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?"

34 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. Amos's interests in the 21st centure by atommoore · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well, if your grandfather were still alive today, I imagine he would be most interested medical technology.

    specifically, in the next generation of Viagra, Rogaine, and the technology to keep human heads alive in jars as foretold by Futurama.

    --
    You are not your blog
  3. 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.

    1. Re:Time travel by WinterpegCanuck · · Score: 5, Informative

      A quick google answered my own memory gap. Here is a short article on it. Yeah, bad karma for posting without researching better the first time, but I have an exam tomorrow. Back to the books. Cheers.

    2. Re:Time travel by Fjornir · · Score: 5, Funny

      Why the fuck would anyone want to come here/now?

      --
      I want a new world. I think this one is broken.
    3. Re:Time travel by Terragen · · Score: 5, Funny

      Haven't you ever seen Star Trek IV?

      They're all back in 1986.

    4. Re:Time travel by VertigoAce · · Score: 4, Informative

      While I haven't heard about the theory the original poster was talking about, I understood it as allowing travel back to the time when the machine was turned on.

      In general I agree that time travel backward through time is impossible using the same logic you used. Maybe (though I doubt it) it is possible to use a machine to travel back to when the machine was started. As such a machine does not currently exist, we couldn't use everyday experience to rule it out.

    5. Re:Time travel by Xzzy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They're all several trillion miles ahead of the solar system's travel through the universe, beacuse while they nailed down the bit about time travel, they completely forgot to include a coordinate system so they'd actually show up on earth.

      So rather they ended up in space exactly where the earth was when they pressed "go" on their time machine.

      It's complications like that that make me wonder if time travel hasn't already been invented, it's just the poor guy sent himself into a deadly vacuum.

    6. Re:Time travel by orkysoft · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The solar system travels through space relative to what, exactly? Which location would you use as a frame of reference to measure its travel through the cosmos?

      The center of our galaxy?

      The center of all the visible galaxies? Oh wait, that's our galaxy itself.

      The center of the universe? Which center of the universe?

      --

      I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
    7. Re:Time travel by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 4, Funny

      Stop dropping hints to these primatives or I'm going to have to report you to the Continuity Monitors.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    8. Re:Time travel by joshuac · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The center of the universe? Which center of the universe?

      If you were on the time machine engineering team, and you were tasked with this part of the problem, I would say your search to find a fixed reference point to make absolute measurements off of is overly hard and possibly not even useful.

      How would you _know_ motion for objects sent through time is going to match relative motion from the center of the universe (or anything else)?

      Perhaps a better/much easier strategy is to stick with relative measurements; send something back in time 1/1000th of a second. Record relative movement from the starting point. Send something back 1/100th, 1/10th, etc. etc., recording movement.

      Continue so you get a nice large sample set, plot the data, generate a model describing the interaction between time jump vs. distance jump. Test the model to see that it behaves as expected, if not, experiment more until it is felt your model is adequately debugged.

      You will then have a useful way of predicting what will happen, without ever having needed to base things on any absolute measurement. Seeking the center of the universe for a fixed reference is now a moot point.

      You don't need to have absolute measurements to do useful things. +5vdc being used in various places within your computer as your read this? Knowing that relative value is all that is necessary; the fact that the absolute (if there were such a thing) voltage of that same circuit is actually +30,005vdc doesn't keep us from getting the job done.

  4. Moderation by gantzm · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

    Score:-1 Buffing my own pole.

    --


    Excessive forking causes un-wanted children.
  5. Is obscurity still possible? by kautilya · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We are living in an age quite different from 100 years ago. Information travels pretty fast. It is difficult for something that important to remain obscure so long today. Further, people more or less stopped noticing technological advances and taking them for granted. If any individual inventor/scientist gets some success he would want to approach venture capitalists, news papers, journals before he/she turns it into something great and useful. So, in my opinion it is difficult to find something obscure which is great. Yes, it is certainly possible that things people earlier thought wouldn't work becoming something great.

  6. 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.

    2. Re:Promises... by carambola5 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      current nanotechnology and genetic solutions


      Please, can we stop calling it "nanotechnology" and start calling it what it really is?

      CHEMISTRY!

      I'm not trying to be funny. That new stain-defender stuff in pants? Apparently it's called nanotechnology. No! Chemistry! It's just chemistry! Stop subjecting your minds to buzzwords.
      --
      IWARS.
      People, in general, disappoint me. Politicians even more so.
    3. Re:Promises... by GileadGreene · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Space flight is a huge *waste* of valueable research dollars.

