Slashdot Mirror


Where Are The Edges Of Today's Technology World?

Veeru writes "As mentioned on Nova, my great-great-grandfather Amos Ives Root published the first eye witness account of the Wright Brothers flight almost 100 years ago. Scientific American had rejected his article as 'unbelievable' and 'having no practical application'. The secretive Wright Brothers allowed Amos to publish the article in his own Gleanings Bee magazine instead. Because of his objective account, other experimenters may not have received the credit they deserved. I recently realized that Amos was intent on investigating the highest tech advances of the day and that the airplane was the most advanced phenomenon he could find. If Amos were alive today, what obscure technology would he be pursuing?"

10 of 509 comments (clear)

  1. The edge? by xeno_gearz · · Score: 5, Interesting
    While this is an interesting point to ponder, the viewpoint of Bill Joy is a valid counter-argument as well. I realize this has been discussed on Slashdot before but still, do we draw a line as to where the edge of technology is? I suppose we make these choices everyday but are they always the right ones? While I don't immediately subscribe to a theory of a robot takeover, as some fear, I wonder about the possibility of technology reaching points "out of control" of humanity.

    Those points aside, I have been amazed by the research in nanotechnology and find the realm of mapping the human genome to be interesting as well. Perhaps subjects such as these would interest Amos? Perhaps these are not as obscure as other fields but these are certainly interesting studies.

    --
    *
    troll blacklist. Please mo
  2. Time travel by WinterpegCanuck · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As far out as it seems, there are real efforts in making a time machine. I forget what university was doing the research, but it involves using lasers crossing each other at 90 degree intersects to create a column or vortex of light. While this cannot let them travel back in time, it is theorized it will let particles travel through the time that the machine is turned on. I apologize for the specifics, but am sure the slashdot effect can find the specifics.

  3. Promises... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In the 50s and 60s, we were all under the impression that it'd be flying cars, robots and automated kitchens that cooked for you. Robots would be really smart and virtually be home helps.

    None of this has happened.

    This is one of the reasons I'm skeptical of current nanotechnology and genetic solutions actually being major breakthroughs. It'll be like Moore's Law for technology - things will just progress, rather than achieve sudden overnight success. I mean flying - it's boolean - you fly or you don't fly. Once you've conquered that you can improve on it. Nanotechnology I feel really needs advances in AI and other technology fields which I feel are being neglected - batteries, vision systems, sensors - they all need to improve before nanotechnology takes off big time.

    So maybe it's a disparity thing. Maybe we'll be held back in certain areas because other technologies aren't available yet - like Civilization :o) So maybe, just maybe, we need to revisit some of those older ideas to progress?

    1. Re:Promises... by Coryoth · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I mean flying - it's boolean - you fly or you don't fly. Once you've conquered that you can improve on it.

      Maybe that hints that the X prize winner might be where we ought to be looking - theres something that has a nice boolena value: You get into space cheaply in a resusable vehicle, or you don't... and there's plenty of room for improvement once someone wins the X prize challenge: Higher (LEO would be nice), and with more payload.

      Cheap and easy spaceflight could well be the teach that really reshapes the next century.

      Jedidiah.

  4. The real edge lies elsewhere... by gregwbrooks · · Score: 5, Interesting
    You can explore the edge of technology, but you're chasing a chimera. Things change fast, they're going to change faster and future generations will think of astounding things to do with the technologies we're only now beginning to explore.

    The technologies of the last 200 years have so far outstripped past human progress that the real action in the coming years/decades/centuries will be the philosophical, moral and political assimilation of technology. We've done an increasintly poor job of it as the pace of advancement has quickened; it'll be interesting to see what (if anything) causes a tipping point after which we'll really explore the full impacts of new technologies.

    (Disclaimer: I think Bill Joy is an alarmist.)

    --


    "It was a summer's tale: Just a boy, his Linux, and a head full of dreams..."
  5. Safe Nuclear Batteries by Amiga+Lover · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Strontium Nuclear Batteries are one. Known about and succesfully demonstrated since the early 90s, a single 5gram piece can put out enough SAFE radiation to be turned almost directly into energy, that it can supply 75 watts for months on end. It's not harmful to animals, it's not expensive, it's no more expensive than sterodent.

    It's also a technology that nobody believes has any use because of the words "nuclear" and "radiation"

    It'll come soon enough

    1. Re:Safe Nuclear Batteries by HalfFlat · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Is there any more information about this on the web? The only link I could find was on rexresearch, which while very interesting, does unfortunately taint it with associations with less plausible technology.

      How much strontium-90 is currently being produced in commerical electricy-generating nuclear reactors? (and how expensive is it to extract?)
      This sort of technology has huge potential, not least of which being that it can be used to extract energy from other alpha- and beta- emitters (ie a fair chunk of nuclear waste.)

      Strontium-90 isn't completely benign (it is a beta source after all, and its one radioactive decay product, Yttrium-90, I think is an even more energetic beta emitter.) It behaves chemically much like calcium, so if it's inhaled or ingested, it can be incorporated into bones, etc.

      On the other hand, I get the impression that it is less dangerous than oven cleaner. You wouldn't eat that either, and like strontium-90, bare skin exposure is ill-advised.

  6. Re:Funny thing about that rejection by electrichamster · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Just a thought, but why doesn't slashdot implement a feature that lists all of the rejected submissions on another page.
    Obviously people would submit spam, so the reviewers would also have to have a "spam" (and possibly a "duplicate submission") button as well as a "reject" button.

    It would provide an interesting read for all of the smaller bits of news whizzing around that none of us get to see due to the tight reviewing process.

  7. Where technology appears to be magic. by Kris_J · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Just look at any technology that appears to almost be magic. This is where the edge is. Bluetooth and WiFi are up there, guesture-based interaction is close. Imagine being able to unlock the door to your house with a (specific) wave of your hand, all worked out using sensors built into a ring or glove and relayed to the house's security system using an encrypted RF data technology. Personal Area Networking is a group of technologies with a lot of potential. There are many more examples, I'm sure.

  8. Re:Give me an ethernet jack in the back of my skul by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 5, Interesting
    What you would end up creating are a set of parallel senses to the natural senses, or at least a great big "digital" sense.

    Remember, sensory processing begins at the nerve endings in the sensory organs. Much of your brain's interpretation of what the eye sees is handled in the first few layers of cells in the retina.

    A second problem is that of resonance. Your brain produces a reference wave and measures sensory input as an interference pattern to that wave. While you could easily exploit that phenominon to transmit data to the brain, it would be nearly impossible to make it believe the information is coming from the sensory organs.

    That is not to say you could not produce very vivid images using this new sense. I recall an experiment where researchers were able to teach a blind man to see using pressure transducers on his back. They had a camera that would translate a signal from a black and white CCD into pressure intensities laid out like a grid. The subject was able to adapt that system into a crude form of vision. There are also reports of deaf people who "hear" by feeling the vibrations of speakers, at least enough to enjoy music.

    This sense would have to be developed in people. But I could see it as a powerful tool. It would be cool if my car could translate data from proximity radar system into my brain. Instead of relying on mirrors I could "feel" the road around me. Know where the curb is. Sense that Kia in my blindspot. Vibe that cop over the next hill with the radar set.

    Would it be sense like we know them? No. Instead it would be sensations the likes of which we had never known before.

    --
    "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
    --Dr.W.Edwards Deming