and shit
why havent any new intresting technology been discovered yet?

when it was 2000 you though there would be hovering cars by now, will the world still be like this in 2024?

This is something of a fallacy. Progress is slow and incremental, so we don't notice it well. Technology in a variety of fields is well beyond beyond what it was even a decade ago. If we look at the period of any of our lives (even the teens), the changes are even more pronounced. We have self-guided planes that can drop nukes into chimneys from miles up, and I can discover any bit of information I want in seconds from a phone that has more computing power than all the technology that sent us to the moon, combined. When I was born, no one had cells phones or computers, and I'm still comfortably under 30.

What you're talking about though are experimental or expensive things, some of which actually exist. Want a sustainable jetpack that can work for minutes over land or indefinitely over water? Become a millionaire. Want a a house with customizable tech walls like the one from the Iron Man movie? Become a millionaire. Some things will be made commercially viable eventually (electric cars, for instance), while others likely won't. Not everyone gets one, in other words.

Frankly, though, it's probably just a mentality. The future is pretty awesome, and for the most part we're in it. Answering machines were invented in '91, Viagra in '98, nanotechnology that does numerous things, shoes that adjust their firmness based on readings the shoe makes as you run, skyscrapers that can withstand massive earthquakes, satellite systems than span the planet, telescopes that make the Hubble obsolete, deep sea diving advances to see more and deeper than ever before. It's good stuff.

So. "Where are the flying cars and shit?" In 80's sci-fi movies, where they belong. No serious futurist predicted such a thing since before it was relevant to you or I. If you're waiting for the unlikely, you'll be disappointed. If you're enjoying the unexpected, sh*t is awesome.

havent thought about it that way, it makes since now some of the things you said i wasnt aware of.

Originally posted by Digi
Progress is slow and incremental, so we don't notice it well.

It's fast an exponential.


Scientific research is also the same: the amount of scholarly works produced is increasing exponentially, not linearly. There has got to be a limit to this, however, as there is only a finite number of people with which to produce scholarly works. Old people seem to notice the changes and say it is so fast that they can't keep up.





To address the thread.

And we've had flying cars for decades: the arrowbile was the first.



I believe the whole "flying car thing in the future" was a meme started by Henry Ford's group back in the 20s. It had a funky name. Since then, "flying cars in teh foochure!" has been a recurring idea.


What you are talking about is probably a mass-autopilot system. We already have auto-pilot systems that could be implemented now, if we wanted to. But it would cost too much money and force so much change that it is impossible. It is no longer a technology problem but a social problem. Same with "self-driving" cars. The self-driving cars are having to revamp to be extremely complex in AI rather than that simplistic stuff they were doing in the 90s.

I've always disliked the "exponential" viewpoint. For one, things can't grow exponentially indefinitely, meaning that it's probably just not exponential most times. Second, if {X} technology is invented, is has technologies {A-W} to interact with. If we were dealing with {B} it would only have {A} to work with (follow me?). Because {X} will find more interactive uses, it seems as thought we're progressing more quickly, when in fact the total number of actual advancements stays roughly the same in any given period.

Progress is progress. You can't say the last 50 years progressed faster than the 50 before that, because BOTH had insane advancements given the tech at the time. Old people fall behind, but that's more biological than rate-of-change. We're not learning to handle change at a faster rate, we don't evolve that quickly.

The exponential thing has mostly been propagated by transhumanists looking for the singularity in every new technology. It's not a verifiable claim, or even a very intuitive one once you think about it.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
havent thought about it that way, it makes since now some of the things you said i wasnt aware of.

I myself am more of a proponent of cubic growth. I have no real arguments to support it though.

Originally posted by Digi
Become a billionaire. Fixed.

Originally posted by Digi
This is something of a fallacy. Progress is slow and incremental, so we don't notice it well. Technology in a variety of fields is well beyond beyond what it was even a decade ago. If we look at the period of any of our lives (even the teens), the changes are even more pronounced. We have self-guided planes that can drop nukes into chimneys from miles up, and I can discover any bit of information I want in seconds from a phone that has more computing power than all the technology that sent us to the moon, combined. When I was born, no one had cells phones or computers, and I'm still comfortably under 30.

What you're talking about though are experimental or expensive things, some of which actually exist. Want a sustainable jetpack that can work for minutes over land or indefinitely over water? Become a millionaire. Want a a house with customizable tech walls like the one from the Iron Man movie? Become a millionaire. Some things will be made commercially viable eventually (electric cars, for instance), while others likely won't. Not everyone gets one, in other words.

Frankly, though, it's probably just a mentality. The future is pretty awesome, and for the most part we're in it. Answering machines were invented in '91, Viagra in '98, nanotechnology that does numerous things, shoes that adjust their firmness based on readings the shoe makes as you run, skyscrapers that can withstand massive earthquakes, satellite systems than span the planet, telescopes that make the Hubble obsolete, deep sea diving advances to see more and deeper than ever before. It's good stuff.

