Slashdot Mirror
Top Inventions of 2007
Gibbs-Duhem writes "Time Magazine is reporting on the best inventions of the year. The top invention is the somewhat well-known iPhone, but there are some extremely cool projects included that I had certainly never heard of, including a device for capturing waste heat from car engines to increase efficiency up to 40%, a novel car designed to run entirely on compressed air claiming to have a range of 2000km with zero pollution, a James Bond style GPS tracking device that police can use to avoid high-speed chases, a small-scale printing press capable of printing and binding a paperback book in 3 minutes for under $3/book (and $50k per machine), a microbe-based technology for turning soft sand into sandstone, a water-based display which uses computer controlled nozzles to produce coherent gaps in the water, and a way to convert type A, B, and AB-negative blood into type O."
This has gone too far. There is no way you can place the iPhone as the top "Invention". It is a phone just like any other but with a lot of features you would expect on a phone removed. No novelty or ingenuity. The only thing that it has going for it is that it looks nice. If looking nice is a quality of a great invention then I proclaim the Mona Lisa as the greatest invention of Leonardo da Vinci. I will be hearing next that the iPhone gets the Nobel peace prize as well.
Mouse powered Chips, Open source Processors and Lego
The triple jump just got a lot more entertaining. :-D
-Rob
Biblical fiscal responsibility
i was going to release my teleportation prototype next week, but now I have to wait to Jan. so I can make the best of 2008 list. Either that or complete my time-machine project so I can go back and get my teleporter finished before the deadline for this award.
ôó
Such a great device with so much potential, it's just a shame. And I really don't even blame Apple. It's this country's telecomm industry that's broken.
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
Look, I'm an iPhone owner, and I love the damn thing, no question about it.
It was worth every penny, and then some; the SDK should only make it better.
However, that said, labeling it as "Invention of the Year" is a pretty sad state of affairs for the country. I'm pretty medical, environmental, and social breakthroughs deserve FAR more attention.
I'd hate to tell the guy with cancer that the really cool virus that eats cancer cells could've had a ton more funding for R & D if only it had one Time's Invention of the Year.
The iPhone is cool, no question, but it is the height of frivolity, and can't possibly compare with all the other wonderful things mankind is dreaming up and making a reality that deserve far more press coverage than the iPhone has already gotten.
Not that I'm complaining too loudly, my Apple stock just keeps on truckin'
If you ignore the over-hyped (and still pretty damned cool) iPhone as 1st place, this list is pretty amazing. The water-injected engine at first glance sounds alot like the water-injection that was hyped back in the 1970s, but it's not. A little bit of digging (thanks, Google!) reveals that it's actually a 6-stroke engine that uses the heat that would normally be radiated away. If done right, there's no need for a radiator or other cooling system!
My first thought is about what this could mean for General Aviation - having the fuel burn rate cut by 40% WITHOUT needing any cooling gear (think: reduced weight) could be a real boon... already there are diesel aviation engines already that are significantly more efficient ( but need radiators, and already have a high compression ratio) this could help out even more - imagine a diesel engine that reduces fuel consumption by 60%, maybe even 70%?!?!?
Pipe dream? Yes. But I sure do hope. And it would likely happen in cars before airplanes, thanks to the glacial pace of technology advancement in aviation. Everybody's so terrified of risk that innovation is radically reduced. The reality is simply that (Private Airplanes) == (Money) == (Lawyer Bait) == (an industry that is forever on the edge of shutdown).
If you want to see the crippling effect that excessive lawyering can cause to industry, you need look no further than private aviation.
-Ben
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Apple is doing NOTHING to break the hegemony. Apple released a phone which does barely nothing more than other phones on the market (and indeed a lot less than some), tied to a single network (which was THEIR choice), and then charged massive amounts of money for the phones. And what happened? People who either don't use phones a lot, or people who love marketing spiel, or people who love apple, bought the flying shit out of them. Apple is one of the bad guys! This article is saying that a product that isn't better than any others, but which costs more and is locked more and runs less software is somehow better than, say, any other mobile out there? That's what's truly horrifying about this. The only thing Apple is changing is how much people will pay for a mediocre phone. And currently that's $400, with a contract. Jesus.
I'm not an architecture expert, but I have read several times that one of the largest complaints with actually living in Frank Lloyd Wright's home designs is that they were designed to look fantastic in photographs but are inconvenient to actually live in.
Regardless of whether or not that is true, it underscores the critical thing about design and function-- it's a delicate balance, and designers must be careful not to trade too much functionality for aesthetics and vice versa. Everyone's tastes differ, but Apple frequently makes design choices that I find detrimental to function with no benefit beyond aesthetics. (lack of tacticle keyboard on iPhone, gorgeous all-in-one PCs that make your monitor a disposable item, elegant slim notebooks that offer inadequate cooling for the GPU and necessitate factory underclocking, iTunes' ignorance of audio organized by folder rather than tags, no handy screws for battery replacement on the clean, mirror-finished backs of iPods, etc...)
The "air-car" is bullshit.
First, all they have is blurry cad-drawings, and still they claim it'll be on the market in 2008. That's not possible, if that where to actually be the case they'd have to ALREADY have several completed prototypes of the car at the minimum for safety-testing and similar.
Second, there's just not enough energy there.
If you believe the claims of the aircar-makers themselves, (which ain't a safe thing to do, because they assume near termic equilibrium, among other things, but nevermind) then, and I'm here quoting their website: 300 litres at 300 bars results in 46 MJ (Y 52.1 MJ with 340 litres at 300 bars ).
Okay, so a 340lite (90 gallon!) air-tank can hold the same amount of energy as 0.4 gallons of petrol. Really
So, after you've refilled this gargantuan 90 gallon tank with air, you'll have the equivalent of 0.4 gallons petrol worth of energy. Thereafter you have to refuel again. Who wants to refuel every 10 miles ? This think makes electric cars look EXCELLENT by comparison.
in real life compressed air motors get about 7-15% efficiency in industrial applications, the compressed air car is a horrible waste of energy
[quote]A single coal power plant is a large ugly brick building stuck near a rail yard with a single or short series of tall smokestacks all located on the same campus, not a tens of miles long stretch of hideous moaning machines interrupting your previously uninterrupted property.[/quote]
You've apparently never seen a fossil plant up close. It's not just "a railyard", but a whole coal depot that they have near them. It's like a giant's sandpit; the machinery that moves the coal around looks like little ants. They have to spray it all the time to keep the risk of a fire down.
And that's not the problem.
The problem is the huge plume of pollution that comes off of the plants. Apparently you don't care about your lungs. I care about mine. How pretty do you find hospitals and dead trees?
How come we don't wind turbine farms on the tops of buildings in large cities
Because the building has to be built extra strong for that. You can't just add a turbine on top of a building like that. Extra strength means extra cost. Big cities build their turbines offshore. Like, for example, the London Array.
or in Central Park
Apparently the term "high property values" means nothing to you. How much does an acre in rural New York cost? Now how much does an acre in Manhattan cost? Prices aren't irrelevant. In fact, they're the most relevant issue at hand.
Long Island Sound
There was one. It was going to cost too much compared to how much power it would have provided..
off Martha's Vineyard etc etc
You mean like Cape Wind?
And yes, there are some people like you who've been protesting it. Apparently they'd rather breathe heavy metals from coal burning (like the unopposed Canal Electric plant) than have a barely visible turbine on the distant horizon.
I have the memory of an elephant. I remember going to the zoo and seeing an elephant.