Slashdot Mirror


Why Don't We Invent That Tomorrow?

museumpeace writes "In the NYTimes book review blog, David Itzkoff takes a look at a new book devoted to predicting which 'science fiction' technologies may really fly some day. The author is Michio Kaku, one of the inventors of string theory, so he bears a hearing. His picks include light sabers, invisibility and force fields." Which sci-fi tech do you think needs to get invented over the weekend?

439 comments

  1. That's an easy one! by The+Ancients · · Score: 4, Funny

    Which sci-fi tech do you think needs to get invented over the weekend?

    I don't expect much. Time travel of course. D'uh.

    1. Re:That's an easy one! by EEPROMS · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The problem with time travel is although it may be possible to travel in time it would not be a good idea. Let me explain, if have an actual time machine and travel back lets say 1 week you would materialize millions of miles away from earth in the middle of deep space. The reason for this becomes obvious when you realise earth is actually moving through space faster than a speeding bullet thus totally stuffing up the usefulness of traveling through time.

    2. Re:That's an easy one! by s.bots · · Score: 1

      It definitely gets invented this weekend... I thought I had first post here, checked later and WHAM! So many people who returned from the future just to spite me.

    3. Re:That's an easy one! by stormeru · · Score: 0

      So we can travel back from Sunday to Friday night? I'll take two of these!

    4. Re:That's an easy one! by The+Ancients · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think if we can work out the logistics of time travel, the other three dimensions shouldn't provide too much of an issue.

    5. Re:That's an easy one! by eclectro · · Score: 1

      We need to junk that fusion idea for cars and go with xenon adapted headlights. Also, making cars so that they can burn something else other than oil, like natural gas, is a totally stupid idea.

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    6. Re:That's an easy one! by The+Ancients · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's worse than you thought - you're mom was real cute when she was younger ;-)

    7. Re:That's an easy one! by TheLazySci-FiAuthor · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's worse than you thought - you're mom was real cute when she was younger ;-)


      That sounds like something my Dad would say....hey wait a minute!
    8. Re:That's an easy one! by Soleen · · Score: 3, Funny

      I just invented a time machine, without the problem that you described.

      It has some limitations but it already works!
      Limitations are following: it drives in one direction only (forward), and with speed no faster than 60 seconds a minute!

      This in 60 seconds you can travel 1 minute in future!

      --
      LiFe iS bEAuTiFul :-)
    9. Re:That's an easy one! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Oh? So at what speed is the earth moving? To answer that, we need to know the speed of Earth around the Sun (we do). We need to know the speed of the Sun around the galaxy (we do). We need to know the speed of the galaxy around the... what? Basically, you are proposing the existence of a "center of the universe".

      Most likely, time travel keeps your current inertial frame of reference.

    10. Re:That's an easy one! by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Absolute positioning is a myth. Think about motion and momentum for a while and you'll get it.

    11. Re:That's an easy one! by isomeme · · Score: 1

      Hm, yes...you'd need something that could land your at both your targeted time, and a relative dimension in space. I'm sure nobody has ever thought of such a device previously.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a skull.
    12. Re:That's an easy one! by damien_kane · · Score: 1

      At least you know exactly when the earth will be swinging by to pick you up...

      All you have to do now is survive the week

    13. Re:That's an easy one! by B3ryllium · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you'd be a fan of Red Dwarf.

      Smeghead. ;-)

    14. Re:That's an easy one! by An.+(Coward) · · Score: 1

      That's a great idea, but it needs a catchy acronym. Hmm...a relative dimension in space, and targetted time. How about ARDISATT?

    15. Re:That's an easy one! by countach · · Score: 1


      It just means you can only travel through time in exact year increments so the earth is back where it was. Not too big a restriction!

    16. Re:That's an easy one! by Original+Replica · · Score: 1

      We need to know the speed of the galaxy around the... what? Basically, you are proposing the existence of a "center of the universe".

      What is our speed out from the original point of the big bang? What is our speed and direction relative to the fabric of space-time?

      I suppose the easy way to find out would be to send a series of transponders out into the past, and then analyse the location data you already gathered.

      --
      We are all just people.
    17. Re:That's an easy one! by isomeme · · Score: 1

      Perfect!

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a skull.
    18. Re:That's an easy one! by countSudoku() · · Score: 1

      Exactly. This is why I'm subscribing to your newsletter. Is not the Solar System also in motion, as is the Milky Way Galaxy, and our local galactic cluster, plus the expanding of the known universe via the Big Bang? The placement of Earth in timespace is not just about figuring out where it is in orbit around the Sun. Think bigger. Many other motions are to be accounted for before we can land the Tardis on good old Earth, in the past at the correct timespace location.

      --
      This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
    19. Re:That's an easy one! by driftingwalrus · · Score: 1

      Since when does the earth travel through deep space?

      --
      Paul Anderson
      "I drank WHAT?!" -- Socrates
    20. Re:That's an easy one! by Conception · · Score: 1

      You assume our galaxy is also not moving... which it is.

    21. Re:That's an easy one! by piratesyarr · · Score: 1

      Yes, but you're forgetting the fact that the Sun is also moving at an incredible rate, as is the galaxy. It's kind of a restriction if you can only travel in increments of several billion years.
      Unless the time machine is also capable of traveling through subspace, it's kind of pointless.

      --
      Small though it is, the human brain can be quite effective when used properly.
    22. Re:That's an easy one! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Uh. There is no "point" of the big bang. It was an explosion OF space, not an explosion IN space. Thus, the original point of the big bang is wherever you are, because that point _became_ spacetime.

    23. Re:That's an easy one! by GotenXiao · · Score: 1

      At this point I would like to remind you that hydrogen and oxygen are both natural gasses.

      --
      Goten Xiao
    24. Re:That's an easy one! by ptbarnett · · Score: 2, Troll

      It just means you can only travel through time in exact year increments so the earth is back where it was.

      Nice troll. But, for those that didn't realize it, don't forget about galactic rotation and expansion of the universe.

    25. Re:That's an easy one! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't we already see people from the future?

      Because we haven't yet constructed a temporal anchor for them to travel to. Sheesh, every kid on Luna knows that doesn't happen until 2057.

    26. Re:That's an easy one! by Taint+Bearer · · Score: 1

      You're forgetting the fact that we orbit around the central black holes in the galaxy as well.

      "We're forty thousand light-years from galactic central point, we go round every two hundred million years".

      --
      For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert. Arthur C. Clarke (1917 - 2008)
    27. Re:That's an easy one! by CSMatt · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that the Sun and Milky Way are moving as well. If you time travel for even one nanosecond, you'll probably be in some other remote part of the universe.

    28. Re:That's an easy one! by CSMatt · · Score: 1

      and with speed no faster than 60 seconds a minute! Well at least you can still slow down time with your device.
    29. Re:That's an easy one! by MttJocy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I see another problem here, lets presume I could materialize on the surface of earth at this altitude, longitude and latitude at some arbitrary date I would also need to materializing there with the same momentum as the body in question otherwise I am going to appear stationary and be rapidly accelerated by gravity towards a body which is approaching me at a massive speed enough I would imagine to completely obliterate my body, if we were talking earth it would be traveling towards you or away from you at a rate of up to 30km/s if you were stationary and did not possess the momentum we all have by being on earth normally it would be somewhat painful I imagine.

    30. Re:That's an easy one! by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      That was an awesome episode.

      Just think, after this weekend you too can experience the heady medieval atmosphere of pre-Renaissance deep space!

    31. Re:That's an easy one! by MttJocy · · Score: 1

      Are you serious, earth orbits relative to the sun, the sun orbits through what is to us very deep space while orbiting the galactic center, as a result of earth orbiting around the sun earth moves through deep space with it granted that happens over astronomical time scales as the sun has a huge orbital path compared to some object in near (solar system) areas of space

    32. Re:That's an easy one! by ByteSlicer · · Score: 2, Funny

      you're mom was real cute
      I already thought time travel was weird, but this? He's his own mother !?
    33. Re:That's an easy one! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thus, the original point of the big bang is wherever you are, because that point _became_ spacetime.

      So if the original "where" of the big bang is right where I am currently in spacetime, then so is the original "when". That would make time travel moot, since the beginning of all time is right now. It would follow that the "Big Crunch" is also right now, right where I am. Thus time travel into the future is moot as the end of all time is right now.

    34. Re:That's an easy one! by AlienCZAR · · Score: 1

      In fact, if you invent time travel, you can take as long as you want with the other ones, and still meet the "over the weekend" deadline!

    35. Re:That's an easy one! by hey! · · Score: 1

      Actually, this is something that's always bothered me about time travel stories.

      Not that the Earth moves -- I assume you plot your destination in time and space. The problem I have is the same one I have with teleportation: seemingly insignificant changes in barometric pressure are going to be very uncomfortable when experienced instantaneously: like having your ears pop in a fast elevator, only more so. Maybe like diving in the ocean.

      I can't remember any teleportation or time travel story that mentions this obvious thing.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    36. Re:That's an easy one! by Daath · · Score: 1

      Take that, causality!

      --
      Any technology distinguishable from magic, is insufficiently advanced.
    37. Re:That's an easy one! by _Hellfire_ · · Score: 2, Funny

      I suppose the easy way to find out would be to send a series of transponders out into the past, and then analyse the location data you already gathered.

      My brain just came up with a scenario whereby a bunch of NASA scientists sit around a boardroom table and plan such an experiment. It'd go something like:

      week 1: build/program receivers on earth
      week 2: listen for signal
      week 3: build probe
      week 4: send probe back in time to week 2, and record precisely what time and date you did it so... you can analyse signal from week 2 and figure out how far earth moved!

      And then my brain 'sploded.

      --
      "And then I visited Wikipedia ...and the next 8 hours are a blur..."
    38. Re:That's an easy one! by Jarik_Tentsu · · Score: 1

      If you could get the whole "force field" thing going...well, I reckon it would be one of the most useful.

      Imagine being able to have lightweight space-craft/space-station without the fear of being hit my small asteroids, or cosmic radiation. Or hell, you'd be able to travel down to the bottom of the ocean without being crushed by pressure. Hell, maybe even do something like "the core" movie, and get yourself deep into the center of the Earth.

      You could have it on cars, so that a collision just has everything sorta bouncing around each other. The military applications would be obvious...and it'd really give an unfair advantage to the technologically superior countries, but hell, chuck one on the Israel border and you don't have to worry about conventional RPGs being fired over.

      I reckon if someone could make a force-field as a convenient, cheap and viable technology, it'd really be a way of pushing through many things that are currently in the way of our technological advancement.

      ~Jarik

    39. Re:That's an easy one! by peragrin · · Score: 1

      I don't see the problem. Load up the Orbiter with the time travel equipment. Set it for a sling shot effect around the moon, on the return trip activate the time travel. The moon will have moved and so will have the earth so you have to pick an earth position relative to your own (ie the same day every year, plus or minus a few hours.

      If we actually develop a vessel that can travel to mars even better.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    40. Re:That's an easy one! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Grammar puns are wasted on the literate.)

    41. Re:That's an easy one! by mpeskett · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We can slow down time already, by moving really fast. The difficult bit is moving backwards or forwards in a discrete step. I suppose you could use relativistic speed to go forward in time - shoot off around the place for a year, come back and find more time has passed than you had to sit through, but it's not quite time travel as envisioned by sci-fi.