So. "Where are the flying cars and shit?" In 80's sci-fi movies, where they belong. No serious futurist predicted such a thing since before it was relevant to you or I. If you're waiting for the unlikely, you'll be disappointed. If you're enjoying the unexpected, sh*t is awesome. I don't care what you say, I want my damn flying car! sneer


There have been a lot of advancements. "Smart" appliances, robotics (though no Data or 3CPO yet ~grunpy~), medical advances, super materials like alloys, ceramics, etc. And probably several things we're not aware of yet.

Originally posted by Digi
I've always disliked the "exponential" viewpoint. For one, things can't grow exponentially indefinitely, meaning that it's probably just not exponential most times. Second, if {X} technology is invented, is has technologies {A-W} to interact with. If we were dealing with {B} it would only have {A} to work with (follow me?). Because {X} will find more interactive uses, it seems as thought we're progressing more quickly, when in fact the total number of actual advancements stays roughly the same in any given period.

Entire companies existence is based around the fact that technological change is exponential and are relied upon to do both product and market analysis to help companies keep a competitive edge: the Gartner Group is probably the biggest name.

My entire degree program in Cyber Security focused on this exponential growth of both complexity in software and power of hardware: I am to surround myself with "people resources" that can manage and find technologies at a pace enough to keep up with the change to maintain a competitive advantage (my career path is CISO and possibly CIO).

In other words, you are telling me my chosen profession is not only wrong about its approach, but the degree program I am almost done with is based upon a false assumption. But I am not worried about that because I did some research before I accepted the fact that it is exponential (years ago).

Originally posted by Digi
Progress is progress. You can't say the last 50 years progressed faster than the 50 before that,

Actually, it did. Both technologically and scientifically.


Originally posted by Digi
The exponential thing has mostly been propagated by transhumanists looking for the singularity in every new technology. It's not a verifiable claim, or even a very intuitive one once you think about it.

This is not about transhumanists because no one has mentioned ascending into a singularity or whatever you're on about (having a computer powerful enough to replicate a human brain and actually replicating a human brain are two very different tasks).


This is about FLOPS. And not about peens, either. uhuh



In some areas of software, we experienced far greater exponential growth than others (with improvements being 50,000% over the same period of time that our hardware friends only doubled their FLOPS). In hardware, our processing power is very much exponential in growth.

In scholarly works, it is also exponential.



It will eventually flatten because there are a finite number of humans who would be interested in technology changes and there are only so many paradigms we can experience.

However, even the critical items of this exponential growth attributed it to the exponential growth of humans. Regardless, it's still exponentially growing and it does have a ceiling.

If you told a computer engineer in 1980 that we would have computers millions (billions?) of times more powerful than their current home computers, had a capacitive multi-touch interface, had GPS (You'd have to explain what that was), had voice recognition technology (Sirri), had a resolution of 1024x 768 pixels on a 4.3" screen, ran on a battery, could store 64 GB of information, could take 8 megapixel photos, had artificial intelligent software used for stabilizing images and correcting for lighting, was a mobile/wireless telephone that could be used almost anywhere in the modern world, could access a world wide network at millions of bits upload and download speed a second, had a six axis electronic gyroscope, an accelerometer (you may have to explain that it was a mobile electric accelerometer), had speeds far greater than a T1 line...wirelessly, could connect securely to mobile hardware devices (bluetooth and bluetooth authentication 3.0), and offered encryption security that would take hundreds of trillions of years to crack (with 2011 processing power), and THEN told the person that it all came in a palm sized device that weighed less than a kilogram and was a bit more than a cm thick...he or she would not only sh*t their pants, they would sh*t your pants, too. They would not believe you.

As far as information goes, yes, it is growing exponentially and independently of population growth (far faster as the world connects). As our technologies automatically generate information, it will continue to be exponential until we reach a point of "materials" saturation and cannot increase the rate due to the limit of materials available for computers (if we pretend quantum computing does not exist, of course). Then add on top that the pure processing power is still growing exponentially...then add on top that we have a few technologies in development (one slated for a release in 2014) that are supposed to accelerate our processing power even more than the current models...then you have no choice but to face the reality of too much change.

The limit is not anywhere in sight, so far.

To put it more into perspective as far as my job is concerned:

In 1998, it would be unheard of to say the following of an enterprise setup:

Server side offers continuous replication with minimal network bandwidth impact. This allows for near instant changes in access control, data updates, domain changes, etc.

E-mail, network storage, websites (both external and internal), certificates (digital), profiles, VPN, network sharing sites, databases, printers, hardware on the network, software rights on that network, network installations of software, cellphone integration, etc. These will all be manageable in the same domain using the same product through Active Directory in Server 2008 R2 (all the while offering the most complicated and granular security to date).

These are things that have changed since I started in the tech industry and I promise you, it would be unfathomable, from both a network bandwidth and a processing power perspective, to assume all of these technologies could be integrated (with some not existing).

In order to rate something as reasonably secure (assuming you figure out a way to eliminate common software exploits), we can do an analysis of software and hardware combos. We already know that the rate at which a H/S combo is "cracked" varies directly with the length of time it is "seeable" in the internet. However, the chance that it will not become hacked/cracked/broken into, is an asymptotic relationship. This is due to the knowledge of the product, processing power used to run the exploits, and the software used to run the cracking attempts: all improving. Knowing this, you have to build a business security model that is at least ahead of the exponential growth of computing technologies to minimize your security risk.

