Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Top Ten Advances in 2004

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the blinded-me-with-science dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Technology Research News has released it's top ten picks for advances of 2004. Something for everyone here including notable advances in biotechnology, communications, computing, engineering, energy, security, nanotechnology, applied physics and the Internet."

39 of 167 comments (clear)

  1. Ha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    They forgot Poland!

  2. Where the heck by Sergeant+Beavis · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Is Space Ship One?

    --
    There is nothing inherently safe about liberty. That's why so many people died protecting it.
    1. Re:Where the heck by F34nor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Space Ship One did is 50 years out of date. Nothing new just a shift from public to private sector. Plus its a rip off of a luftwaffe design.

    2. Re:Where the heck by bc90021 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's a difference between a thing that hasn't been done before (ie, sending an encryption key via quantum entanglement), and something that's been done before but was then done by private enterprise.

      That is, Space Flight, while new to the private sector, is not new in general.

      --
      libertarianswag.com
  3. sigh.... by exhilaration · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's all cool stuff but nothing truly revolutionary. Where's my flying car? My transporter? I think that in 50 or a 100 years, life will be pretty much the same, except stuff will be smaller, quieter, and maybe cheaper.

    1. Re:sigh.... by Fade_to_Blah · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I consider a possible future cure for cancer through biotechnology pretty revolutionary....alot more than a flying car.

    2. Re:sigh.... by rainman_bc · · Score: 3, Informative

      Let's hope we have enough oil to last 50 to 100 years... If things are the same we'll see economic chaos before then.

      Read up on Hubert's peak... Scary shit.... Don't mean to act like Chicken Little and claim the scy is falling, but still...

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    3. Re:sigh.... by antoy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's probably what people thought before the Industrial Revolution. And where's that olde patent-office quote about us running out of inventions (or something) when you need it :)

      If you want to look forward to something, there's nanotechnology and genetics for now. The advances there will most definitely be revolutionary, just not the way people imagined.

    4. Re:sigh.... by Shihar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't think that people appreciate how fast the world is changing. The thing is that we are just so damn good at adapting these days that we tend to notice how quickly things change. I recall just five years ago cellphones were still relativly rare and most people didn't own one. Today, almost everyone I know owns one - and that is just a minor technology in the grand scheme of things.

      If you want to talk about big worlder altering changes, then look at e-mail, the internet, and the PC. Those technologies have certainly dipped into the household. More then that, they have revolutionized all industries. As an engineer, I can't even contemplate what engineers did before spreadsheets, PCs, and e-mail. The massive boom in the 90's was a very direct result of the incredible technological advances we made and their dramatic effect upon industry.

      I think that if you were to go back in time just 15 year you would notice a big change beween now and then. True, cars don't fly, but they do talk to you, store an almsot unlimited library of music, and if one crashes, inflate half of a dozen airbags. Things are changing, we just don't appreciate how much.

    5. Re:sigh.... by shokk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I for one *never* want flying cars until such time that we are rid of people who feel like drinking and/or drugging themselves into a stupor and then trying to pilot regular ground-based cars. We have enough trouble with drunk drivers crashing, I don't want to think about someone crashing a fully fueled flying car from a thousand feet up into a supermarket either mistakenly or purposely. We have a lot of maturing to do before we're worthy of that kind of technology.

      And by the way, where the hell are you going that you need to fly there in a car and don't want to go to a small airport for the same trip? Have you heard of those? Or is it just something nifty that society owes you for your entertainment? To paraphrase the open-source priesthood, what are you doing to bring about that goal?

      --
      "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
  4. Hey! by albn · · Score: 3, Interesting

    China's implimentation of IPV6 was pretty cool...

    --
    Some call me Howie Feltersnatch
    1. Re:Hey! by PoopJuggler · · Score: 3, Funny

      China's implementation of Broccoli With Beef is pretty cool too.

  5. eye-dee-ten-tee by zmilo · · Score: 4, Funny

    However much they make computers better, they still haven't solved the classic PEBKAC problem...

  6. Re:Why isn't... by ProfaneBaby · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Because a handheld video game that is great to play (I have one), but really is just advances in existing technology can't really be compared to:


    University of Wisconsin at Madison researchers found a way to use carbon monoxide, a fuel cell waste product that ordinarily degrades cells, to produce more energy.


    One is a toy, the other has serious implications for all of society.
    --
    Video Phone Blogs send video messages straight to the web.
  7. Quantum Teleportation by Chembryl · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I can't think of anything better than this:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3576594. stm

    --
    - This and all my posts are public domain. I am a Physicist. I am not your Physicist. This is not Physically advice
  8. A year is much too short by nodehopper · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The really big advances can't be put into a list spanning a year. Propably the biggest acheivement is the mapping of the Genome, which took years and is still being added to and made more complete. Not to mention the foundation of scientific advances that the project built itself on. I am sure there are a few "Eureka!" moments in science, but really this can't be looked at with an "MTV" short attention span perspective. It makes an end of year list but that is realy all that it is.