    42. Re:That's an easy one! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    43. Re:That's an easy one! by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 1

      I remember the series "Seven Days" dealt with that problem, as the time machine had spacial travel apparatus to counter balance the earth's movement, where the pilot had to aim to rematerialise on the planets surface at the point in the past they were travelling to, but if they made a mistake the machine could end up in space which happened to some of the test pilots. Usually , they ended up hundred of miles away and had a crash landing from where they appeared up in the air. I think only once the chronosphere managed to land in the exact same spot. If I remember correctly the 7 day limit of the time machine was also because of being too far away from the earth in 7 days time.

    44. Re:That's an easy one! by Plaid+Phantom · · Score: 1

      Well, that would only be a problem if our wormhole (or whatever) was not susceptible to gravity and momentum at all as it moves through time. Without having the technology to test, it's impossible to say whether that's the case.

      --
      All comments are properties and trademarks of the voices in my head. Not like I'm gonna claim them.
    45. Re:That's an easy one! by SQLGuru · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Is it a safe assumption that we have never been in the same place twice? Even with the variables that we know, how many other orbits / vectors are we following? Assuming some universal coordinate system origin, I would almost believe that Earth has never been at the same coordinates since the birth of the universe.....and might not until the death of the universe.

      Layne

    46. Re:That's an easy one! by lawn.ninja · · Score: 1

      Travelling to the past this wouldn't present much of a problem really. You'd just need to figure the shift into the equation. Travelling to the future and you'd only need to know the rate of expansion in order to predict the outcome. Then you'd need to use some sort of probe that dropped out of subspace to measure mass as a checksum.

      But that brings up philisophical questions and it will determine your viewpoint as well. Do you believe in multiverse or single universe? Single universe and you can't travel to the future because it hasn't happened yet. Multiverse; you could go but it isn't your place and you'll probably never go back to your place. There is also the whole theory that if there is a single universe that you could not ever create a paradox because the universe will actively prevent it.

    47. Re:That's an easy one! by anexkahn · · Score: 1

      Is that the reason why you have to be going 88 MPH in order to travel in time?

      --
      Curious about Storage and Virtualization? Check out
    48. Re:That's an easy one! by kallisti · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I can't remember any teleportation or time travel story that mentions this obvious thing. The tabletop RPG Traveller took all of this into account. It was possible (although very unlikely) to get abilities like teleportation, but the rules were so hard-assed about the actual physics to make it practically useless. For instance, it calculated the amount of potential energy that you get from teleporting up or down in Earth gravity. This was assumed to be applied to you as a near instant change in body temperature which meant in the end that any attempt to actually go much faster than the stairs would cook your brain.

      Not to mention getting slammed by a wall of you tried to teleport too far across a planet. The weirdest mix of science and pseudo-science since the golden age of comics.
    49. Re:That's an easy one! by GuldKalle · · Score: 1

      But the sun, the earth, the galaxy etc. is moving relative to what exactly? the universe itself. But what part of it? most of the universe is just nothingness, and the rest is moving in all directions, so it's kind of hard to measure against that.
      And also, I suspect moving through time would be like moving through the other dimensions, in the sense that you cant just zap from one position/time to another. Instead you move gradually towards your destination, passing all the intermediate positions on your way.

      (don't mind me, I'm just sleep-deprived)

      --
      What?
    50. Re:That's an easy one! by ray-auch · · Score: 1

      > like having your ears pop in a fast elevator, only more so. Maybe like diving in the ocean. I can't remember any teleportation or time travel story that mentions this obvious thing.

      I think Douglas Adams had it covered with the recommendation of a few pints of muscle relaxant...

    51. Re:That's an easy one! by Kamineko · · Score: 1

      And we can get Jonathon LaPaglia to fly the craft!

    52. Re:That's an easy one! by beav007 · · Score: 1

      1) There was nothing 2) It exploded 3) ??? 4) Pro... wait, WHAT?

    53. Re:That's an easy one! by Cal+Paterson · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Do you know what a troll is? The grandparent was not a troll. If you're looking for a generic insult for use on the internet, I not only suggest "n00b"; but also that you go back to playing Unreal Championship. While /. doesn't have the highest standards in the world, I think we're above the most blatant name-calling methods.

    54. Re:That's an easy one! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Just because you can string words into sentences that are grammatically correct doesn't mean that your sentences they actually mean something.

    55. Re:That's an easy one! by EEPROMS · · Score: 1, Interesting

      On the surface your statement seems plausible until you sit down and think about all the variables of motion in the other dimensions one has to compensate for. Lets ignore for starters such things as the earth doesn't circle the earth in a circular motion but in a uneven oval. We shall also for now ignore other other quirks like the Sun circling the galaxy whilst entering and leaving the galactic plane, bit like a horse going around a merry-go-round going up and down in the verticle while circling in the horizontal plane, no lets just look at our planet and those variables. Now you have to materialise at a point in space and time on the planet (ignoring the few million other galactic variables) and not in the middle of a moving car,bird, building etc. Basically you could only travel through time and land on a spot on earth were you "know" beyond a doubt no life has ever been because otherwise it would be too risky (russian roulette). Just think about that, you would have to have a perfect understanding of all the variables of all objects moving on the surface of the planet earth before hand, we cant even keep a correct report of what is happening today let alone years later (the future being impossible to judge). So now we wont be able to compensate for the other dimensions unless "you become a god like being" that has knowledge of all the moving variables not just of our planet but the universe.

    56. Re:That's an easy one! by driftingwalrus · · Score: 1

      That's hardly very deep space relative to our current position. You would be rarely more than 2 AU from the earth, and in astronomical standards that's a very small distance.

      --
      Paul Anderson
      "I drank WHAT?!" -- Socrates
    57. Re:That's an easy one! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brits have been using TARDIS for many years now.

    58. Re:That's an easy one! by Anspen · · Score: 1

      It would depend on whether traveling through time would mean conservation of momentum. THough even if it did, there would still be little issues like the earth revolving around the sun (and the sun around the center of the milkey way).

      I guess we should develop space folding before time?

    59. Re:That's an easy one! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And also, I suspect moving through time would be like moving through the other dimensions, in the sense that you cant just zap from one position/time to another. Instead you move gradually towards your destination, passing all the intermediate positions on your way.
      You mean kinda like we do now?
    60. Re:That's an easy one! by alittlespice · · Score: 1

      If you're able to solve the problem of time travel, your problem is nothing to worry about. Just has to be factored into the equation. Might not want to be the first guy to go though.

    61. Re:That's an easy one! by An.+(Coward) · · Score: 1

      Mmmm...no, I like mine better.

    62. Re:That's an easy one! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stupid git!

    63. Re:That's an easy one! by repapetilto · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ok... so theres a couple of ways to get around such things while still staying scientifically consistent.

      1) Traveling backwards in time by going faster than the speed of light you know [(1-v^2/c^2)^.5] (will take infinite energy, but were talking time travel so lets hand-wave that away... maybe you get it back on the return trip or something). So first youve got your machine that can speed you up that fast, also for the sake of argument lets say the force you can generate is so large that you get to the speed of light in less than planck time (the first trick), thereby not interacting with anyone or traveling anywhere before you lose all mass and travel at light speed. From there, if you think about it (to avoid the root of a negative), the direction that light travels must switch, so once again youd be traveling through time at the same speed as now relative to earth and at the same location, only everything would be running opposite. So what you wanna do is once agian use your ultimate acceleration device but turn it on for a fraction of a second less, and this amount of time your accelerating is related to how far back in time you end up when you then decelerate to zero V relative to the earth, now youre at a point backwards in time relative to where you started, but if you try to interact with anything you'll have to do it all backwards, and plus you're not in the right spot which just isnt going to be fun. So heres the second trick, now you once again accelerate to lightspeed and a little bit beyond really quickly. Now youre in the past traveling in the direction of causality as we know it, but in the wrong spot( probably the middle of nowhere, you can check this by sending some smaller time machines ahead of you programemd to come back that can sense the surroundings) so you just travel through space until you get to where you want, and now you do whatever it is you wanted to do back there.

      2)You don't actually go back in time, but a copy of you does. If the state of every subatomic particle in your body could be detected very near to the time before youre sent back, you wouldnt know the difference. So we take that information, compress it in some way (your DNA is basically a compressed human being, think about that), then send that signal through a microscopic wormhole moving at relativistic speeds relative to its nearby partner who you keep in a safe location, with some way for it to decompress itself. When you exited the slow moving partner you would end up in the same location but in the past.

    64. Re:That's an easy one! by sootman · · Score: 1
      Everyone knows the Holodeck will be the last invention of mankind.

      If I had a holodeck, I'd close the door and never come out until I died of exhaustion. It would be hard to convince me I should be anywhere but in the holodeck, getting my oil massage from Cindy Crawford and her simulated twin sister.
       
      Holodecks would be very addicting. If there weren't enough holodecks to go around, I'd get the names of all the people who had reservations ahead of me and beam them into concrete walls. I'd feel tense about it, but that's exactly why I'd need a massage.
      —Scott Adams
      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    65. Re:That's an easy one! by cthulu_mt · · Score: 1

      Nice 7 Days reference. Man that was a good show.

      --
      Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
    66. Re:That's an easy one! by Torvaun · · Score: 1

      Because they don't know where we are. They've got some other planet now (then?)

      --
      I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
    67. Re:That's an easy one! by fredklein · · Score: 1

      Larry Niven dealt with this with some of his 'earlier' (earlier in his created history) stories involving Transfer Booths. In fact, one story involved someone carrying a body thru a Transfer Booth to a higher elevation, and he (and the body) warmed up due to the increase in potential energy, or some such. The warmer body was supposed to throw off the estimated time of death so the killer would have an alibi.

      As for Time Travel stories, Rainbow Mars includes a mention that the pond out front of the [Time travel building] was not ornamental- they needed somewhere to dump the heat when they bring things forward in time.

    68. Re:That's an easy one! by nschubach · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think if you could do that, most people would be too busy transporting their DNA all over the galaxy exploring all the habitable planets before time travel. What would your copy do? If it could send itself back, how/would you determine who shall remain alive or do you continue to infinitely clone yourself. Could this give way to the religious belief that somehow humans did start from thin air? Were Adam and Eve copies of an alien race who figured out how to transport their DNA signature to this planet to continue their race on a distant planet?

      I think "alternate universes" could probably be explained with time/space warping though. They may not be alternate universes, but alternate planets that happen to interfere with your little time warp phenomenon. That wouldn't really be time travel, but a "natural" form of transportation without destruction.