Sure, it will require some gambles at times but it is fairly predictive as long as you keep up with it.

There's no need to invoke "sentient AI" into the discussion, at all. That's another animal that may or may not be possible (however, it most likely will happen unless we create laws about it). Based on current technologies that are moving towards the commercial phase, we are right on target to, at the very least, keep pace with the "doubling in processing power" notion (that's NOT Moore's law, btw). You yourself have observed this processing power and information doubling effect: your video games and the internet.

The thread started with flying cars and you're talking about exponential growth. You guys are sooo boooooorrring.

hahah, but yeah, we probably are.

@dudemon - tl;dr, will get to it some other time. Not ready for another one of these with you just yet, especially when I'd have to do some homework to make sure I wasn't over my head (which is a good thing, mind you, just more work).

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Fixed.

http://www.jetlev-flyer.com/en/62868-Where-to-buy

You'd need expendable income, but millionaire would suffice.

Oh, and about your flying car:
http://www.hammacher.com/Product/11812

Again, just be rich as hell. And have a pilot's license. But it does in fact do both.

everything is going fast. its 2012

Slowly but surly we should be getting something advance I can't wait to see. If you remember back in the nintys we all grew up with VHS and had no idea that it would ever become DVDS so that is something that happen;.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
where are the flying cars and shit
why havent any new intresting technology been discovered yet?

when it was 2000 you though there would be hovering cars by now, will the world still be like this in 2024?

Flying cars would never have been feasible anyway due to the fact that a simple breakdown would have one falling on unsuspecting people below. Unless it's like a Fifth Element scenario and and there's just a smoky fog area that presumably no-one uses anymore. Even so, I'd rather stall on a steady piece of concrete than go screaming to my death.

I think the 2000 hype was just what it was - hype and a lot of fantasy. If you see some of the science fiction writing and artwork from ages ago all this featured way back then too, and they probably thought things would be way more advanced in years that we consider to be dated.

I dislike the Base 10 numbering system. If it were me, we'd be on Base 9.

But one of the side affects of any numbering system is that we value certain dates, numbers, etc. over others for arbitrary reasons.

Today's smart phones do a hell of a lot more than Spock's tricorder. So as far as I'm concerned, I'm in the future.

Originally posted by Digi
I dislike the Base 10 numbering system. If it were me, we'd be on Base 9.

But one of the side affects of any numbering system is that we value certain dates, numbers, etc. over others for arbitrary reasons.

I'm not sure I would describe a base 10 numbering system as arbitrary...

I get your point, but its not like a random coincidence we have a numbering system based on the same number of countable digits we have on our hands.

lol, that is all....

I'm surprised nobody flipped sh*t at the flying car link. They exist, people.

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm not sure I would describe a base 10 numbering system as arbitrary...

I get your point, but its not like a random coincidence we have a numbering system based on the same number of countable digits we have on our hands.

lol, that is all....

Ha. Oh no, I get that completely. I just prefer base 9. If I'm grouping things on a 10 point scale, the range of 4-7 on the scale, for example, means nothing to me. But in base 9, you have:
1-2-3
4-5-6
7-8-9

Low, middle, high, and "low, middle, high" sub-groups within each of those main groupings. Extrapolate that to much larger systems and I think it has powerful use as a descriptive number system.

So, to use a mundane example, a girl is a "7" in looks (guys like doing this, so meh). But what does 7 mean?? No clue. But on a 9-point scale, that 7 means she is above average in attractiveness, but on the lower end of that above average group. 9 would be the most beautiful people I know, 5 would be average, 4 would be slightly below average but still in the same vicinity, etc.

Silly example, but it gets my point across.

I don't know, the decimal system works just fine for me. 10 - the best of the best, 5 - average, 1 or 0 - dogshit.

Originally posted by Digi
I'm surprised nobody flipped sh*t at the flying car link. They exist, people.



Ha. Oh no, I get that completely. I just prefer base 9. If I'm grouping things on a 10 point scale, the range of 4-7 on the scale, for example, means nothing to me. But in base 9, you have:
1-2-3
4-5-6
7-8-9

Low, middle, high, and "low, middle, high" sub-groups within each of those main groupings. Extrapolate that to much larger systems and I think it has powerful use as a descriptive number system.

So, to use a mundane example, a girl is a "7" in looks (guys like doing this, so meh). But what does 7 mean?? No clue. But on a 9-point scale, that 7 means she is above average in attractiveness, but on the lower end of that above average group. 9 would be the most beautiful people I know, 5 would be average, 4 would be slightly below average but still in the same vicinity, etc.

Silly example, but it gets my point across.

I think a better case can be made for a Fibonacci based system.

That sequence occurs quite frequently in "nature". Meaning, we don't have to apply human (anthropic) designation for a numbering system simply because our hands have 10 digits.

It could work, symbolically, similar to the Roman Numeral system: IV is 4.

1, 5 is also 4 using the Fibonacci sequence because...


0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5


The first number in the Fibonacci sequence (I do not count zero as the first number but I count it as the 0th number) could be thought of as our first value. The second iteration is our number 1. The third, our number two, the forth, our number three. The fifth, our number five.


