 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
hey if bezos /really/ is the visionary everyone says he is ... he'd be
looking into replicators (ala star trek) NOT drones
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 13:11:10 -0500, James Holsenback wrote:
> hey if bezos /really/ is the visionary everyone says he is ... he'd be
> looking into replicators (ala star trek) NOT drones
Either that or transporters. There's not a lot of money to be made in
fabrication-on-demand technology like replicators, but transporters -
well, that's just another delivery mechanism. :)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/02/2013 03:09 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 13:11:10 -0500, James Holsenback wrote:
>
>> hey if bezos /really/ is the visionary everyone says he is ... he'd be
>> looking into replicators (ala star trek) NOT drones
>
> Either that or transporters. There's not a lot of money to be made in
> fabrication-on-demand technology like replicators, but transporters -
> well, that's just another delivery mechanism. :)
too bad we have to wait for some egghead to figure out how to convert
matter to energy then back ... hey 10/15 years ago the idea of a 3d
printer would have been considered a pipe dream, so I don't think the
eventual reality is /too/ far fetched.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/2/2013 5:58 PM, James Holsenback wrote:
> On 12/02/2013 03:09 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 13:11:10 -0500, James Holsenback wrote:
>>
>>> hey if bezos /really/ is the visionary everyone says he is ... he'd be
>>> looking into replicators (ala star trek) NOT drones
>>
>> Either that or transporters. There's not a lot of money to be made in
>> fabrication-on-demand technology like replicators, but transporters -
>> well, that's just another delivery mechanism. :)
>
> too bad we have to wait for some egghead to figure out how to convert
> matter to energy then back ... hey 10/15 years ago the idea of a 3d
> printer would have been considered a pipe dream, so I don't think the
> eventual reality is /too/ far fetched.
>
Except.. Unless you know how to make "Heisenberg Compensators", you are
out of luck. lol The problem isn't just getting all the matter turned to
energy, without like.. turning it into a nuke, or getting a mess of a
specific kind of energy to rearrange itself into all the different stuff
making up atoms, which is a big enough problem, but then you have the
sort of.. problematic issue of getting all the resulting subatomic
particles to go, and stay, where you want them, long enough to form the
right sort of atoms, instead of... what ever the hell they feel like,
and where ever they want to be, instead.
This is.... a rather non-trivial issue, compared to figuring out how to
melt a relatively stable material, keep it warm enough for all the bits
to stick together right (if using the home-grown kind, as apposed to the
resin versions, which use lasers to "fix" the layers in place), in a
manner that is little more than a computer controlled version of cake
decorating. :p
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 19:58:18 -0500, James Holsenback wrote:
> On 12/02/2013 03:09 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 13:11:10 -0500, James Holsenback wrote:
>>
>>> hey if bezos /really/ is the visionary everyone says he is ... he'd be
>>> looking into replicators (ala star trek) NOT drones
>>
>> Either that or transporters. There's not a lot of money to be made in
>> fabrication-on-demand technology like replicators, but transporters -
>> well, that's just another delivery mechanism. :)
>
> too bad we have to wait for some egghead to figure out how to convert
> matter to energy then back ... hey 10/15 years ago the idea of a 3d
> printer would have been considered a pipe dream, so I don't think the
> eventual reality is /too/ far fetched.
Absolutely. :)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2013-12-02 20:08, Patrick Elliott a écrit :
> On 12/2/2013 5:58 PM, James Holsenback wrote:
>> On 12/02/2013 03:09 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 13:11:10 -0500, James Holsenback wrote:
>>>
>>>> hey if bezos /really/ is the visionary everyone says he is ... he'd be
>>>> looking into replicators (ala star trek) NOT drones
>>>
>>> Either that or transporters. There's not a lot of money to be made in
>>> fabrication-on-demand technology like replicators, but transporters -
>>> well, that's just another delivery mechanism. :)
>>
>> too bad we have to wait for some egghead to figure out how to convert
>> matter to energy then back ... hey 10/15 years ago the idea of a 3d
>> printer would have been considered a pipe dream, so I don't think the
>> eventual reality is /too/ far fetched.