      The question that begs to be asked for time travel though: If you do travel back in time, and let's say you know exactly where you will end up. How do you get back? Let's say you build a device in the past (now present)... you've used resources from that time that could have been used for something else, creating the famous paradoxical situations. You could, by using a wrong plank of wood or stepping on a bug that might scare your ancestors into each others arms, change the course of your history, rendering you nonexistent. It would happen so fast, it would be like stepping off your time machine and vanishing into thin air. Along with your device. Not even mentioning airborne viruses that you could carry back with you.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    69. Re:That's an easy one! by nschubach · · Score: 1

      If you could find the signal, and it didn't cause Pluto to swerve off course and kill us all.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    70. Re:That's an easy one! by nschubach · · Score: 1

      I would venture a guess. Yes, it's safe to say we have never been in the same coordinate space. I would assume the Earth is drawing out an invisible helix as it orbits the sun traveling through space. In the EXTREME off chance that we are on some sort of planar surface though... anyone that's used a Spirograph can attest to the pen touching a previously drawn line at least once. If we have, it's been so long that if you did find the point in time that Earth was in the same position, you could never get back in your lifetime because that point in time would pass by too quickly. I'm going to guess though that the Earth and Sun do not travel on the same spacial plane.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    71. Re:That's an easy one! by nschubach · · Score: 1

      What if the known galaxy is actually orbiting around another central point at a speed faster than 2AU per nanosecond? Traveling to the same point in space two weeks in the past or future would put you into some very strange deep space.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    72. Re:That's an easy one! by repapetilto · · Score: 1

      Well first of all I think if anyone is planning on time traveling using the second approach it would be prudent to destroy the original immediately (have vaporization be part of the process) to avoid the issues of copies. The second issue you brought up could be sidestepped with alternate (but often very similar) universes resulting (i.e. the multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanics), or some as yet undiscovered causality conservation law that would say that any action you take to change the future would be countered by some other change (i.e. you kill your grandfather, but then soon after someone figures out how to grow a clone of him and he is recreated, but then the original scientist and his lab are destroyed and the secret is lost)

    73. Re:That's an easy one! by cromar · · Score: 1

      I 3 ./ ... where else do you get to hear this kind of most fascinating shit?!

    74. Re:That's an easy one! by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But in the earth coorinate system, were always in the same place.

      People are quite happy to accept that we cant travel faster that c, but soon forget that all frames of reverance are all equal. There is no aether, no absolute position, no zero velocity, hell there aint much apart from acceleration!

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    75. Re:That's an easy one! by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 4, Informative

      You also assume that there's an absolute frame of reference... which there isn't.

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
    76. Re:That's an easy one! by repapetilto · · Score: 1

      ha.. scifi books (if you pick the right ones) plus physics books. Check out timeline by Michael Crichton, thats probably the best armchair time travel theory I've ever read, the second idea i had was based on that.

    77. Re:That's an easy one! by Hyperspite · · Score: 1

      Well obviously if you want to go back in time you would just use negative acceleration!

    78. Re:That's an easy one! by vigmeister · · Score: 1

      earth is actually moving through space faster than a speeding bullet Relative to what?

      Cheers!
      --
      Atheist: Buddhist in a Prius
    79. Re:That's an easy one! by Benaiah · · Score: 1

      It just means you can only travel through time in exact year increments so the earth is back where it was.


      Nice troll. But, for those that didn't realize it, don't forget about galactic rotation and expansion of the universe.

      With reference to what? Everything is relative. Therefore using the earth as a reference point... The entire universe rotates around the earth.
    80. Re:That's an easy one! by jamesh · · Score: 1

      Let me explain, if have an actual time machine and travel back lets say 1 week you would materialize millions of miles away from earth in the middle of deep space


      Why? Your position on Earth is a valid frame of reference. Assuming your time machine follows the same path backwards in time as it did forwards then it shouldn't be an issue.

      The big problem is when you materialise at a prior date, what happens to the air that was occupying that space (or the person that was occupying it if you are unlucky)? Your time machine and its contents might find itself undergoing nuclear fusion and chemical oxidisation with a whole load of other atoms/molecules...

      James
    81. Re:That's an easy one! by Kligat · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You have to take into account the Earth wobbling slightly about the Earth-Moon barycenter, the Earth orbiting the Sun, the Sun orbiting the barycenter of the Milky Way Galaxy, the Milky Way Galaxy orbiting the barycenter of the Local Group while it is drawn to the Andromeda Galaxy, and the Local Group being drawn to the Virgo Cluster while it's probably moving about the Virgo Supercluster.

      Physicists, say the ever reliable Wikipeda (it's okay to use it while mocking it if I check it's sources, right?) are still debating on a step-up from superclusters called a galaxy filament. It makes me think that making sure Earth would be in the exact same space relative to everything else that influences its parent bodies' orbits would be almost as difficult as tracking the location of every object in the universe in the first place.

      Since the Earth is moving at 30 km/s relative to the Sun, the Sun is moving at 240 km/s in a nearly circular orbit, and the Milky Way is moving at 100 km/s relative to the center of mass of the Local Group, maybe if you went back a day, you'd be 230 times the distance between Earth and the Moon, or half an AU, and since Warp Factor One in the original Star Trek series' inconsistent ship manual for the writers said that equals the speed of light, accounting for the location discrepancy would only take about 5 minutes, not taking into account the Virgo Supercluster, right?

    82. Re:That's an easy one! by rmerry72 · · Score: 1

      I think if we can work out the logistics of time travel, the other three dimensions shouldn't provide too much of an issue.

      Don't know about that. We've worked out three, there's only one giving us a problem. Still travelling back a week then flying the million ks to where the past Earth was would be easy, just not convenient.

      --
      We do not inherit the Earth from our parents. We borrow it from our children.
    83. Re:That's an easy one! by KanSer · · Score: 1

      I don't expect much, except Earl Grey, hot. I want replicators, you animals. NO delivery time. NO cook time. Cheese pizza, hot. God bless the replicator.

      --
      • MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward Wednesday April 20, @4:20
    84. Re:That's an easy one! by eclectro · · Score: 1

      They are so "natural" that they are "naked."

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    85. Re:That's an easy one! by TheCybernator · · Score: 1

      Its time travel. When the go back in time, the Earth too would be back there where it was.

      Sorry. I applied my brains again. I won't do it again. I promise.

    86. Re:That's an easy one! by catprog · · Score: 1

      The 7 days was because "the Backstep Project can only backstep seven days because of limitations imposed by the fuel source and its reactor" (quoted from wikipedia)

      --
      My Transformation Website
      Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
      Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
    87. Re:That's an easy one! by c4miles · · Score: 2, Funny

      If only there were some way to account for both Time And the Relative Dimension In Space.

    88. Re:That's an easy one! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know it seems that way, but that's just because my ex-girlfriend happens to be on Earth. At least, to hear her tell it, that's the case.

      (Now, as to whether she is originally from Earth, that's another story.)

    89. Re:That's an easy one! by Clueless+Nick · · Score: 3, Funny

      Everybody knows that when you travel in time, your arrival at your destination is heralded by strong winds, electric storms, and thunder. Don't believe me? Refer to these:

      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088247/
      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103064/
      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181852/
      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118689/

      No rational car driver, sane bird or other sentient being would want to pass through that!

      --
      Chat with other atheists http://secularchat.org
    90. Re:That's an easy one! by bytesex · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, maybe you could use the earth's gravity then; you would step into your time travel vehicle, move back a second, fall back to earth, move back another second, fall back to earth again (or reposition yourself). If you do it quickly, you wouldn't notice, and you'd still be on earth when you arrived.

      --
      Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
    91. Re:That's an easy one! by Fred_A · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, maybe you could use the earth's gravity then; you would step into your time travel vehicle, move back a second, fall back to earth, move back another second, fall back to earth again (or reposition yourself). If you do it quickly, you wouldn't notice, and you'd still be on earth when you arrived. That's pretty much the system I'm using, except I'm moving forward in time, not back, and it takes a second to move a second. But it's very reliable so I'm confident I'll get there eventually.

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    92. Re:That's an easy one! by julesh · · Score: 2

      But in the earth coorinate system, were always in the same place.

      People are quite happy to accept that we cant travel faster that c, but soon forget that all frames of reverance are all equal. There is no aether, no absolute position, no zero velocity, hell there aint much apart from acceleration!


      Unfortunately, the coordinate system you're suggesting we use is not an inertial one: it is accelerating under many influences, the most significant of which is gravity from the sun. Picking an inertial reference frame to use seems essential to me, but I don't see how one can be found that doesn't have the problems parent posts have discussed...

    93. Re:That's an easy one! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where are the mod points when you need them the most? That was a good one.

    94. Re:That's an easy one! by bindo · · Score: 1

      it would be somewhat painful I imagine.

      It wouldn't last enough to be painful .... :)

    95. Re:That's an easy one! by DamageLabs · · Score: 1

      Just the other day I read that we (Earth) are moving about 600km/s relative to the background cosmic radiation. I am not sure did they calculate the vector and how does that vector change over time.

    96. Re:That's an easy one! by quantumphaze · · Score: 1

      absolute frame of reference

      The Big Bang?
    97. Re:That's an easy one! by pw1972 · · Score: 1

      It might not be a good idea and that's the only lousy reason you give? Have you not seen the Back to the Future movies? Duh!

    98. Re:That's an easy one! by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 1

      Three words:

      ROBOTIC LUCY LIU!

      "I love you BILLY EVERYTEEN."

      --
      Who did what now?
    99. Re:That's an easy one! by programmerar · · Score: 1

      interesting thought, but no more correct than having the time-traveler appear in the same spot on earth where he left off. why? because there is no absolute positioning in space. his start-off point is not an absolute coordinate in space, it's all "relative" you know...

      but the thought of where a time-traveler would appear is interesting though.

    100. Re:That's an easy one! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So is that why I need to get my De Lorean to 88 miles per hour?

    101. Re:That's an easy one! by will.perdikakis · · Score: 0

      In one second -assuming you believe that you can pin yourself to a single point in the universe- you would be well outside earth's atmosphere and well into the gravity of other celestial bodies.

      --
      -Will P.
    102. Re:That's an easy one! by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Forget the problem of the fact that everything is moving, when we think about time as another dimension like length, width, and height, we forget that in addition to having length, width and height, each of us is so many units of time. So, if you are going to move back in time, you have to move your whole amount of time, not just the bit in the present. Just like you can't move just your knee across the room without inflicting major pain (and then, how do you put it back?), so you could not move just your present into the past without causing major pain. As for moving your whole stretch of time, I can think of a whole host of problems, the first being that you are attached to two other people at one end.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    103. Re:That's an easy one! by baegucb_18706 · · Score: 1

      Kittens are cute when they're young

    104. Re:That's an easy one! by kabocox · · Score: 1

      The problem with time travel is although it may be possible to travel in time it would not be a good idea. Let me explain, if have an actual time machine and travel back lets say 1 week you would materialize millions of miles away from earth in the middle of deep space. The reason for this becomes obvious when you realise earth is actually moving through space faster than a speeding bullet thus totally stuffing up the usefulness of traveling through time.

      Sounds like a great way to toss stuff into space to me.

    105. Re:That's an easy one! by genner · · Score: 1

      Thats why all good sci-fi shows have machienes that travel in time AND space.

    106. Re:That's an easy one! by Technopaladin · · Score: 1

      This was weapon concept in the LaNague Chronicles.

    107. Re:That's an easy one! by mcspoo · · Score: 1

      That's what you would have a time wave compensator for. The compensator would determine the exact XYZ axis location of where the same patch of earth when you travel to it. Thus why Time Travel is also considered as a means of traversing extreme distances.

    108. Re:That's an easy one! by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Well it's a fancy way of killing someone.

      Maybe someone one day might invent a disintegrator that isn't actually one :)

      --
    109. Re:That's an easy one! by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 1

      Just like the fact that there is no God, the fact that there is no absolute, or I guess privileged would be a better word, frame of reference leaves some people with a funny, empty feeling.

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
    110. Re:That's an easy one! by Tangent128 · · Score: 1

      The Novikov self-consistency principle posits that it would be impossible to cause such a paradox.

      Think of it this way: anything you do in the past happened before you ever left. Thus, you are living proof that you didn't do anything to imperil your existance. You can still affect what happens, though- your appearance might frighten your ancestors into each other's arms, for instance.