    --
    "We will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends. " Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
  9. Missing Category: Ethics by Marge+N.+Lacoste · · Score: 4, Insightful
    1945 was a great year for technology-- not so great for ethics. Just ask Oppenheimer.

    There are real ethical issues that don't get discussed in the popular press; these are just in the biotech field:

    Placebos in clinical trials
    Genetic mapping and privacy
    Patents on gene sequences/organisms
    Cloning

    The genie does not go back in the bottle. Let's get it right the first time.

    1. Re:Missing Category: Ethics by Marge+N.+Lacoste · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Suppose you were testing a new drug for some life-threatening/disabling disease. Suppose also that there are alternative treatments available. Should your control group go without any treatment at all?

    2. Re:Missing Category: Ethics by grasshoppa · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ok, so how do you get accurate trial results if you don't have a control group?

      Not only is your premise idiotic, it also highlights a very short sighted point of view. If we can't determine the results of a drug, if any, against base results, not only will the release of the drug be delayed by years, if not decades, it may never get released at all. All those people waiting for a cure would be screwed, not just those in the control group.

      The only problem I see here is an IQ problem of the original poster.

      --
      Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    3. Re:Missing Category: Ethics by Marge+N.+Lacoste · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Okaaaay, so that's one for the control group, then? Thanks for volunteering.

      Seriously, please read some of the other posts in this thread, especially joak's (who thinks I'm misinformed, btw).

      Then also read this: Cambodia's Premier Halts Planned Trials of AIDS Drug

      Please clarify: is it short-sighted to ask the question of ethics, or just short-sighted to take a position against placebos in particular (which I did not)?

      Is there or can there be a better way than what your were taught in science class? Was this matter solved in Hensinki in 1964?

      P.S. Where does my IQ enter into all of this? I felt your knee jerk all the way over here.

    4. Re:Missing Category: Ethics by reverseengineer · · Score: 3, Informative
      Generally when new drugs meant to treat life-threatening are tested in clinical trials, the procedure is to test against the accepted treatment if one exists rather than against a true placebo. For example, a new cancer drug would be matched against a more traditional course of therapy. This has the advantage not only of ensuring that both the experimental and control groups get treated, but also provides a head-to-head test of the new drug and the old drug. No one is doing a Tuskegee Experiment-type trial now where mortally sick people are left untreated in the interests of science. Primum no nocere is supposed to be the guiding principle, after all. What good would having a sugar pill control do in a trial for an AIDS or cancer drug anyway? Of course a new antiretroviral is going to outperform dextrose in prolonging life and health in an AIDS patient. No useful science is produced in finding out the placebo group has a 100% mortality rate. What matters is whether the new drug has demonstrable advantages over the old drugs, be it as more efficacy, fewer side effects, fewer doses, etc.

      Now, in the case of less serious conditions, yes, sometimes sugar pills are handed out to study volunteers. But what alternative is there in many cases? The placebo (and for that matter, the nocebo) effect is quite real, and should be accounted for. Those crazy side effects you hear about in prescription medication commercials? While of course some of those are from the medication itself, there are always people who report effects like headache, fatigue, dry mouth, and nausea- in both the experimental and placebo groups. It's worthwhile knowing whether it's the medication which causes these symptoms, or rather just the anxiety that comes naturally from taking a strange new pill.

      By the same token, drugs shouldn't be on the market if they can't beat Placebex (R) in efficacy- and that can be surprisingly difficult to establish. From personal experience, I've noticed minor aches and pains tend to clear up when I take an OTC pain reliever- but I often start to feel better before the drug has had time to take effect. It's as though the action itself of doing something about that nagging headache induces my body to help out in doing something about that nagging headache. That sort of thing needs to be sorted out in order to know what a drug really does and how well it does it, and double blind studies with placebo are the only certain way to do that.

      --
      "FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
  10. Really? by scheme · · Score: 2, Informative
    Space Ship One did is 50 years out of date. Nothing new just a shift from public to private sector. Plus its a rip off of a luftwaffe design.

    Although I agree that Space Ship One isn't a technological advance, I didn't realize the luftwaffe had a suborbital vehicle that was launched from a plane. Not to mention the craft's use of different wing configurations to orient itself on descent and as control surfaces later on in descent.

