On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 15:15:04 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> Another week, they had a plastic key with a microprocessor inside it.
> When you stick it in the lock, it transmits a code to the computer in
> the lock, which makes the door unlock. [Actually, it didn't. The key
> snapped off in the lock, leaving the presenter to tell us all how
> wonderful it is, and how this is only a prototype.] It seemed pretty
> stupid to me, but today electronic locks are all over the place. They
> just don't make them shaped like mechanical keys any more - because
> that's silly.

Actually, many modern cars in the US use microchipped mechanical keys - 
makes them much more difficult to duplicate (also makes them a lot more 
expensive).

On our recent holiday, though, we rented a Prius and it didn't have a 
mechanical key at all.

So both models are in use.

> So if this technology is the future... where is it? How come it's
> completely vanished off the face of existence?

It hasn't - some of it didn't work out.  Novell had a product technology 
called NEST (Novell Embedded Systems Technology) about 10-15 years ago 
that aimed to network common appliances - I saw things like VCRs that 
were network-enabled, even a coffee maker.  That VCR technology is a 
predecessor to current DVR technology (many DVRs can be programmed over 
the network).

Others of it are in use, but maybe in different applications than were 
presented.  That's the challenge of predicting the future - you have to 
analyse trends and make predictions based on what the current trends show 
you.

It's not a very exact science, because it relies very heavily on 
guesswork, and the further out you try to predict, the more inaccurate 
the predictions become - partly because the trending only takes you so 
far, and partly because you can't predict based on upcoming breakthroughs 
(you don't know when there will be a breakthrough in nanotechnology for 
example, though you might be able to predict that a breakthrough is 
likely to happen) - especially breakthroughs that are completely 
unexpected.

> There seemed to be some suggesting that the entire IC might work by
> processing light instead of electricity. I'm sceptical about whether
> that could work. I'm not aware of any light-based switching technology.

Of course scepticism would be present in any area where one didn't have 
expertise.  I've heard of some of this type of thing being done 
experimentally in academic settings.  Quantum computing, OTOH, I'm not 
sure anyone could have predicted because the behaviours of quantum 
particles (and the discovery of certain particles) couldn't easily have 
been predicted (but I'm no expert and it's possible/probable that someone 
who is could've seen it coming from further off).

> So why is absolutely nobody using this stuff? I can only imagine that
> the answer is the same as for the 3D IC. In other words, "it's too
> expensive" combined with "we haven't reached the hard limits of current
> methods yet".

There is a certain amount of technological inertia to overcome - current 
methods are cheap, developing new methods costs a lot of money, 
especially when you start talking about large-scale production.

So in essence, you're correct. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message