    111. Re:That's an easy one! by Zaatxe · · Score: 1

      In the spanish book "Caballo de Troya" (Trojan Horse), they "solved" this problem by lifting the time machine with rockets about 100 meters above the ground.

      (what a crappy book...)

      --
      So say we all
    112. Re:That's an easy one! by cromar · · Score: 1

      Oh sure, I read those kinda books sometimes, but none of my nerdy friends and in no other forum on the internet do we get to be this feckin' nerdy :D

    113. Re:That's an easy one! by driftingwalrus · · Score: 1

      One point: You do realize that 2au per ns is vastly in excess of the speed of light, right?

      --
      Paul Anderson
      "I drank WHAT?!" -- Socrates
    114. Re:That's an easy one! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah! He was such an insensitive clod.

    115. Re:That's an easy one! by bearbones · · Score: 1

      A time machine will never be invented. It will just show up one day. The person who "invents" it will just send it to himself in the past.

    116. Re:That's an easy one! by JohnFluxx · · Score: 1

      Hi. It's 600km/sec relative to our galaxy. It's 400km/sec relative to the background microwave radiation.

    117. Re:That's an easy one! by DRAGONWEEZEL · · Score: 1

      The thing is, True time travel would put you back "when" and when is linked to where, since during any travel of any sort, D(distance traveled)= Average(V)*Time If you remove the time or (negate the time) you negate the D, thus being where you "were"

      Worrying about ending up in space going back or forward is silly, since, time travel would have to include the distance you have traveled in your current time!

      Does that make sense, or did I just geek out?

      --
      How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
    118. Re:That's an easy one! by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Is the universe in a fixed position in space? (what's outside the universe, where light has not reached, much less matter) For that matter, was the core of the big bang element moving or stationary in void?

    119. Re:That's an easy one! by RockModeNick · · Score: 1

      There was an outer limits episode made from a James Patrick Kelly short story called "Think like a dinosaur" where the reptilian race cooperating with humans and helping them with interstellar travel has a technology which moves a person from one location to the other by copying them and instantly vaporizing the(suspended) original when the new copy is confirmed to be in place. After one transport, an error makes it seem as though the copy was not created, which it was, and the original unfrozen. When the news comes, the reptilian race expect the human researcher working with them to kill the original. An error like that is an interesting problem with that type of travel.

    120. Re:That's an easy one! by nschubach · · Score: 1

      I was just coming up with a number, it was neither based on any measure or meaning. But I'm sure even at the nanosecond scale you might find yourself transported back in time to a point that would not be pleasant (ie: either up in the air due to the Earth's curvature, or in a brick wall.)

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    121. Re:That's an easy one! by Grygus · · Score: 1

      In "The Stars My Destination," by Alfred Bester, when someone "jaunts" (teleports) it makes an audible popping noise as air rushes in to fill the new space. He didn't talk about the effect on the body on the other end though.

    122. Re:That's an easy one! by spun · · Score: 2, Informative

      The big bang as a point of reference? You do know it happened everywhere, right? I mean, it's not as if there was this superdense clump sitting in space that then exploded. There was no space.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    123. Re:That's an easy one! by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      As someone else pointed out, that's a small problem compared to time travel itself.

      But forget traveling back in time, which would probably cause all kinds of problems and paradoxes. I just want to travel forward in time (faster than the normal rate, of course).

      Another highly useful technology would be a device which, instead of allowing you to actually travel through time, simply allows you to see into the past or future. A device like this was envisioned in Arthur C. Clarke's book "Light of Other Days", which (I didn't read it) apparently caused all kinds of social upheaval because the truth of many things in the past was finally revealed for all to see, such as how various religions actually started, who killed JFK, etc.

    124. Re:That's an easy one! by armareum · · Score: 1

      duh, the big bang was a single point, and so EVERYWHERE is where the big bang "was". I.E., if we could reverse time, we'd see everything collapse towards ourselves (and so would everyone else).

      --
      Is this a rhetorical question?
    125. Re:That's an easy one! by ioshhdflwuegfh · · Score: 1

      The problem with time travel is although it may be possible to travel in time it would not be a good idea. Let me explain, if have an actual time machine and travel back lets say 1 week you would materialize millions of miles away from earth in the middle of deep space. The reason for this becomes obvious when you realise earth is actually moving through space faster than a speeding bullet thus totally stuffing up the usefulness of traveling through time. You're conflating time-travel and teleportation. Let me explain: travel through time implies going into the past, which means that the object that travels is going straight where it was back in time, including everything else. You instead merely teleport the object to the position it had some time ago.

      Newtonian physics nicely describes time-travel: here there is the absolute time, so when we do the travel we change all the clocks everywhere in the universe at once so it's really travel into the past, not to another location one had once before.

      Mathematically, it works like this: in classical mechanics time is a parameter t that parametrizes the whole system (let's say Solar system) in the sense that positions, velocities and forces are functions of t, so when you shift t, you really shift everything into the state it once had.
    126. Re:That's an easy one! by Karrde712 · · Score: 1

      The one thing that most people overlook about time travel is this:
      If time travel were possible, it would be ubiquitous.

      Think about it. Assuming that time travel were possible, presumably, there would be time travelers present all throughout history. All inventions, given enough time, eventually filter down into common usage. So, let's work through this.

      First, we make two assumptions:
      1) Time travel is possible
      2) Human beings or some other intelligent life form is capable of discovering and harnessing time travel.

      So now, let's travel (in our minds) into the future. Time travel has been invented. It is now possible to experience any point in history or the future. So we now have to assume that, at least at any major historical events, researchers from other time periods must be present.

      But no matter what the technology is, it never remains controlled. Travel far enough ahead and I guarantee that eventually time travel will be (re-discovered) time and again. It would be unreasonable to assume anything less than complete penetration into daily life eventually.

      Raised into a society in which time travel (and presumably the additional prerequisite of teleportation to remain on the planet's surface) is common, what would ever stop people from visiting all points of history?

      Additionally, the discovery of time travel would pretty much render government impossible. A society in which all or most of its citizens have access to what is basically ultimate power would be completely ungovernable. The only way to avoid total chaos would require the evolution of a self-regulating system. If you think about it, having the ability to literally unmake any decision anyone ever made would be truly chaotic.

      So now we have a society of self-regulating humanoids who are unbound in time and (presumably) exist all throughout history. So the simplest way to prove that time travel is impossible is simply to observe that we don't have access to it. Because, in order to maintain the self-regulating society described above, all potential citizens in that society, throughout all history, would need to be brought into the fold and taught about the dangers and the rules necessary to avoid temporal armageddon.

      --
      You may treat all information submitted above as wild speculation.
    127. Re:That's an easy one! by Anguirel · · Score: 1

      Well, you haven't been in the same place twice, but I never move. The universe clearly revolves around me.

      --
      ~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
      QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
    128. Re:That's an easy one! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're going to have to simplify it for the movie. Something that can be explained in one line of dialogue. an "alien device" or similar

    129. Re:That's an easy one! by Rob+Kaper · · Score: 1

      I think if we can work out the logistics of time travel, the other three dimensions shouldn't provide too much of an issue.


      I deduct that, given the precision requirements, transporters (and replicators) will be reality before time travel.
    130. Re:That's an easy one! by lordlod · · Score: 1

      Traveling forward in time doesn't seem that difficult in comparison to going back.

      You don't actually have to warp time, just take a long nap. I suspect the science behind stasis will be much easier to master than time travel.

      You could also accelerate to a decent percentage of the speed of light, causing outside time to pass relatively quickly.

      The paradox question seems solvable as well:
      If you leave time A and travel to time B where B A

      Stating the problem:
      1. You exist in time A.
      2. You depart time A and travel to time B, where B A.
      3. You make a change in time B which causes your future self not to be created. (ie, killing a parent).
      4. You no longer exist.

      The catch is that by not existing you could not make the change to cause you not to exist.

      I see two possible solutions.
      1. Step 3 cannot occur, you are prevented in some way from making the change. This seems unlikely to me.
      2. Step 4 is false. Altering your future self does not alter your present self in your present time. It seems counter-intuitive to me for a change in the future to reach back and alter the past. (Though this is the whole idea of time travel).

  2. Lightsabers... by jak10900 · · Score: 1

    I like this guy's way of thinking.

    1. Re:Lightsabers... by bladesjester · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As a swordsman, may I just say first that I'd want one and second, that most people would probably cut their own heads/arms/random other body parts off with them... lol

      Sounds like a win to me all around *grin*

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    2. Re:Lightsabers... by Captain+DaFt · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Here's a real, functional light saber that can be built with todays tech:

        Take a high-powered infra-red laser that can be focused with a lens so that the focal point is energetic enough to ionize air.

      Now get a lens whose focus can be changed electrically (Quartz and germanium are two possibilities that come to mind, I know germanium is transparent to infrared, not too sure about quartz)

      Put laser and lens in a handle, sweep the focus of the lens from just past the hilt out to about three feet and back, several times a second.

      Voila! Nice hissing, glowing column of energy that looks like a sword, cuts like a plasma torch, and can be yielded with one hand.

      Caveats: Beams wont block other beams like a real sword.
                        Wear safety goggles to protect remaining eye from laser.
                        Please just ignore the power cable running to the wall outlet.
      PS, if you're silly enough to do this, please post video of mishaps on You Tube AND Darwin Awards!

      --
      The U.S. really needs an English to Wisdom dictionary.
    3. Re:Lightsabers... by techno-vampire · · Score: 2, Funny
      Voila! Nice hissing, glowing column of energy that looks like a sword, cuts like a plasma torch, and can be yielded with one hand.


      Thank you, Sir Rodney, for that very important piece of information.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    4. Re:Lightsabers... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      BWAHAHAHAHAhahahahhaha.. so, how many life and deaths combats have you been in? even read a first person perspective?

      You don't know jack.

      People who practice with swords are the ones more likely to get hurt bacause it seems like something they are used to, but isn't.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:Lightsabers... by bladesjester · · Score: 1

      so, how many life and deaths combats have you been in? even read a first person perspective?

      Two. One was unarmed on my part. Both people didn't like me and wanted to split my head open.

      I know more than you think. For the record, I started training in kung fu over 20 years ago.

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    6. Re:Lightsabers... by bladesjester · · Score: 1

      By the by, those are the ones that I considered an actual threat to life on my part. There are a number of others who were very serious about it that I didn't give much thought to because they weren't very good.

      How many have *you* been in?

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    7. Re:Lightsabers... by SL+Baur · · Score: 1

      He may be a coauthor of string theory, but he was also an Art Bell regular on Coast to Coast. That says a lot to me about his thinking. And thinking of the guys who were posting about time travel up higher, I recall that Art Bell regularly opened the phone lines exclusively for people claiming to be time travelers. Whee!

    8. Re:Lightsabers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Mall Ninja, is that you?

    9. Re:Lightsabers... by bladesjester · · Score: 1

      No, kid. You're barking up the wrong tree.

      I actually *did* start training over 20 years ago (it sounds weird to think about). I've also taught.

      It's been an interesting trip so far, and it doesn't really show signs of slowing down any time soon.

      You can go slink off back under your bridge now.

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
  3. Von Neumann Machines by susano_otter · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Seriously.

    At any scale. But nanoscale is my preference.

    Ideally of types that interface cleanly with the human nervous system.

    But that's just me.

    --

    Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    1. Re:Von Neumann Machines by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 2, Funny

      Interfaces with the human nervous system? Try Meningitis.