      You forgot the "IMHO" part...

      You may think that space flight is a huge waste of dollars. Many others do not. So long as it's not your money being spent, why should you care? "Ah" you say, "but it *is* my money, 'cos NASA is taxpayer funded." But that's the beauty of the X-prize competition that the grandparent post was referring to - it's purely privately funded. So it really doens't matter what you think about space flight. They're going to do it anyway. Who knows, maybe you'll even derive some benefit from it at some point.

      We have basic space filight now. Its fairly safe and the costs are resonable.

      Uh, in a word, bullshit. Especially on the "costs are reasonable" part. It costs on the order of $500 Million for a single shuttle launch, and they only happen a few times a year (and require a standing army of several thousand to support them). The whole point of the X-prize is to develop cheap, reliable, regular space launch. Everyone in the space industry (and I speak here as someone in the space industry) views launch costs as one of the greatest impediments to doing more in space. That applies to unmanned as well as manned missions.

      There is simple no return on investment in continued research.

      I won't even bother to debate the stupidity of that comment. The fact that people are investing would tend to imply that there is at least some perception of an ROI. Although it may depend on what exactly you consider an adequate ROI, and what time scales you are operating on.

      We have a space station or will very soon, we have the shuttle which works well enough.

      See above for the shuttle. It costs a crapload. Far more than it needs to. Mostly as a result of a piss-poor design that was more political compromise than anything else. The station is a nice idea but appears to be a bit of a white elephant. Right now it can only deal with a crew of up to 3, which is not a sufficient number to allow any science to take place (too busy just maintaining the station). And my understanding from talking to folks in the science community is that the station is essentially useless for it purported primary purpose, microgravity research, because astronaut induced vibrations screw up the "microgravity" environment in all but a very small part of the station.

      There is nothing valueable in space within our grasp as far as anyone knows if that changes so does my thesis but untill then the status quo is best left to persist.

      It's a cost/benefit thing - there's lots of stuff in space that's be nice to make use of, but it costs too much to get it right now. Why? Well, launch costs have a lot to do with that (see above). Highly recommend that you check out a report called "LEO on the Cheap" by Lt. Col. Jack London that discusses that cascading effects of high launch costs, and how to fix them (should be available in PDF form on line - google is your friend).

      I read in some physics journal once that even if you could travel faster then the speed of light you probably need around 1 1/3 times the sqare of the mass you will be moving in fule.

      Depends a lot on the efficiency of your engine. Alternatively, you could make use of something like a laser sail to accelerate - then you don't need to carry any fuel. A third alternative is not to accelerate to the speed of light, but to bypass it, i.e. use one of the various (somewhat flaky at this point) "warp drives" that have been proposed. All are at least as plausible (or more plausible) than a time travel machine. Incidentally, did it occur to you that time travel is equivalent to faster than light travel in the Einsteinian universe?

  7. The fringes of the neo-techno age by dankdirk77 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think Billy the Bigmouth talking bass would really blow that dudes mind...

    --


    SCO: 800-726-8649
    Verisign: 800-361-8319, 888-642-9675
    Diebold: 800-433-VOTE (8683)
    1. Re:The fringes of the neo-techno age by Steffan · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Well...
      • "what substantial everyday product could be discovered/invented that we don't have already? We have cars, planes, phones, radios, musical instruments, diagnostic machines, robotics, computers, refrigerators, bass boats, thinkgeek.com... I don't know. Maybe I'm a cynic but it seems to me that we've got pretty much everything we need."
      I'm sure that not that long ago, someone said "We have the printing press, the locomotive, steamships, and the telegraph...It seems to me that we've got pretty much everything we need"
  8. 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..."
  9. Sage Words by Caveman+Og · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The article ends thus:
    "No drinking man should ever be allowed to undertake to run a flying-machine."
    This may seem obvious to us today, but in 1905, many a carriage would be driven by a drunkard whose horses "knew the way home".
    1. Re:Sage Words by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 4, Funny
      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
  10. 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.

  11. Rename it? by herrvinny · · Score: 4, Informative

    What about renaming them? MRI (Magnetic Reasonance Imaging) came from NRI (Nuclear RI), renamed because doctors thought patients might not like the word nuclear.

  12. Anti Wireless Technology by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 5, Insightful


    Wireless technologies provide endless ways to invade privacy - RFID, Credit Cards, Cell Phones, EZPass, PDA, GPS, subcutaneous transponders implanted when you walk through a mall entrance, Microsoft License activation, whatever.