>>
> Except.. Unless you know how to make "Heisenberg Compensators", you are
> out of luck. lol The problem isn't just getting all the matter turned to
> energy, without like.. turning it into a nuke, or getting a mess of a
> specific kind of energy to rearrange itself into all the different stuff
> making up atoms, which is a big enough problem, but then you have the
> sort of.. problematic issue of getting all the resulting subatomic
> particles to go, and stay, where you want them, long enough to form the
> right sort of atoms, instead of... what ever the hell they feel like,
> and where ever they want to be, instead.
>
> This is.... a rather non-trivial issue, compared to figuring out how to
> melt a relatively stable material, keep it warm enough for all the bits
> to stick together right (if using the home-grown kind, as apposed to the
> resin versions, which use lasers to "fix" the layers in place), in a
> manner that is little more than a computer controlled version of cake
> decorating. :p
Oh, and don't forget that pesky third law of thermodynamics.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> hey 10/15 years ago the idea of a 3d
> printer would have been considered a pipe dream,
Low-cost, low-resolution "3D printers" for consumer use perhaps, but in
industry 3D printers have been around much longer than that.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
James Holsenback <nom### [at] none com> wrote:
> too bad we have to wait for some egghead to figure out how to convert
> matter to energy then back ... hey 10/15 years ago the idea of a 3d
> printer would have been considered a pipe dream, so I don't think the
> eventual reality is /too/ far fetched.
Well, one shouldn't be jumping to conclusions by simply thinking like
"x years ago this idea sounded ridiculous, even though it's everyday
stuff today".
Sometimes that happens because the technology is feasible. For example,
people carrying what effectively amounts to less-than-wallet-sized
supercomputers in their pockets was basically an unthinkable dream
just a mere 20 or 30 years ago. (Modern cellphones are most certainly
supercomputers compared to even the fastest mainframes of 30 years ago.)
However, not all technology is feasible. 50 years ago it was envisioned
that by the end of the century we would have flying cars and that space
travel would be as trivial as taking the bus. Nope, it's still too
freaking expensive and dangerous to be in any way feasible. Maybe some
day, but it's still not looking very good.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/12/2013 06:23 PM, Warp wrote:
> However, not all technology is feasible. 50 years ago it was envisioned
> that by the end of the century we would have flying cars and that space
> travel would be as trivial as taking the bus. Nope, it's still too
> freaking expensive and dangerous to be in any way feasible. Maybe some
> day, but it's still not looking very good.
The problem with flying cars is the absurd fuel bills. Plus, lots of
people don't look where the **** they're going when driving in *two*
dimensions - imagine the carnage in 3D!
Cars that drive themselves? Well, that's looking like it may one day be
plausible.
The problem with space flight is that everything is so damned far away.
It's been decades since anybody went to the moon, so I think people have
forgotten this... the Apollo astronauts didn't just get into a spaceship
and then land on the moon a few hours later. It took them *days* to get
there! And that's just the moon, the nearest planet. It took the various
Mars probes *months* to get there!
Even if the technological problems of living in space could be overcome,
you wouldn't go to Jupiter for your summer holiday. It would take you
many, many years to get there.
(Also, Jupiter isn't a planet, it's a star that didn't ignite properly,
but anyway...)
You know what? Computers that program themselves... Yeah, never
happened. People keep telling me it's just around the corner... yeah,
still hasn't happened. Oh, and human-level AI. Also not happened.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 19:25:43 +0000, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> And that's just the moon, the nearest planet.
Um, the moon isn't a planet.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/03/2013 02:25 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> (Also, Jupiter isn't a planet, it's a star that didn't ignite properly,
> but anyway...)
ROFL ... true enough, I got some weird looks the other night at a
viewing party (checking out venus) when I offered that nugget up.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> However, not all technology is feasible. 50 years ago it was envisioned
> that by the end of the century we would have flying cars and that space
> travel would be as trivial as taking the bus. Nope, it's still too
> freaking expensive and dangerous to be in any way feasible. Maybe some
> day, but it's still not looking very good.
well, at least now we got flying mail delivery :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> (Also, Jupiter isn't a planet, it's a star that didn't ignite properly,
> but anyway...)
It's not classified as a star. It's classified as a gas giant, which is
a type of planet.
An even stranger tidbit of trivia: When they want to send a probe to
the inner planets, such as Mercury, they have to actually make the
probe go to Jupiter for a gravity assist to slow it down enough so
that it will start falling towards the Sun. Else it would take too
freaking long. (It is, in fact, basically as hard to make a probe
fall towards the Sun as it is to make it go towards the outer planets.