What's beautiful about the Fibonacci sequence is we can always arrive at any (base-10 or otherwise) number by using the numbers that created that value in the sequence.

This is why 1 (second iteration, not first) next to 5 (fifth iteration) could mean "5th iteration minus the second iteration" to get to an exact integer value of "4".

Now why would we need an exact integer value? Set theory: we would still have sequential values that would not be perfectly captures by the Fibonacci sequence so we would have to increment and decrement based on the iteration of the sequence we are using.



So...for example...


To "say" the number 100, you'd write it out like this using the fibonacci numbers:


3 and 6 and 10, 144



Why 3 and 6 and 10?

We have to add up and subtract all of those iterations from the 12th iteration after the comma (12th iteration is 144).


Since we would be using those numbers to symbolically represent a different numbering/math based system, we'd have to designate another symbol to represent the iteration value rather than the actual integer value.


Our decimal #2 is iteration # 3 in the sequence.

Our decimal #8 is iteration #6 in the sequence.


In a universal math language, we'd have a unique symbol for each iteration of the Fibonacci sequence all the way up to omega: the theoretical maximum value a number can be without being infinity (silly concept...but roll with it). This also means that the "numbers" in that type of number system would be much much fewer in total than our current base-10 system because it is a geometric growth. For instance, to get any value in the Fibonacci based numbering system up to 100, you'd only have exactly 12 symbols required to represent all of them. Whereas, in our arabic numeral system, we'd have exactly 100 of them: . Each number is technically a symbol. Now, we may use multiple symbols for each system to represent each indivual value in both systems, but the fibonacci sequence has the luxury of fewer actual unit representations. Some could argue that the base-10 system only uses 10 symbols, peroid. That's true but that's thinking off it like art rather than math. Each number value in base ten is technically a symbol representing that value. One hundred represents one hundred elements in some sort of set or measure. It is the symbol for that representation. The 1, the 0, and the 0 are individual symbols, sure, but together they symbolize another thing.

So if we were to use a truly universal system of international units, we'd use the most commonly occurring number set in the universe which is possibly the set of Fibonacci numbers (or golden ratio). I know that seems anthropic but it really isn't: that sequence/ratio occurs in so many places it is ridiculous...such as atomic crystalline structures, how light scatters through materials, matter arrangements in space, leaves, etc.


I hope all of that makes sense.

When does that system ever offer an advantage?

Yeah, I kinda just want to rank girls on a more definable scale.



I see your point, but that's also a lot more work to rethink how we structure our numbering patterns. It's the same reason I'd be down with, say, phonetic spelling (which would be an incomprehensible boon to education in the country, but I digress), but not switching to a different language. Your idea may have more applications in scientific fields. Us common folk wouldn't really have use for the more high-minded aspects of your theory, dudemon.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
I don't know, the decimal system works just fine for me. 10 - the best of the best, 5 - average, 1 or 0 - dogshit.

Well yes, we have generalities, but nothing approaching standardization. Can you really tell me that a base-10 system has more descriptive power for simple comparisons like this, than the base-9 one I outlined? If so, how?

Originally posted by Digi
I'm surprised nobody flipped sh*t at the flying car link. They exist, people.



Ha. Oh no, I get that completely. I just prefer base 9. If I'm grouping things on a 10 point scale, the range of 4-7 on the scale, for example, means nothing to me. But in base 9, you have:
1-2-3
4-5-6
7-8-9

Low, middle, high, and "low, middle, high" sub-groups within each of those main groupings. Extrapolate that to much larger systems and I think it has powerful use as a descriptive number system.

So, to use a mundane example, a girl is a "7" in looks (guys like doing this, so meh). But what does 7 mean?? No clue. But on a 9-point scale, that 7 means she is above average in attractiveness, but on the lower end of that above average group. 9 would be the most beautiful people I know, 5 would be average, 4 would be slightly below average but still in the same vicinity, etc.

Silly example, but it gets my point across.

You realize you were using base 10 to make your point? Seems to work just fine.

What you want is to rate out of 9, rather than out of 10, you already discount 0 for some reason so I think you'll be alright.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You realize you were using base 10 to make your point? Seems to work just fine.

What you want is to rate out of 9, rather than out of 10, you already discount 0 for some reason so I think you'll be alright.

Well, sure, I referenced base 10, but showed some advantages to base 9.

Zero is a non-value, in most senses an absence of a number instead of a number itself. It's not used for a lot of practical purposes.

Does the potential convenience of base 9 escape you?

Originally posted by Digi
Well, sure, I referenced base 10, but showed some advantages to base 9.

Zero is a non-value, in most senses an absence of a number instead of a number itself. It's not used for a lot of practical purposes.

Does the potential convenience of base 9 escape you?
back off, he's German, he's about to go Liebniz on your ass. estahuh

Originally posted by Digi
Well, sure, I referenced base 10, but showed some advantages to base 9.

Zero is a non-value, in most senses an absence of a number instead of a number itself. It's not used for a lot of practical purposes.

Does the potential convenience of base 9 escape you?

Yes, completely.

