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.
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.
👆
Originally posted by DigiI don't care what you say, I want my damn flying car! sneer
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.
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.
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.
Re: Its 2012 so????
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.
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.