    2. Re:Von Neumann Machines by Plazmid · · Score: 1

      We almost have a working Von Neuman Machine. http://reprap.org/bin/view/Main/WebHome

      Its currently capable of replicating about 50% of its own parts.

      Wanna help us reach 100% automated replication? Join us here: http://forums.reprap.org/

    3. Re:Von Neumann Machines by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 1

      lol, almost! No, that's nowhere near. It can make some of it's own (non complex) parts, but the hard part is to assemble them into the copy, and to go out and collect the raw materials.

    4. Re:Von Neumann Machines by susano_otter · · Score: 1

      Thanks, but I'll pass. Something along the lines of a defense against Meningitis would be closer to what I had in mind.

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

  4. Kaku bears a hearing? by CRCulver · · Score: 4, Informative

    Why Michio Kaku may be a fine mathematician, I think his ideas of technological progress are often shaky. I remember reading his book Hyperspace as a teenager and getting really irked by his repeated and fairly unrealistic visions of godlike power in the near future (an irritation at least one Amazon reviewer shares).

    1. Re:Kaku bears a hearing? by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I had a similar response to Hyperspace (although my specific irritations are lost in the mists of bad memory and over a decade of time). Honestly, I'm not really inclined to give a special weight to an inventor of String Theory anyway; I'm very unimpressed with the scientific merits of that theory and I rather feel it borders on a non-science.

    2. Re:Kaku bears a hearing? by TheLazySci-FiAuthor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I remember reading his book Hyperspace as a teenager and getting really irked by his repeated and fairly unrealistic visions of godlike power in the near future (an irritation at least one Amazon reviewer shares).


      Ah, the delusion of grandure. I do agree that futurologists are guilty of this - but what we have even today is really quite grand.

      What he's doing though seems to me to be mere extrapolation. Let us go back a few thousand years and try to explain to your average hunter/gatherer that in the future we have an arrow which can shoot all the way around the world and completely obliterate 50 square miles of whatever we aimed it at. That's pretty godlike, and that kind of technology came along with the microwave oven and color television.

      The hunters arrow creates a hole a few inches in diameter - the hydrogen bomb creates a crater many hundreds of meters in diameter, so a weapon of a few thousand years from now should be able to create a blemish in matter approximately 1000 miles in size, a few thousand years past that and the weapon would make a big hole almost 6 million miles in size.

      thousands of years are not long periods of time to the universe, I won't continue to extrapolate into the millions of years of humanities progress.

      I think, if we survive and continue to progress like this, that we will be pretty bad-ass indeed.
    3. Re:Kaku bears a hearing? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Well it's appropriate at least that the inventor of one science fiction theory would have some insight into others.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    4. Re:Kaku bears a hearing? by gardyloo · · Score: 2, Funny

      The hunters arrow creates a hole a few inches in diameter - the hydrogen bomb creates a crater many hundreds of meters in diameter, so a weapon of a few thousand years from now should be able to create a blemish in matter approximately 1000 miles in size, a few thousand years past that and the weapon would make a big hole almost 6 million miles in size. Yay for extrapolation through two points! Apparently, several thousand years ago, hunters' darts could actually *fill up* craters!
    5. Re:Kaku bears a hearing? by TheLazySci-FiAuthor · · Score: 3, Funny

      A few inches in diameter? Is that a ballista in your pocket, or are you happy to see me?


      Both!
    6. Re:Kaku bears a hearing? by MttJocy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The worst thing about such talk of weapons is that natural law shows us that weapons able to destroy entire solar systems in a single blast and send radiation out over massive areas are entirely possible (see supernova) all that is required is enough energy which would probably make such a device absolutely massive.

      Although someone developing technology which could cause a star to enter prematurely into its death phase by interrupting its normal reactions could possibly be smaller (especially if a chain reaction was involved) which could be a devastating but fairly easy to carry weapon if someone was out for interstellar war with someone.

    7. Re:Kaku bears a hearing? by fmobus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not that simple, I believe. Impacted area increases in a quadratic manner (remember A = PI.r^2). It is very likely that the energy needed to blast that area/volume is on higher polynomial (ie, being a r^4 or r^5). Much like getting a spaceship near c, there is a point where energy requirements get prohibitive.

      Unfortunately our potential has limitations. There is just so much energy we can extract from our environment (read: sun). Maybe our best shot is building something like a dyson killer star

    8. Re:Kaku bears a hearing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The author is Michio Kaku, one of the inventors of string theory, so he bears a hearing. and he gets one from time to time, on Coast to Coast AM, formerly known as the Art Bell Show!

    9. Re:Kaku bears a hearing? by calebt3 · · Score: 1

      It's easier to shoot someone with a ballista if you can see them.

    10. Re:Kaku bears a hearing? by Fireflymantis · · Score: 1

      I wish I had mod points to congratulate you for leading me to that gem. I guess this reply will have to suffice.

    11. Re:Kaku bears a hearing? by dedalus2000 · · Score: 1

      Then if that weapon could be made to create life and resurrect Spock from a few remaining cells in his casket we'd be all set.

      --
      My keyboads not woking popely.
    12. Re:Kaku bears a hearing? by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      Right, except that exponential progress in anything never continues indefinitely. Maybe the end won't come in the next few hundred years, but it must inevitably come.

    13. Re:Kaku bears a hearing? by julesh · · Score: 1

      Maybe our best shot is building something like a dyson killer star

      You mean a Nicoll-Dyson laser (yes, xkcd didn't come up with the idea).

    14. Re:Kaku bears a hearing? by rbanffy · · Score: 1

      You know... There must be an upper limit on the size of the crater you create. For rocky planets, a couple thousand miles seems to be it. ;-)

    15. Re:Kaku bears a hearing? by tsjaikdus · · Score: 1

      >> That's pretty godlike, and that kind of technology came
      >> along with the microwave oven and color television.

      I don't care for Michio Kaku. Color television is all the future will ever need.

    16. Re:Kaku bears a hearing? by MollyB · · Score: 1

      Lest we forget, Michio Kaku was a leading opponent of the Cassini mission to Saturn because it carried (I think) a small reactor. He was very noisy about it then, but since the launch went okay, haven't heard a peep from him. I agree he's devolved to gee-whiz physics and regularly delivers eye-candy w/ voiceover on the so-called "Science" channel.

    17. Re:Kaku bears a hearing? by ichigo+2.0 · · Score: 1

      That could ostensibly be used as a contemporary version of MAD. As a usable weapon it is a bit limited, as stealing someones resources is difficult when their system has gone supernova.

    18. Re:Kaku bears a hearing? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      What he's doing though seems to me to be mere extrapolation. Let us go back a few thousand years and try to explain to your average hunter/gatherer that in the future we have an arrow which can shoot all the way around the world and completely obliterate 50 square miles of whatever we aimed it at. That's pretty godlike, and that kind of technology came along with the microwave oven and color television.

      According to some people, nuclear weapons were already in existence several thousands years ago in India. Their holy book describes a huge battle involving their gods in which "celestial weapons" are used, and the side effects on the survivors (hair falling out, water contaminated, etc.) sound very much like nuclear fallout.

    19. Re:Kaku bears a hearing? by jdigriz · · Score: 1

      1000 miles? we can do that today, put some engines on a big enough space rock... I make no warranties as to whether the structural integrity of the Earth could maintain the shape of that crater though. 6 million mile crater? Crater in what exactly? The Earth isn't that large. Are we going to build Dyson Spheres only to put craters in them?

  5. String Theory by eln · · Score: 4, Funny

    I dunno, string theory always seemed to me like something you would come up with at 3am while smoking a joint after having spent the past 6 hours polishing off a keg with your physicist friends.

    "Hey man, you know what would be awesome? What if the whole Universe was really made up of a bunch of vibrating strings?"

    "Whoa...I think you just blew my mind man...Hey, don't bogart that!"

    1. Re:String Theory by PC+and+Sony+Fanboy · · Score: 3, Funny

      "DUDE ... have you ever seen a molecule on WEED? Totally different ... its all ... stringy"
      motions a bunch of other scientists over to look in the microscope
      "Duuude... why're we staring into a bong?"

    2. Re:String Theory by bladesjester · · Score: 1

      "Duuude... why're we staring into a bong?"

      Obligatory Van Wilder quote:

      "That's no bong! That's for my schlong!"

      (Sorry, just watched it again last night =])

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    3. Re:String Theory by TheLazySci-FiAuthor · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You might be closer to the truth than you intended to be.

      Of course, this smacks of urban legendry - but snopes nor wikipedia seem to offer definite refutations, just lack of support.

    4. Re:String Theory by toastee · · Score: 3, Funny

      My bong has been known to cause passage of time to speed up in a very localized fasion.

      --
      - Better to speak your mind than to remain silent, or someone may speak for you.
  6. Teleporters by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Duh. Anyone who has to drive to work on Mondays will want one.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Teleporters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I enjoy cavity checks you insensitive clod!

    2. Re:Teleporters by Ailure · · Score: 1

      If the teleporter is a wormhole of some kind, imagine what impact it will make on networking in general. Communication between continents would be both faster and cheaper, and resources like water would easily be transported anywhere where it's needed cheaply.

      Unless the wormhole requires a insane amount of energy to operate.

    3. Re:Teleporters by calebt3 · · Score: 1

      Who said anything about it being cheap? Faster, yes, but cheaper will take some time.

    4. Re:Teleporters by ampathee · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Depends on whether it's a wormhole type teleport, or the type where it vapourizes you then recreates you somewhere else. I'd use the former, but I wouldn't go near the latter.

    5. Re:Teleporters by Nephilium · · Score: 1

      Work? On Monday March 17th? It's a day for the bars...

      St. Patrick's Day, the only holiday I know of where bars open at 5:00 AM...

      Nephilium

    6. Re:Teleporters by rhade · · Score: 1

      I imagine this has been discussed before as this seems pretty obvious that as cool as transporters would be if you think about how much of the worlds economy is based around transport ((ie 95%?) baseless hypothesis). Cheaply transporting people and objects instantly anywhere in the world (universe?) would destroy the economy. Now I imagine this problem is put into the 'im sure by the time we have figured out transportation we will live in universe of perfect economy'. Still its something to think about.

      --
      http://www.awfullybigmoustache.com
    7. Re:Teleporters by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      So? Personally, I don't care for outdated business models. Get a new job.

      Ok, I'm fairly sure we'd suddenly see some stupid laws popping up left and right to protect them. For reference, see copyright.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:Teleporters by exploder · · Score: 1

      If the teleporter is a wormhole of some kind, imagine what impact it will make on networking in general. Communication between continents would be both faster and cheaper, and resources like water would easily be transported away from where it's needed to the rich people who need to wash their Hummers and water their six-acre lawns cheaply. Fixed that for you.

      --
      Yo dawg, I heard you like the Ackermann function, so OH GOD OH GOD OH GOD
  7. re: force fields by ClaraClayton · · Score: 1

    I heard a pretty convoluted explanation of how force fields might plausibly be made to work in the future. The party who explained it wasn't a Trekkie, either. Hey, who knows?

  8. Hoverboards! by cephah · · Score: 1

    Hoverboards for pete's sake! I've been begging for those things for decades!

  9. "Mr Fusion" by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    Or something to cancel out the noise of accordion players.

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:"Mr Fusion" by The+Ancients · · Score: 4, Funny

      Or something to cancel out the noise of accordion players.

      Already been invented. Called a gun.