I don't see the advantage of

1 - 2 - 3
4 - 5 - 6
7 - 8 - 10

at all. I suppose I can see the slight advantage of rating something on 9 points rather than 10, but like I said that seems perfectly possible in base 10, in fact you did it.

Maybe you have a better example to explain it to me though?

Although the mere fact that 9 is not divisible by 2 for a whole number seems like a major draw back. I could see some advantages of base 8 or base 12 perhaps.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f11/t560273.html
^In many ways this is much more impressive than a flying car

Edit: I think the Hutts from Star Wars use Base-8. nerd

Originally posted by Digi
I'm surprised nobody flipped sh*t at the flying car link. They exist, people.



Yeah, but come on, that is more of a plane than an actual car. It's kind like a modern/expensive version of Scaramanga's plane/car that also was neither one or the other.

I'd also imagine any damage sustained on the road would be a flight risk to when you wanted to fly it so not very ideal if it's a specialist piece of equipment.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f11/t560273.html
^In many ways this is much more impressive than a flying car

Edit: I think the Hutts from Star Wars use Base-8. nerd

We're so entrenched in 10 that we don't realize ANY system would be about as good once we got used to it. I just like 9 because I can find happy little mundane uses for it in my life.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, completely.

I don't see the advantage of

1 - 2 - 3
4 - 5 - 6
7 - 8 - 10

at all. I suppose I can see the slight advantage of rating something on 9 points rather than 10, but like I said that seems perfectly possible in base 10, in fact you did it.

Maybe you have a better example to explain it to me though?

Although the mere fact that 9 is not divisible by 2 for a whole number seems like a major draw back. I could see some advantages of base 8 or base 12 perhaps.

Sure it is. It's 4.5. There's no reason we should fear decimals. Whole numbers are just ones where we decided not to write the decimal in.

I'm confused about the 10 at the end. It's:
1-2-3
4-5-6
7-8-9
Not 10.

It breaks it into 3 groups of 3 each, giving us a "low/middle/high" category and a "low/middle/high" subgroup within each category. In a base 10 scale, you only have two easily subdivded categories:
1-2-3-4-5
6-7-8-9-10
Or five sub categories I suppose. But the point is, for an example, what is "7" on a 10-point scale? High-ish?? What is 7 on a 9-point scale? It's the low end of the upper third. That distinction could then be applied to all sorts of variables where we need to determine a position in relation to others.

I don't know what the difference is between a 7 and an 8 on a 10-point scale if I'm ranking a girl's hotness (again, a crude example, but an effective one). There's no criteria I can apply to say "this one's closer to 70% but this one's closer to 80%." But on a 9-point scale, I can tell you exactly what the line is between categories and begin to standardize a ranking system in my mind.

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
Yeah, but come on, that is more of a plane than an actual car. It's kind like a modern/expensive version of Scaramanga's plane/car that also was neither one or the other.

I'd also imagine any damage sustained on the road would be a flight risk to when you wanted to fly it so not very ideal if it's a specialist piece of equipment.

wtf did you expect it to look like? Of course it needs to kinda look like a plane. But it does both. Ergo, flying car.

But you can make a nine point scale in base 10, nothing about it prevents you from doing it or even makes it more difficult.

Oh, well sure. But it would just shift peoples' thinking to base 9, much like we're completely locked into base 10 right now, so that I could say "that restaurant is a 7" without having to explain my ranking process.

Again, I'm just looking for convenience in my life. My cool system gets me nowhere if I'm the only one that knows it and uses it.

Why are you confused about the 10 at the end? You brought up base 9

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20

No?

Again it seems like the convenience of base 10 with it's easy way of telling odd from even numbers, and doing certain multiplications far outweigh what little advantage having everyone use base 9 might have (the little advantage at most being that you don't have to say "out of 9" after rating something)

Originally posted by Digi

wtf did you expect it to look like? Of course it needs to kinda look like a plane. But it does both. Ergo, flying car.

Well, like a flying car, without the wings and other elements which are synonymous with planes. Otherwise you would just call a small plane a car or an airliner a flying bus/train.

I'm not saying it's possible or that I would have been expecting that from the link but the idea of a combined plane/car is not that hard to imagine as a cruder version of that is in a 1974 James Bond movie; thus my reaction to your comment.

That flying car thing you posted, Digi, do you know if it can take off from a road or if you'd need a runway?

I'm sure they'd advise you use a runway, but the only way I could see that as a flying car would be if you could just take off from a straight road right after converting to plane mode.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
That flying car thing you posted, Digi, do you know if it can take off from a road or if you'd need a runway?

I'm sure they'd advise you use a runway, but the only way I could see that as a flying car would be if you could just take off from a straight road right after converting to plane mode. http://www.moller.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=49&Itemid=57

Originally posted by Omega Vision
That flying car thing you posted, Digi, do you know if it can take off from a road or if you'd need a runway?

I'm sure they'd advise you use a runway, but the only way I could see that as a flying car would be if you could just take off from a straight road right after converting to plane mode.

I don't really know.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Why are you confused about the 10 at the end? You brought up base 9

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20

No?