We are, after all, orbiting the Sun.)
But that's not the hard part. The hard part is to make it then start
orbiting the target planet. It requires pretty clever and contrived
manoeuvering to succeed. The probe is basically falling towards the
Sun at a staggering speed, so it's like trying to catch a bullet
with a net.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> James Holsenback <nom### [at] nonecom> wrote:
> > too bad we have to wait for some egghead to figure out how to convert
> > matter to energy then back ... hey 10/15 years ago the idea of a 3d
> > printer would have been considered a pipe dream, so I don't think the
> > eventual reality is /too/ far fetched.
>
> Sometimes that happens because the technology is feasible. For example,
> people carrying what effectively amounts to less-than-wallet-sized
> supercomputers in their pockets was basically an unthinkable dream
> just a mere 20 or 30 years ago. (Modern cellphones are most certainly
> supercomputers compared to even the fastest mainframes of 30 years ago.)
How true, I have been re-reading a few science fiction books written from the
40’s to the 1990’s. And even in the books written in the 90’s, characters use
public phone booths although their clothes come out of machines. That one
slipped past all the future-ologists.
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> The problem with flying cars is the absurd fuel bills. Plus, lots of
> people don't look where the **** they're going when driving in *two*
> dimensions - imagine the carnage in 3D!
50 years ago, did any actual scientists who knew about the physics of
planes and cars actually predict that it was likely we'd all be driving
flying cars in 50 years? Or was it just the media and the general public
"dreaming" of such things?
> Cars that drive themselves? Well, that's looking like it may one day be
> plausible.
Indeed, there is no reason why this shouldn't be technically plausible
with enough computing power. The only issue I can foresee is that
currently in most crashes the car manufacturer is not at fault, with
self-driven cars I expect the car manufacturers will more often than not
be liable. You're going to have to be pretty sure it won't go wrong if
you start selling these things - one small bug could bankrupt you.
> The problem with space flight is that everything is so damned far away.
> It's been decades since anybody went to the moon, so I think people have
> forgotten this... the Apollo astronauts didn't just get into a spaceship
> and then land on the moon a few hours later. It took them *days* to get
> there! And that's just the moon, the nearest planet. It took the various
> Mars probes *months* to get there!
Today we are limited by utilising conservation of momentum and gravity
for space travel - that's not likely to change in the next 20 years.
Even if there is some amazing scientific breakthrough tomorrow, it will
take many decades before that technology is reliably implemented into
regular space travel.
> You know what? Computers that program themselves... Yeah, never
> happened.
You could argue that neural networks and other machine learning
techniques are computers programming themselves...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 04 Dec 2013 15:39:35 +0000, scott wrote:
>> You know what? Computers that program themselves... Yeah, never
>> happened.
>
> You could argue that neural networks and other machine learning
> techniques are computers programming themselves...
Actually, it has sort of happened; I read something the other day about
Watson coming up with optimal coding techniques for coding problems.
Modifying its own algorithms, given that, ought to be trivial.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I also recommend reading "Physics of the Impossible" by Kaku, it goes
through a number of futuristic/"impossible" ideas and provides a
scientific explanation of if they are really impossible, and if not when
we are likely to develop the technology to do it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Dec 2013 15:39:35 +0000, scott wrote:
>
> >> You know what? Computers that program themselves... Yeah, never
> >> happened.
> >
> > You could argue that neural networks and other machine learning
> > techniques are computers programming themselves...
>
> Actually, it has sort of happened; I read something the other day about
> Watson coming up with optimal coding techniques for coding problems.
> Modifying its own algorithms, given that, ought to be trivial.
so someday perhaps it'll turn into Sherlock, all by itself ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 13:36:47 -0500, nemesis wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Dec 2013 15:39:35 +0000, scott wrote:
>>
>> >> You know what? Computers that program themselves... Yeah, never
>> >> happened.
>> >
>> > You could argue that neural networks and other machine learning
>> > techniques are computers programming themselves...
>>
>> Actually, it has sort of happened; I read something the other day about
>> Watson coming up with optimal coding techniques for coding problems.
>> Modifying its own algorithms, given that, ought to be trivial.
>
> so someday perhaps it'll turn into Sherlock, all by itself ;)
LOL
Perhaps it already has. ;)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