    2. Re:"Mr Fusion" by geekoid · · Score: 0

      This answers always disappoint me when presented on a nerd site.
      I am not anti-gun by any stretch, but this answer is so obvious I would hope that people who are supposed to be smart to be more clever then that.

      I mean really, the best thing you could come up with was 'a gun'?
      sheesh.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:"Mr Fusion" by Weaselmancer · · Score: 5, Funny

      How about an identical accordion 180 degrees out of phase with the offending accordion?

      --
      Weaselmancer
      rediculous.
    4. Re:"Mr Fusion" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This answers always disappoint me when presented on a nerd site.
      I am not anti-gun by any stretch, but this answer is so obvious I would hope that people who are supposed to be smart to be more clever then that.

      I mean really, the best thing you could come up with was 'a gun'?
      sheesh.

      Oh grow up and enjoy the humor bumface
    5. Re:"Mr Fusion" by geekoid · · Score: 1

      That's much better, well done!
      Laughed my ass off.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    6. Re:"Mr Fusion" by Captain+DaFt · · Score: 2

      "Or something to cancel out the noise of accordion players."

      Fight fire with dynamite, if the accordion playing annoys you, drown it out with bagpipes!
      Just make sure you're the closest to the door, and it's open, AND you have a get-a-way car right outside the door, with its door open and motor running.

      --
      The U.S. really needs an English to Wisdom dictionary.
    7. Re:"Mr Fusion" by KudyardRipling · · Score: 0, Troll

      Please pardon the appearance of pontificating on common sense.

      Speaking of weapons, despite market forces, the future is what the ruling class wants it to be. They are to remain in control. Therefore, security shall be first and foremost in any new product or service. That will mean that any invention that comes to the marketplace shall conform to the following:

      0. Everything is a weapon and everyone is a criminal, but never say so in public.
      1. maximize profit.
      2. If intended to be possessed by the common person, it must designed to preclude its use as a weapon whether by itself or in conjunction with other products or services without violating rule #1.
      3. If it cannot be designed to preclude its use as a weapon according to rule #2, restrict manufacture, sale and possession to those sworn to defend the ruling class and/or to persons engaged in duly regulated occupations and professions without violating rule #1.

      Flying cars, one of the most recognizable staples of the future, can be used as missiles. Force fields and invisibility shields would protect [ criminals | terrorists | dissidents ] from the arm of the law. Time travel would deny finality to judicial decision thus rendering naught political authority. Personal plasma weapons will be just that, weapons.

      One may ask concerning simple articles such as screwdrivers and knives. That answer is so science fact: devices will be (read: are being as we speak) ubiquitously installed in conjunction with current camera systems to detect objects that appear to be weapons concealed on persons.

      The problem is that the Tomorrow in Question would place the common man in control. That is the numero uno political no-no. This is why dystopic fiction sells books and motion pictures. It is mere conditioning of the masses to accept their place and fate.

      Downmodding proves the veracity of the above beyond question.

      --
      Submission as evidence constitutes plaintiff and/or prosecutorial misconduct.
    8. Re:"Mr Fusion" by nuzak · · Score: 1

      You could call it an "anticordion".

      The thing is, if it was played at any other time, it would be indistinguishable from any other accordion. So you're really just contributing to the proliferation of accordions. At this point, I think we can fall back the the gun.

      --
      Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
    9. Re:"Mr Fusion" by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Speaking of weapons, despite market forces, the future is what the ruling class wants it to be

      this just proves you don't know history. 'The ruling class' has changed dramatically over the last 500 years. As well as the way people rule.

      "That is the numero uno political no-no."
      You are an idiot.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    10. Re:"Mr Fusion" by owlnation · · Score: 1

      Well, the parent is already modded right the way up but I'd mod it further if I could. It's an Hall of Fame post.

    11. Re:"Mr Fusion" by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

      The thing is, if it was played at any other time, it would be indistinguishable from any other accordion. So you're really just contributing to the proliferation of accordions. At this point, I think we can fall back the the gun.

      They have their accordions; we have ours. It's standard cold war policy. MAD - "Mutually Assured Dissonance."

      What I'm proposing here is a peacetime accordion.

      --
      Weaselmancer
      rediculous.
    12. Re:"Mr Fusion" by Hyperspite · · Score: 1

      Problem is, it's only going to be perfectly 180 degrees out of phase in a sort of ellipsoid around it. You have to be standing in the right place for that to work.

    13. Re:"Mr Fusion" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I found really interesting was that on this site I immediately expected the 180 degrees out of phase argument so the gun made me laugh out loud.

    14. Re:"Mr Fusion" by Accordion+Noir · · Score: 1

      This would be really hard, since accordions aren't supposed to be in tune with themselves in the first place. French Musette or "wet" tuning has at least three reeds each somewhat out of tune with each other. Gives it that "café" sound, and drives violin players crazy. It makes a pretty complex "target" to do a phase cancelation thing on. Some older Irish button boxes are tuned "dry," for a brighter sound. They might be a better bet. But it'll cost you. To get a really purely tuned full-sized accordion could cost $10,000. And to get another one tuned acoustically out of phase? Call us from the future. Then you have to play identically, whew. Better just to learn to like the dang instrument, imagine the savings!

      [declaration of bias: www.AccordionNoir.org ]

      --
      "Ruthlessly pursuing the idea that the accordion is just another instrument."
    15. Re:"Mr Fusion" by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 1

      Actually, accordions are so out of tune they're 180 degrees out of phase with themselves.

    16. Re:"Mr Fusion" by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      How about an identical accordion 180 degrees out of phase with the offending accordion?

      Stand in the wrong place and the waveforms would reinforce. No thanks.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    17. Re:"Mr Fusion" by BossBostin · · Score: 0

      In other words an anti-accordion. One would have to make sure that the two never came into contact.

    18. Re:"Mr Fusion" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Works fine so long as both of your ears are precisely equidistant between the accordians - otherwise you'll just hear two of the goddamn things. :-(

  10. More weapons?? by Izabael_DaJinn · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Guns and sabers. That's not a very innovative future.

    And invisibility? Nothing good would come of that either.

    I'd be happy for a cure for the cold personally.

    --
    Careful What You Wish For....
    1. Re:More weapons?? by MttJocy · · Score: 1

      So would I, and not because the common cold is a real problem, but more because developing a cure for one of the more highly mutating viruses like the common cold would lead the way to having treatment for most viruses something which right now we can barely do anything about (bar a few of the more dangerous and well funded viruses in research and even they are still lethal, just we might be able to slow them down a bit).

    2. Re:More weapons?? by magicchex · · Score: 1

      Hah I read that as cold personality and was like FUCK YEAH we do need a cure for that.

      --
      How many fulltime jobs can one man have?
  11. Easy: Method of Locomotion to another Solar System by MrPerfekt · · Score: 4, Interesting

    No other advance would ever be as important as a quick way between the stars for colonization of other places in the galaxy. It would change our world so much indirectly just by us having the ability to leave it.

    --
    I just wasted your mod points! HA!
  12. One word by AresTheImpaler · · Score: 4, Funny
    Which sci-fi tech do you think needs to get invented over the weekend?

    Fembots

    1. Re:One word by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      Dammit! You beat me to it!

      Either that, or the holodeck. Either one could have some....uh....interesting....possibilities...

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    2. Re:One word by Tatisimo · · Score: 1
      Don't forget the ability to have celebrity personalities downloaded into the hardware. A Lucy Liu bot wouldn't be bad : D

      Of course, we'll need a way to reproduce asexually (or proper robot-human interaction education), because soon the world would start depopulating from people only mating with robots.

      --
      Give Kashyyyk back to the Wookies
    3. Re:One word by Ambiguous+Coward · · Score: 1

      I would think you'd want those invented BY the weekend, rather than OVER the weekend. Otherwise, I'm pretty sure you'll miss work Monday, although I suppose that may happen either way, depending on how well they design the utility corridor and whether or not there are any back-doors. Mind the easter eggs! (Hint: those aren't eggs at all. And yes, they're attached to a tranny case. You ordered the wrong model!)

      -G

      --
      Their may be a grammatical error, misspeling, or evn a typo in this post.
    4. Re:One word by countSudoku() · · Score: 1

      "because soon the world would start depopulating from people only mating with robots"

      You say that like it's a bad thing... Bring me zee FEMBOTS!!!

      --
      This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
    5. Re:One word by joeyspqr · · Score: 1

      Kelly LeBrock or Elizabeth Hurley?

      --
      +1 fashionably cynical
    6. Re:One word by CSMatt · · Score: 1

      Something tells me that the kind of people who would resort to dating robots exclusively would not be the kind of people who would ever have a change to mate to begin with.

    7. Re:One word by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      Those are called cheerleaders. ... What? I thought every geek learned to crack them as part of our basic training. It's simple, really. You just talk about smart stuff until they get a buffer overflow, then deploy alcoholic packets carrying a shellcode. Once you have a login, a simple dictionary-of-sweet-nothings attack will gain root access, allowing you to strip away their security software and have your way with them.

      I mean, did you really think human beings would stoop so low?

  13. Obligatory by Bryansix · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Where is my flying car?
    But seriously I think that we should invent a real HUD system that could work through contacts but be powered just with body heat.

    1. Re:Obligatory by llordreefa · · Score: 1

      And JetPacks, dang it!

    2. Re:Obligatory by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      I second the motion for a HUD system. Failing contacts, I'd be happy if it just worked with my glasses (or even sunglasses).

    3. Re:Obligatory by CSMatt · · Score: 1

      Where is my flying car? It's been done. It's called the 2008 Chevy Malibu.
    4. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      The University of Washington is working on HUD contacts powered by Radio Frequency. Popular Mechanics has a brief article in their latest issue: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health_medicine/4252012.html

    5. Re:Obligatory by jonaskoelker · · Score: 1

      Cars? Just wait, he's thinking about which 'science fiction' technologies may really fly some day. ;)

    6. Re:Obligatory by StrahdVZ · · Score: 1

      Flying cars are amongst the most ill-considered ideas ever to come out of science fiction.

      I don't trust your everyday loonies even on the road, let alone hurtling through the sky. Imagine a drunk or incompetent drivers crash landing on your house or a driver who forgets to refuel plowing into a crowded pedestrian mall.

      Imagine the results of an accident at 3000 ft and how common such accidents will be once there are a couple of hundred million people hurtling through the skies.

      Let alone terrorists with free reign to crash into buildings and bridges. Gives a new meaning to car-bomb.

      You really DON'T want to give free access to the skies to the idiotic, incompetent Joe Schmoes that make up the general populace. Seriously.

    7. Re:Obligatory by Omestes · · Score: 1

      Screw your HUD, I want a full neural interface. I'm playing Quake on the bus... oh yeah.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    8. Re:Obligatory by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Oh I know how ill-conceived flying cars are. That is the real reason we don't have them. I don't really want them to become a reality which is why I prefaced ny next sentence with "but seriously".

    9. Re:Obligatory by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      That's pretty cool for specialized purposes. It uses a parachute to fly so it's not like you can just drive around with it deployed.

  14. Functioning customer service droids by easyTree · · Score: 1

    Able to say 'may I help you with anything else?' and mean it...

  15. bears a hearing? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 4, Funny
    FTS:

    The author is Michio Kaku, one of the inventors of string theory, so he bears a hearing
    I've got a friend who also likes to talk about things that should be invented, he's a mechanic, so he hears a bearing.
    --
    "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    1. Re:bears a hearing? by PiMuNu · · Score: 5, Funny

      The author is Michio Kaku, one of the inventors of string theory, so he bears a hearing.