Again it seems like the convenience of base 10 with it's easy way of telling odd from even numbers, and doing certain multiplications far outweigh what little advantage having everyone use base 9 might have (the little advantage at most being that you don't have to say "out of 9" after rating something)

Ah ok. But here's the thing. 9x9, 10x10, anything really, are all going to equal the same totals in a Base-anything system. It wouldn't rearrange math or prevent us from seeing odds or evens. It would just take us time to ingratiate ourselves to the new system. And in the process, we'd start thinking of things in terms of their relation to 9 instead of 10, which I think would be cool.

I mean, really, my statement wasn't "the world would be a better place in base 9." No, math would be the friggin same, as would just about anything else. My statement was just that I liked it better, and I do.

Alright, I think you are wrong, for the reasons I stated. But it's alright if you prefer it.

This has been a wonderful example of internet vs. RL discussion.

RL:
"Hey, check it, if you rank things out of 9 it makes more sense sometimes and gives you more descriptive power."
"Oh, you're right, nifty."
"Yeah, cool right?"
"I'll have to try that some time for fun."
...and we go on to forget about it and continue on with our lives.

Interwebz:
"Hey guys, check it...."
"Here are the 5 reasons you are wrong, and some mathematical principles that suggest your proposed changes aren't even needed."
"But guys....it helps me rank girls in a way that makes more sense to me."
"But if you use a Fibonacci sequence..."
"Sigh. Yes yes, valid points. Forget I mentioned it."

Spelling phonetically, now there's an idea I can get behind.

Anyway, flying cars.

Originally posted by Digi
Ah ok. But here's the thing. 9x9, 10x10, anything really, are all going to equal the same totals in a Base-anything system. It wouldn't rearrange math or prevent us from seeing odds or evens. It would just take us time to ingratiate ourselves to the new system. And in the process, we'd start thinking of things in terms of their relation to 9 instead of 10, which I think would be cool.

I mean, really, my statement wasn't "the world would be a better place in base 9." No, math would be the friggin same, as would just about anything else. My statement was just that I liked it better, and I do.

You're correct. We wouldn't have odds or evens in a base-9 system. We'd have todds or tevens.

(Numbers divisible by 3 and numbers not divisible by 3).

For a while there, I started to memorize all properties of 3 and powers related to 3 because I thought it would be useful (as a kid). Turns out...2 is better. So I see why Marius is on about what he is.

Originally posted by Digi
Spelling phonetically, now there's an idea I can get behind.

You will lose some of the etymology of a word if you eliminate some of the spellings. The etymology helps the "speaker" know what a word means without ever having encountered it before which is an advantage of "root words" or "words of origin". Phonetic spelling would eliminate that.

Also, due to accents, phonetic spelling would vary too much even with in the same country. This makes the phonetic spelling idea a complete waste of time.


Yes, I am being a douche because you said that thing about interweb discussions. uhuh

I am a big supporter of phonetic spellings and I want to go there because I could not give a **** about etymology. We'd have to universalize pronunciation, of course. Or, we could force everyone to start speaking Latin (I prefer this along with making all of Latin phonetically spelled).

im a big fan of you stfu'ing!

I'm not necessarily for spelling phonetically solely, but English spelling reform is a insanely good idea.

Originally posted by Digi
This has been a wonderful example of internet vs. RL discussion.

RL:
"Hey, check it, if you rank things out of 9 it makes more sense sometimes and gives you more descriptive power."
"Oh, you're right, nifty."
"Yeah, cool right?"
"I'll have to try that some time for fun."
...and we go on to forget about it and continue on with our lives.

Interwebz:
"Hey guys, check it...."
"Here are the 5 reasons you are wrong, and some mathematical principles that suggest your proposed changes aren't even needed."
"But guys....it helps me rank girls in a way that makes more sense to me."
"But if you use a Fibonacci sequence..."
"Sigh. Yes yes, valid points. Forget I mentioned it."

lol, not quite.

Had you said "rating something out of 9 is nifty", I wouldn't have bothered responding as I don't really have an opinion on it. You said "I think humans should use base 9", that's quite different, and I have an opinion on that

You're just a jerk and a bully Bardock. Admit it.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
You're just a jerk and a bully Bardock. Admit it.

I have in the past bullied people, I am trying to make amends though. It's hard, man, you don't know how hard it is.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I have in the past bullied people, I am trying to make amends though. It's hard, man, you don't know how hard it is. Spare me your sex talk, you bully jerk rapist!

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's hard, man, you don't know how hard it is.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Spare me your sex talk, you bully jerk rapist!

So everyone can "c wut you did thar".

This is why I don't hang out with Mormons.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
This is why I don't hang out with Mormons.


This is why we call the J-Dubs the "bad flavor" of Mormons.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You're correct. We wouldn't have odds or evens in a base-9 system. We'd have todds or tevens.

(Numbers divisible by 3 and numbers not divisible by 3).

For a while there, I started to memorize all properties of 3 and powers related to 3 because I thought it would be useful (as a kid). Turns out...2 is better. So I see why Marius is on about what he is.



You will lose some of the etymology of a word if you eliminate some of the spellings. The etymology helps the "speaker" know what a word means without ever having encountered it before which is an advantage of "root words" or "words of origin". Phonetic spelling would eliminate that.