    --
    "When you sit with a nice girl for two hours, it seems like two minutes. When you sit on a hot stove for two minutes, it
    1. Re:Really? by crmartin · · Score: 3, Informative

      It does look a good bit like an ME-163, although the 163 was ground launched.

      With Isp in the neighborhood of 200, though (see the "hot engine"), an air launched 163 would have been quite similar to SS1.

    2. Re:Really? by scheme · · Score: 2, Informative
      It does look a good bit like an ME-163, although the 163 was ground launched.

      Spaceship One's wings are totally different. Spaceship One has squarish wings with the a slightly swept back leading edge and vertical and horizontal control elements and no tail. The ME-163 has wings swept back at a higher angle and a tail. The only real similiarity is the shape of the fuselage. Your comparison is like saying a mac g4 and a p3 system are similar because they both have 256MB of RAM.

      --
      "When you sit with a nice girl for two hours, it seems like two minutes. When you sit on a hot stove for two minutes, it
  11. China's Pebble Bed Reactor Plan by Kobun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'd put in for China's plan to expand their energy generation. It would be awesome to see Pebble Bed reactors get some decent coverage mainstream to their stability and safety. If china leads here, I can only hope we play follow the leader. Rolling blackouts, caused by deadly waves of stupid, are just embarrassing. wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

    1. Re:China's Pebble Bed Reactor Plan by Mr.Sharpy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'd put in for China's plan to expand their energy generation.

      But the article is about technilogical advancements that have occured this year. While admirable, China's plan is to IMPLEMENT a technology that has been around for quite a while. If there is any sort of advancement in that plan, I would submit that it is their forward thinking in energy policy that is new to the world. Most of the other governments don't seem to have grasped that concept yet.

  12. Premature by SlayerofGods · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hey! I've still got 1 more day to invent cold fusion.

    --

    Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
  13. Re:Nothing about space here? by bc90021 · · Score: 3, Informative

    None of that is NEW, just better (or differently funded) implentations of stuff that's been around for forty years.

    This list is made up of NEW things.

    --
    libertarianswag.com
  14. Speaking Silently? by scooteratl · · Score: 4, Funny

    "And scientists from the NASA Ames Research Center developed speech recognition technology that allows users to speak silently. The scheme uses throat nerve activity rather than acoustics to glean information about what a person is saying. "

    It'd be better if the device could make people -think- before speaking (silently or otherwise). Lincoln noted "Better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt".

    Now doubt can be removed without opening of a mouth!!

    <SILENT>hehehehehe - the fools!!</SILENT>

    --
    He's just zis guy, you know?
  15. "its" versus "it's" by NaruVonWilkins · · Score: 3, Funny

    When making "it" possessive, the correct form is "its." When joining "it" and "is," the correct form is "it's." This is a common error, but it's an eyesore.

    1. Re:"its" versus "it's" by qtothemax · · Score: 2, Interesting

      To all the high schoolers out there:
      Remember this when you take your college entrance tests. My ACT english score rose by 4 when someone told me to remember that. It was on the test 3 or 4 times.

  16. half life 2 by dj42 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I think that's the most important advance of 2004. What else could I get high and waste hours doing... either give me excellent computer games, or give me a flying car. One way or the other, I'll be disoriented, slightly confused, but satisified.

    --
    We are one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. Back to you with the weather, Bob!
  17. Top invention of the year by gmuslera · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The Get the Facts campaign from Microsoft. Maybe is not an advance that help humanity, but is a clear demostration to how far into the insanity realm could be reached just playing with numbers.

  18. The bleeding edge by bfizzle · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm probably the only person who thinks this is a really good list. They focused on new technologies being developed in Universities and not what we have already done. The Mars rover isn't anything new. We have had the technology to do it for years. All of these advances will not be seen for years to come.

  19. It is an advance in technology. by Man+in+Spandex · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sure, SpaceShipOne accomplished what was accomplished in the 60's but to do it at the fraction of the cost from private funding and support, if you ask me, that should be considered a technology breakthrough of 2004.

  20. I'd pick MPAA and RIAA improvements to P2P by faramir_fr · · Score: 5, Funny

    MPAA and RIAA makes the P2P community evolve at a geometric rate... enjoy EXEEM folks.

    --
    Home of Faramir Paint Shop Pro scripts
  21. Great Advances of 2004 by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Funny

    The balance on my credit card :-(

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  22. Sorry, should have posted slashdot link too by Kobun · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/0 2/1830247&tid=126&tid=14/

  23. It's NOT dead, Jim... by Kaemaril · · Score: 3, Funny

    An array of small pressure sensors on a flexible sheet from University of Tokyo researchers promises to lead to smart rugs and robot skin.

    I bet Bill Shatner's salivating at that one :)