      After all, an inventor of string theory must be an expert on science fiction...

    2. Re:bears a hearing? by proxy318 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, well I've got a friend who's a fisherman, and he bears a herring. I've also got a friend who's a pirate, and he wears an earring. I could do this all day.

      --
      Saying your "phone ran out of batteries" is like saying your "car ran out of gas tanks".
    3. Re:bears a hearing? by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1

      The author is Michio Kaku, one of the inventors of string theory, so he bears a hearing I've got a friend who also likes to talk about things that should be invented, he's a mechanic, so he hears a bearing. Mickeo Cashew?

      - RG>
      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    4. Re:bears a hearing? by fucket · · Score: 2, Funny

      A friend of mine fondly remembers serving on the same ship with your pirate friend. Sometimes, when he closes his eyes, he still hears the ARRRRRing.

    5. Re:bears a hearing? by julesh · · Score: 1

      After all, an inventor of string theory must be an expert on science fiction...

      Well, you'd assume that the author of the article (as the NYT science fiction reviewer) would be too, but he catches quite a lot of flack in SF circles for not knowing what he's talking about...

  16. Mr.Fusion by gmuslera · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seems to not break any phisical law (?) and will have a good impact in... well, anything not related with the oil industry.

    1. Re:Mr.Fusion by schmu_20mol · · Score: 1

      Please give me a break ... who voted him insightful? Apart from the spelling issues he just threw out a flamebait.

      --
      "Nae Kin! Nae Quin! Nae laird! Nae master! We willna be fooled again!"
  17. I could certainly use... by PC+and+Sony+Fanboy · · Score: 1

    A solution to world hunger. And war. And obesity. I guess that means my three picks would be
    a. GM plants that make money grow on trees.
    b. GM microbes that make violent impotent. IN whatever way is most effective.
    c. GM Animals that hunt and chase fat people.

    1. Re:I could certainly use... by eln · · Score: 4, Funny

      I don't see why you're putting all this pressure on GM to get all of this done. Surely Ford or even, God help us, Chrysler could pitch in too?

    2. Re:I could certainly use... by pintpusher · · Score: 1

      A solution to world hunger. there is no such thing. as soon as you make enough food to feed all the starving people, they immediately set about making more people. Of course, if we stopped increasing food production and merely distributed existing food supplies equitably, we'd all be a little peckish, but the population would eventually stabilize at some number.

      And war. And obesity. I guess that means my three picks would be
      a. GM plants that make money grow on trees.
      b. GM microbes that make violent impotent. IN whatever way is most effective.
      c. GM Animals that hunt and chase fat people. a. would be a problem as we'd have runaway inflation as the value of our currency plummeted. And since you can't eat money (in any useful way) I don't think it would solve the above mentioned unsolvable problem.

      b. is interesting, though I'd hate to become impotent just as a by product of kicking my neighbor's ass for yelling at my kids.

      c. now that's entertainment!
      --
      man, I feel like mold.
    3. Re:I could certainly use... by Greyfox · · Score: 2
      c. GM Animals that hunt and chase fat people.

      In North America they're called bears and they don't work so well. In India they're called tigers and they work VERY well (Ever see a fat Indian? I know I haven't...)

      Obviously we just need tigers in North America.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    4. Re:I could certainly use... by Cadallin · · Score: 1

      Wolves might work well, if only they were 2 meters tall at the shoulder and about 4 meters long.

    5. Re:I could certainly use... by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      a. GM plants that make money grow on trees.
      Hyperinflation FTW
      b. GM microbes that make violent impotent. IN whatever way is most effective.
      Have you watched Serenity?
      c. GM Animals that hunt and chase fat people.
      Fat people have guns

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    6. Re:I could certainly use... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      there is no such thing. as soon as you make enough food to feed all the starving people, they immediately set about making more people. Of course, if we stopped increasing food production and merely distributed existing food supplies equitably, we'd all be a little peckish, but the population would eventually stabilize at some number.

      Whyever do you think we don't produce enuogh food to feed everyone on the planet? Even India is a net exporter of food these days. Politics is the only reason people are starving anywhere. When the local thugocracy decides that it wants to starve some convenient minority, suddenly we have a famine....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    7. Re:I could certainly use... by pintpusher · · Score: 1

      I guess I didn't do a good enough job editing that post. If you read between the lines of the second sentence "...if we stopped increasing... and ... distributed ... equitably..." you'll see that I realize it's a distribution problem. But that doesn't change the fact that so long as you make more food, there will be more people.

      I agree it's largely a political issue in terms of who is hungry at any given moment. And even with a perfectly balanced food supply, that would still be a problem.

      --
      man, I feel like mold.
    8. Re:I could certainly use... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      I guess I didn't do a good enough job editing that post. If you read between the lines of the second sentence "...if we stopped increasing... and ... distributed ... equitably..." you'll see that I realize it's a distribution problem. But that doesn't change the fact that so long as you make more food, there will be more people.

      I agree it's largely a political issue in terms of who is hungry at any given moment. And even with a perfectly balanced food supply, that would still be a problem.

      Population growth rate has little, if anything, to do with food supply. If you want population growth to zero, or even go into decline, then do the same thing the Europeans and Americans have done - raise everyone's standard of living.

      I should, perhaps, point out that the world's population growth rates were higher back in the days when people really did starve regularly and on a large scale than they are now. The Green Revolution pretty much ended starvation, but the population growth rates declined rather than increasing when the food supply increased.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  18. SkyNet! by mamono · · Score: 1

    Oh, wait...between the UK and the US they pretty much have that done.

    1. Re:SkyNet! by PC+and+Sony+Fanboy · · Score: 1

      Can I get a T - Triple - Eights with fries? Super size it!

  19. Michio Kaku and Discovery by xtracto · · Score: 2, Informative

    Michio Kaku hosted a series of documentaries from Discovery Channel, among them is 2057 The city. They are indeed quite interesting as they speculate on how the future (specifically the year 2057) might be, but they base their predictions in current technology being developed and researched.

    Worth to see IMHO.

    --
    Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    1. Re:Michio Kaku and Discovery by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Michio Kaku hosted a series of documentaries from Discovery Channel, among them is 2057 The city.

      Now that you mention it, I remember seeing that episode. It was absolutely terrible.

      "Base code so old that no one remembers how to modify it?" Apparently, the host knows absolutely nothing about how large scale software projects are managed, and how incredibly fragile they become when not actively maintained. And even if we accept his premise, I think you'll find that "The City" (SPOOOOON!) would have patched against those ancient vulnerabilities decades ago. No one is going to leave an entire city unpatched against an active worm.

      And don't even get me started about the level of "The City's" integration. The kid just pops his shark into a billboard and it manages to make its way across hundreds of disparate systems into "The City's" primary mainframe? That must be some impressive code to run on so many platforms, exploiting the exact same vulnerability at every turn! And yet the virus is somehow constrained to "The City" even though it's being passed along the Internet? If it was really so virulent, wouldn't nearly every city in the world be affected?

      Oh, that's right. He used his momma's security codes. That makes complete sense. Not. Because I really trust a cop with complete access to "The City's" systems? Maybe, just maybe, she might have been restricted to only systems she needs access to? Even if we assume she occasionally needs increased access, one would think there would be a procedure in place to provide only temporary access upon request and approval from a superior. Otherwise, what's to prevent Joe Badguy from kidnapping a cop, torturing her for the passcodes, then taking over "The City" before anyone can stop him?

      Really stupid show. /rant
  20. Of course... by Apostata · · Score: 1

    ...a prescient computer/AI that is powerful enough to steer a ship and intelligently communicate with its crew, but goes murderously insane once it's given two competing directives.

    --

    This wasn't just plain terrible, this was fancy terrible. This was terrible with raisins in it. - Dorothy Parker
    1. Re:Of course... by genericpoweruser · · Score: 1

      Exactly! They're eight years late, for crying out loud!

      --
      A fool and his lamb are worth two in the bush.
    2. Re:Of course... by genericpoweruser · · Score: 1

      Ah shit, I mean seven years ago.

      --
      A fool and his lamb are worth two in the bush.
  21. Linkage. by urcreepyneighbor · · Score: 5, Informative
    If anyone's interested in learning more about Dr. Kaku, here are some links to start with:
    --
    "The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
  22. My pick by geekoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    unaging.
    Physically staying 27 until I die from something other then natural causes.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:My pick by Loke+the+Dog · · Score: 1

      Yes, clearly an underestimated "invention". If it ever is discovered, it will be a turning point for humanity, atleast as important as fire and agriculture. Everything would change if death wasn't certain.

      You've probably already seen it, but...

      http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/39

    2. Re:My pick by CSMatt · · Score: 1

      Except then you wouldn't be allowed to retire. Imagine having to work forever.

    3. Re:My pick by Aralic · · Score: 1

      Interesting. Imagine if the only way you could die was in some accident. Would people suddenly focus on avoiding dangerous situations that might cause them to die? Human beings currently take chances in large part because death is inevitable. Also, most of the ways you can die currently (shot, crushed, starvation, etc) aren't exactly pleasant things to look forward to compared to a natural death. That might make for a very twisted society if that's all you had to look forward to. On the plus side, the obituaries might turn into a listing of the most interesting deaths that occurred that day...

    4. Re:My pick by dbcad7 · · Score: 1
      The planet would get pretty crowded after awhile... Lots of ramifications for birth control, and abortion.. perhaps human hunting would even become a sport to "thin the herd".. maybe every 200 years or so, you have to survive a hunt to continue living.

      But I agree it would be cool to have all the extra time.. because I am a procrastinator.

      --
      waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
    5. Re:My pick by Loke+the+Dog · · Score: 1

      Only those who don't understand how important good investments are when you're going to live forever will have to work forever :)

    6. Re:My pick by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I hadn't seen that, thanks for the link.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    7. Re:My pick by shadwstalkr · · Score: 2, Funny

      Physically staying 27 until I die from something other then natural causes.

      I vote for asphyxiation by breasts.

    8. Re:My pick by nuzak · · Score: 1

      > Imagine having to work forever.

      If I could take 10 or 20 year vacations, and change careers completely as I wanted to, why not?

      Besides, accidents would probably kill you in less than 1000 years.

      --
      Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
    9. Re:My pick by JLF65 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but it would be those BRUTAL George Jetson jobs - pushing the button twice a day, four days a week. :D

    10. Re:My pick by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      Physically staying 27 until I die from something other then natural causes. Complications from your anti-aging treatment?
      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    11. Re:My pick by AshenFalls · · Score: 1

      Quite likely because that's the age he is right now. I'd assume he's assuming (ahem) something that would freeze you at your present age rather than reverse the process to an arbitrary point.

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity. I enjoy every minute of it.
    12. Re:My pick by MorePower · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why would you need to be allowed to retire. I'm going to retire as soon as I have enough money invested to live on the interest plus some extra to grow the principle enough to offset inflation each year. That's well before "official" retirement age, which is good considering how few of my male relatives even lived to their sixties.

      It's not even really hard to save up that money, the key seems to be "don't have kids", which would be even more important in a world with immortality.

    13. Re:My pick by MojoRilla · · Score: 1

      You can't understand this because you don't have them, but kids are worth more than any amount of money.