Also, due to accents, phonetic spelling would vary too much even with in the same country. This makes the phonetic spelling idea a complete waste of time.


Yes, I am being a douche because you said that thing about interweb discussions. uhuh

I am a big supporter of phonetic spellings and I want to go there because I could not give a **** about etymology. We'd have to universalize pronunciation, of course. Or, we could force everyone to start speaking Latin (I prefer this along with making all of Latin phonetically spelled).

Again, and amusingly, my intent is more practical than philosophical. I was a teacher for a time. And I can tell you without a doubt the largest unnecessary time sink we have in English classes in the country is teaching spelling. It's omnipresent through grade school, even into most high schools.

I had a professor in college from Italy, and he laughed at us one day, saying "I came to this country and couldn't understand your spelling bees. In Italy, we have about 25 words that aren't phonetic and everyone knows them. If we had spelling bees, they'd never end." By about 3rd grade, there's no giant emphasis on spelling and they're focused on other aspects of language use. But here, it remains a staple well through middle school, and doesn't begin to taper off until high school (and never truly goes away).

Switch to phonetic spelling and within 10 years we'd be an incomprehensibly more literate society.

I can see the problems with etymology, I'm not disagreeing with you, just pointing out the potential benefit, which I believe outweighs those considerations. And dialects could and would still exist, spoken word is different than written. But yes, phonetic spelling would, to an extent, curb some of that. But using the same spelling doesn't prevent dialects currently, so I don't think it would disappear.

Originally posted by Digi
Again, and amusingly, my intent is more practical than philosophical. I was a teacher for a time. And I can tell you without a doubt the largest unnecessary time sink we have in English classes in the country is teaching spelling. It's omnipresent through grade school, even into most high schools.

I had a professor in college from Italy, and he laughed at us one day, saying "I came to this country and couldn't understand your spelling bees. In Italy, we have about 25 words that aren't phonetic and everyone knows them. If we had spelling bees, they'd never end." By about 3rd grade, there's no giant emphasis on spelling and they're focused on other aspects of language use. But here, it remains a staple well through middle school, and doesn't begin to taper off until high school (and never truly goes away).

Switch to phonetic spelling and within 10 years we'd be an incomprehensibly more literate society.

I can see the problems with etymology, I'm not disagreeing with you, just pointing out the potential benefit, which I believe outweighs those considerations. And dialects could and would still exist, spoken word is different than written. But yes, phonetic spelling would, to an extent, curb some of that. But using the same spelling doesn't prevent dialects currently, so I don't think it would disappear.


That other stuff I said was just me being a douche. Those are the common arguments given when I bring up phonetic spelling. I was making, what you called, a high level troll joke because you mentioned the interwebz difference on the previous page. It was mostly for your entertainment.


But, yes, I agree on all accounts. How would you reconcile the pronunciation problem other than using a language that has a specific way to pronounce things, universally (like Latin)?

You know, we could go to official Mandarin...but that has problems, as well.

So all the homophones becomes homonyms as well?

Originally posted by dadudemon
That other stuff I said was just me being a douche. Those are the common arguments given when I bring up phonetic spelling. I was making, what you called, a high level troll joke because you mentioned the interwebz difference on the previous page. It was mostly for your entertainment.


But, yes, I agree on all accounts. How would you reconcile the pronunciation problem other than using a language that has a specific way to pronounce things, universally (like Latin)?

You know, we could go to official Mandarin...but that has problems, as well.

Well, if we're being technical, a lot of words that have standardized pronunciations in our current language routinely get butchered by various dialects. I doubt it's a problem that can be corrected, if it's a problem at all. So nothing would change with pronunciation, really, but spelling would be made a ****ton easier. So like I mentioned, dialects wouldn't disappear, but I think phonetic spelling would lessen the discrepancies to an extent. Pronunciation wouldn't be universal, just closer than it is now.

Seriously though, it's every single day in most middle schools, because it needs to be taught that much. Imagine those hundreds of hours each year being put into writing and literature analysis. It makes me sad to think about it. And I've never heard an argument that outweighs this. Much like the metric system, it's mostly just institutionalized complacency and stubbornness.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So all the homophones becomes homonyms as well?

My solution to that was this: get rid of them and come up with new words...

Not very hard, imo.

or this:
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So all the homophones becomes homonyms as well?

A small hiccup, which I've considered. But a drop in the bucket compared to the benefit. 99% of the time, context could disambiguate it anyway. Also, much like Italian, if we created a few dozen exceptions for the one place phonetic spelling doesn't work well, it would still be less than the thousands of exceptions (and exceptions to the exceptions) we have now.

This is a great article about spelling reform, addressing a lot of the criticisms:

http://www.xibalba.demon.co.uk/jbr/ortho.html

Originally posted by Bardock42
This is a great article about spelling reform, addressing a lot of the criticisms:

http://www.xibalba.demon.co.uk/jbr/ortho.html


It's nicely written. I like it.


However, I have one problem with his section #10.