    Clearly the most important technology of the future will be the development of personal jammers to silence the RF nattering of the post-PC era world of gizmos carried about one's person, implanted under skin (overtly or surreptitiously) or attached into clothing. Everyone will be looking for RF cones of silence, ways to use a taser like device to EMP a wireless spybot picked up by walking into a movie theatre (or implanted by the Selective Service) or shielded pouches to prevent RF attacks on credit cards or other payment/identification devices.

    If I was looking to report on bleeding edge tech, this is where I would look.

    You think spyware like Gator is bad? You haven't seen nothing yet.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. Unbelievable article rejected by Afrosheen · · Score: 4, Funny

    Scientific American had rejected his article as 'unbelievable' and 'having no practical application'.

    Hmmm, and you are the great-great-grandson of Mr. Root? I wonder...the reason why all of my good slashdot story submissions get bounced every freakin' time. Maybe CmdrTaco and pals are the great-great-grandsons of those same Scientific American editors!

  16. Nuts. by MarkusQ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There is nothing valueable in space within our grasp as far as anyone knows if that changes so does my thesis but untill then the status quo is best left to persist.

    Nuts. If we were to exploit the resources space offers us without going into any other major gravity wells (i.e., sticking to free space, asteroids, small moons, etc), there is (just off the top of my head):

    • Enough energy for everyone alive in the world today to live better than the average American presently does.
    • More gold, coal, natural gas, nickle, iron, etc. etc. than has ever been mined in the history of mankind.
    • Enough room, sunlight, water etc. for us to feed many times our present population as well as we feed the richest few now.
    • Enough room for all of us to spread out and live interesting lives.
    What more do you want exactly?

    -- MarkusQ

  17. Your gramp was late, Ader was first by SysKoll · · Score: 4, Informative
    Maybe your gramp should have traveled to Europe. There, he would have found that the first powered flight occured in France on October the 12th, 1897. Clement Ader flew his steam-powered (!) Avion on about 150 ft in front of his military patrons.

    The French army brass, disappointed that they couldn't already have a B-52, cancelled the funding, and a bitter Clement Ader stopped his aeronautical experiments.

    The real innovation introduced by the Wright brothers was an effective way of controlling the plane. The Avion was using a crude wing-warping system that didn't prove efficient. However, the Wright machine was just as unbalanced as Ader's Avion.

    The steam engine was the only available motor at the time of Ader's design, and its shortcoming prevented the Avion from flying for more than a few minutes because of the water and fuel weight.

    However, flight historians should say that the Wright brothers made the first powered, guided flight, wereas Ader made the first powered flight.

    --

    --
    Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/

  18. Information. by mindstrm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think we are still at the very beginning of the information age... I can't imagine what kind of information storage and retrieval devices we will have in 100 years.

    I'm not talking star-trek here.. let's look at what is technically feasible now, even if it's not economically viable.

    Storing terabytes of information per cubic inch of some material, with picosecond access times.

    Communication - Despite regulatory stifling of the internet.. the concept that if we follow standards, and cooperate, we can leverage all kinds of communication mediums, is here now. Speeds are going up and up.. the "last mile" problem is just momentary.

    So.. as our ability to store and move information goes up and up.. so what?

    We are getting good at digitizing things, too.

    Movies. Audio.
    3d scanners. Motion capture. Auto-generated 3d meshes from image analysis of 2d images...

    Despite no real big noise about it now, there is ongoing progressive work in the field of image recognition.

    Teleconferencing.
    VoIP.
    Wireless... look at what's happenign there. Look how much 802.11b stuff is changing how we think about wireless.. how many mom & pop outfits are providing services over it.. and that's a TINY, TINY slice of spectrum.. what would happen if we REALLY got serious about open wireless communcation?

  19. 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
  20. Never heard of Google? by theonetruekeebler · · Score: 4, Funny
    According to Google, the Center of the Known Universe is here, in Muncie, Indiana.

    On the other hand, the Centre of the Known Universe is here, in some podunk called Rockall (motto: "There's fuck all in Rockall").

    Cherokee Indians claim that the Center of the World (and therefore the known universe) is about ten miles north-northwest of Elberton, Georgia, near a bizarre roadside attraction called the Georgia Guidestones.

    According to my deranged ex-fiancee, however, the center of the known universe is wherever the hell she happens to be at the moment. In other words, the center of the known universe is underneath whatever guy she met not twenty minutes ago.

    So opinions vary, as do spellings. Personally, I'm going to agree with the aboriginal Americans, because I can get there in about two hours. See, there's nothing like being near the CotKU without actually having to be there. It's kinda like being in the suburbs.

    --
    This is not my sandwich.