We WERE taught the etymology of our words in school. It was part of our spelling classes up through 8th grade. We had to write essays on them and know the origins and meanings of the root words or related words. By the time we got to the 8th grade, each chapter was a little piece of the "English Language" puzzle. For instance, we had an entire chapter on acronyms, their origins, and what acronyms were. We had another chapter on medieval influenced french words (not the modern french, old school french.) We had another on words that are "common" but are new after 1950 (but did not include the acronyms). And so forth. I found this stuff I learned in elementary and middle school to be fundamental to my ability to understand new words that I come across in English. So, no, you don't need to take the GCSE if you are taught that. All schools should be teaching their children the etymology.


Yes, morphophonology is important to tell what sh*t means, sometimes. However, there are literally hundreds (thousands) of exceptions that we use so it makes the root word argument invalid. STILL...I like my word history just fine.



Again, I think we should use a universal language that has a single pronunciation (or an agreed upon pronunciation that everyone has to use no matter their language origins). This is why I say we use Latin. It is used quite a bit in science.

For instance, I heard a Japanese man (on an documentary) trying to speak English but his accent was so horrid that I could not make out what he was saying UNTIL...he spoke a Latin phrase to make his point. I could understand him, then. He spent more time learning how to properly pronounce that Latin phrase than he did anything in English (this is tangential to the actual point). I do not know what it is about Latin but it seems easier to understand no matter the background of the speaker.


I'm obviously bias.



Back on point...

There is a way to solve all of this language problem: a way to electronically learn a language instantly (Matrix uploads). I hope i live to the day to see that. "Mom, I took French today at school. All of it. "

Originally posted by Bardock42
I'm not necessarily for spelling phonetically solely, but English spelling reform is a insanely good idea.
Lol one good thing about German is that there are no silent letters and almost every word is spelled like it sounds.

Latin is not a great language, it has very complicated grammar and is not easy to learn. It has a couple of advantages, but I don't feel any outweigh the problems it has.

Of course it's not so easy to just choose a universal language, and English will likely be the de facto universal language for the foreseeable future. Which is not that bad really, it's not that hard to learn the basics of English, the spelling however is pretty bad and spelling reform may be advantageous.

The alternative is a constructed auxiliary language of course, like Esperanto or lojban. I read a fantastic article about what a good constructed language should have as well: http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/auxlang-design.html

We should all speak Proto-Indo European.

Sure its a little gwer...but suck it up. uhuh

Edit: The guy who wrote that article sounds like an engineer. It's like he's saying "I only care about a language's ability to be used to express culture and literary imagination insofar as it can be used to drum up interest for the language so that we can have people read our scientific papers"

Originally posted by Omega Vision
We should all speak Proto-Indo European.

Sure its a little gwer...but suck it up. uhuh

Edit: The guy who wrote that article sounds like an engineer. It's like he's saying "I only care about a language's ability to be used to express culture and literary imagination insofar as it can be used to drum up interest for the language so that we can have people read our scientific papers"

Well, he is arguing for an auxiliary language. Not for a first language.

English sux.

English is hard to learn, has complicated grammer, and things are not pronouced as they seem (sometimes), plus depending on where you are in america people speak and pronouce things somewhat different. (Especially with black people).

It's a colorful language.

What do you mean?

That was apropos.

K

Que?

I love how this derailed from a discussion about why there has been supposedly no substantial progress made 12 years into the 21st century to a discussion about number systems to a discussion about how much English does or does not suck.

Btw, which English are we talking about here? British or American?

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
depending on where you are in america people speak and pronouce things somewhat different

There is no language that doesn't have this problem and no realistic way to avoid having it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There is no language that doesn't have this problem and no realistic way to avoid having it.
Truth. In 1984, it was suggested that even Big Brother lacks the power to completely control language and force cohesion on the entirety (or even the majority) of the population.

I've long hoped that Elvish would one day emerge as a oft-used language in the real world. Let people swear on TV in deceptively pleasing mystical lilt.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I've long hoped that Elvish would one day emerge as a oft-used language in the real world. Let people swear on TV in deceptively pleasing mystical lilt.

I'm totally with you, I'm just not sure whether it should be Quenya or Sindarin.

Originally posted by Digi
I dislike the Base 10 numbering system. If it were me, we'd be on Base 9.

Agreed. Especially if it means getting my damn flying car sooner rather than later.

Even the most vague proposal of a top-down change to English is laughable. It is a language that will never operate that way; it is almost completely descriptive, not prescriptive. You just have to let it evolve as it will.

Actually, that really applies to all languages, but English grasped it first and best.

-

As for 2012- people in 2000 thought there would be flying cars? Uh, no. That was more of a 1950s fantasy about the year 2000, and of course itr isn't about getting a car to fly, which is easy, but getting a system that works ad is actually of any benefit. If that ever becomes the case, we'll get the cars.

Leo from The West Wing bemoaned the lack of technological change in 2000 that was imagined when he was a kid, and when Josh points out the invention of the internet to him, he replies:

"A faster delivery system for porn? Screw that, where's my jetpack?"

Funny you mention that, this movie is based on that Idea, set between 1998 & 2003 IIRC.

Middle Men (film) (2009) - Wiki

Movie was actually pretty good too.