    14. Re:My pick by rmerry72 · · Score: 1

      Only those who don't understand how important good investments are when you're going to live forever will have to work forever :)

      And only somebody who doesn't understand economics would rely on investments in such a world. Investments require growing populations to appreciate generating a steadily growing market and economy. Else you're investment is worthless as the cost of living increases far higher than your investment return. Somebody has to work to make your investment pay off and if everybody is investing rather than working then all investments become rapidly worthless.

      Now in a world with no aging a very, very, few children being born, and everybody retiring before they are 100, who's going to pay you for your continued investment? Who'll pay you your interest or dividends? Nobody. Everybody will be in the same boat.

      --
      We do not inherit the Earth from our parents. We borrow it from our children.
    15. Re:My pick by khakipuce · · Score: 1

      Have you heard of inflation? Generally safe investments (bank accounts etc) at best track inflation, so whilst you may think it's not hard, factor in real inflation (not what the goverment says it is - look at recent fuel price increases) and you will find you need quite a lost of chas spread across a broad range of higher risk investments (which go down as well as up) to beat it.

      --
      Art is the mathematics of emotion
    16. Re:My pick by kabocox · · Score: 1

      unaging.
      Physically staying 27 until I die from something other then natural causes.


      I'm almost hitting 30. I hear hitting all those other decades gets even tougher. I want to roll back to about 20 or even better around 16-18 for internal organs and stuff. I'd like most of my external stuff to stay around my 22-25 age. I can tell you those 30+ might like to live forever, but they'd really, really hope some one can give them a better/newer body rather than living forever with their current body. I'd want regeneration. With enough time, you'd lose some body part just due to accidents.

    17. Re:My pick by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      Physically staying 27 until I die from something other then natural causes.

      Death by grammar Nazi.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    18. Re:My pick by jj00 · · Score: 1

      Considering you seem to have a somewhat good understanding of financial responsibility and are posting Insightful comments on Slashdot, I would plead for you to considering have children in the future to offset those who do not possess these skills.

    19. Re:My pick by Loke+the+Dog · · Score: 1

      Who says everyone will be investing? Obviously, some people will be richer than others, and generally, the older you are, the richer you will be simply because your experience is worth more and you will have saved for a longer period. For this reason, most people will be working, but of the oldest 10%, very few will be working.

      I didn't say just investing either, I said good investments. Even in an economy that is not growing, you can still make good investments. The only thing different from a rapidly growing economy is that not all investments are good.

      And who says the economy can't grow without population growth? Sure, it will grow slower, but advancing technology, improving infrastructure etc., will still allow it to grow. Infact, the reason why people in third world countries get more children than in the 1st world is that children in the third world is a good investment. In other words, children contribute to the economy. In the first world however, studying and working hard is a much more effective way to invest your time.
      Thus, the economy builds upon itself rather than on the backs of new people.

      Besides, growing populations really has nothing to do with this, a population can stop growing even with out no aging, and isn't more likely to stop growing because there is no aging.

      And lastly, why do you assume that everyone will be retiring before 100? That has nothing to do with this discussion. We're not talking about eternal life, we're talking about removing aging. People would retire when they where rich enough. This would happen one day for nearly everyone. For some it might take ten years, for others a few hundred years, for still others thounsands of years. And occationally, people would be pulled out of their retirement because their investments failed.

    20. Re:My pick by cens0r · · Score: 1

      Does that mean I can have kids and you'll buy them? Seriously you may like kids but I can't stand them. I feel dirty every time that I think I was once one.

      --
      Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
    21. Re:My pick by quantaman · · Score: 1

      unaging.
      Physically staying 27 until I die from something other then natural causes. Happy to oblige.

      Can you post your birth date and address? I'll send you a special present a week before your 28th birthday.
      --
      I stole this Sig
  23. My pick ... by garett_spencley · · Score: 3, Funny

    Automated lawn sprinkler systems capable of delivering hydrochloric acid.

    I'm sick of those damned teenagers hanging out on my lawn.

    1. Re:My pick ... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      That can already be done. What technology still would need to be developed?

      Me, I would much rather have a gelatinous cube. so I can see there expressions as they dissolve.

      If you think that doesn't apply to a technology question, I refer you to Art:
      "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:My pick ... by damastad · · Score: 1
    3. Re:My pick ... by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 1

      this is a much more enviromental friendly methode for your problem.

  24. Duh by Gat0r30y · · Score: 4, Funny

    Duke Nukem Forever!

    --
    Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
    1. Re:Duh by The+Ancients · · Score: 1

      Duke Nukem Forever!

      It says "...which 'science fiction' technologies may really fly some day." - not pigs.

  25. Cheers! by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 1

    You know it's good one when you feel like you've been punched in the stomach after you read it.

    1. Re:Cheers! by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Just after I clicked submit I realized that I forgot to mention he's an airline mechanic. There had to have been some bonus points for the not-so-subtle Fletch reference.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  26. Been Done by my+$anity++0 · · Score: 5, Funny

    We are sexy, sexy von Neumann Machines

  27. Dr. Michio Kaku also has a radio show by certron · · Score: 2, Informative

    Dr. Michio Kaku also has a radio show called Explorations that primarily features interviews with other scientists. Most of the stations that air it have audio archives of the program, too, so you can check it out if you like.

    http://www.mkaku.org/radio/

    Apparently, he also has a myspace page: http://www.myspace.com/mkaku

    --

    fair.org counterpunch.com truthout.com indymedia.org salon.com
    eff.org guerrilla.net debian.org gentoo.org
    1. Re:Dr. Michio Kaku also has a radio show by Sanat · · Score: 1

      Dr. Michio Kaku also wrote two books back in the 90's. Hyperspace (1994) and Visions (1997) which covers a lot of the very discussions here on Slashdot are being discussed in this topic. Both books are excellent reads.

      While working at McDonnell Douglas years ago (before Boeing) I was given a potential problem to solve that mostly management would have liked to have solved but all concurred that a solution was not possible... involved some crypto stuff... so can not say more in detail... sorry.

      However I started a rudimentary program and just as someone writes poetry the coding just came to me and as I typed it into the VAX then the next line appeared in my head and in a few hours I had a program that mostly worked. I needed to sort out a few minor coding details, but in another couple hours I had a program that worked.

      Where that information came from... I do not know. How it came to me is a puzzle still, yet I hear of writers writing whole chapters in books in this same way or poetry being written stanza after stanza that just materializes . Great orators who can captivate an audience with words... their words come from someplace beyond our simple minds.

      Needless to say my management was awestruck and delighted that such a program materialized out of thin air... or maybe it even came from the future... because when I was down editing it the future was then.

      Has anyone else here on Slashdot had a similar experience?

      As

      --
      And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make
  28. sure by nguy · · Score: 1

    The author is Michio Kaku, one of the inventors of string theory, so he bears a hearing

    Yes, as much as he "bears hearing" on string theory.

  29. There are 2 that needs to be invented... by still-a-geek · · Score: 1

    First, the transporter device like in Star Trek is needed ASAP. This will eliminate the need for goods to travel in trucks on our already congested roads in the USA. Goods will arrive in warehouses, stores, homes, etc. practically instantaneously. And also, let's not forget about the person getting from point A to point B. Air, train and road travel is practically eliminated.

    Second, the food replicator needs to be invented, which, again, is from Star Trek. Famine would be wiped out for good.

    Now, this is all assuming that these inventions would be intended for good use.

    --

    "Happily lived Mankind in the peaceful Valley of Ignorance." -- Hendrik Willem Van Loon
    1. Re:There are 2 that needs to be invented... by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      Before either of those can be invented, we need a power source capable of powering them. The transporter would require vast amounts of energy to do its work, and the replicator needs energy to turn into matter. So we need antimatter generators I guess.

    2. Re:There are 2 that needs to be invented... by fmobus · · Score: 1

      But... is it a economically sustainable scenario? With no demand for food/anything production. What would people do?

    3. Re:There are 2 that needs to be invented... by sssssss27 · · Score: 1

      Go where no man has gone before...

    4. Re:There are 2 that needs to be invented... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Essentially, the transporter and the food replicator are the same device. The difference is that the transporter destroys the original copy when the new copy is made...

    5. Re:There are 2 that needs to be invented... by bigdorkpeter · · Score: 1

      The "transporter" would be fatal and only good for non-living objects.

      Because the "me" that materialized at the remote location would be an exact replica, with all of my thoughts and memories at the time of the "transport", everyone I knew and even the new me would believe that a transport had actually happened, while in reality the original me was destroyed and an exact replica created. There isn't any way to transfer my consciousness instantly, only the characteristics of my subatomic particles.

  30. FemBots? by mycroft822 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Sexy female robot assassins? Sounds pretty cool to me.

  31. Descartes by gatkinso · · Score: 1

    "Cogito ergo sum"

    I think therefore I am. (Loose translation).

    I believe that his basic premis can be extended: "If it can be thought, it can be done." It almost seems that we (as humans) can only envision that which is possible - within some undefined metalogical framework. What I mean is, if it can be expressed in a way that is ultimately not contradictory in , then it is possible.

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    1. Re:Descartes by chromatic · · Score: 1

      I believe that his basic premis can be extended: "If it can be thought, it can be done."

      I've always understood his basic premise to be "I must doubt everything -- everything can be an illusion -- except the fact of my doubt, which gives me confidence that I do exist."

    2. Re:Descartes by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "It almost seems that we (as humans) can only envision that which is possible..."

      no, people envision the impossible every day. From diluting things make the stronger, to back alignments cure cancer.

      Many hypothesis get thrown out every day.

      "If it can be thought, it can be done." Nonsense.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Descartes by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Quote: "It almost seems that we (as humans) can only envision that which is possible..."

      There is another possibility, which is even believed by some prominent physicists. It is the idea that some things might be possible BECAUSE we envision them, which fits the same evidence.

      A new idea? No. It is pretty radical, though.

    4. Re:Descartes by Alex+Belits · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I think, you are stupid.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    5. Re:Descartes by inasity_rules · · Score: 1

      Cogit o Ergo Sum Think| I |Therefore |I am. Literally, "I think therefore I am" How is the translation loose...? Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum "I think that I think therefore I think that I am." There, fixed it for you.

      --
      I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
  32. We just need solar flares and a star gate for time by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    We just need solar flares and a star gate for time travel.

    and the SGC has laser guns and FORCE FIELDS.

    The hard thing with laser guns is POWERING them.

    There are being tested at area 51.

  33. No, not by itself by StefanJ · · Score: 4, Informative

    Even a magic Go Anywhere Fast drive, one that worked for interplanetary as well as across the depths of interstellar space, would not automatically open up the universe for colonization.

    We'd still need great improvements in reaction drives, for example, to overcome the velocity differences between different star systems.

    Lacking magical Star Trek style sensors, we'd need to find ways to detect and analyze planets.

    Life support systems. Expedition craft that can handle a takeoff as well as a landing. Power sources. Cripes, it goes on and on.

    Really, it's not like Masters of Orion or some other 4x game.

    Me, I'd settle for that Mr. Fusion someone mentioned uptopic.

    1. Re:No, not by itself by AJWM · · Score: 1

      We'd still need great improvements in reaction drives, for example, to overcome the velocity differences between different star systems.

      Jerry Oltion, no doubt among others (I'd seen the idea before, just don't remember where) solved this already. (E.g. in his book Anywhere But Here).

      Use your "Go Anywhere Fast" drive to jump you to the neighborhood of star A. If your relative velocity is too high, just jump to a point in that star's system where your velocity vector points away from the star (or other suitably massive object) and let its gravity slow you down. Lather, rinse, repeat as necessary. (You can do something similar before jumping if you know the velocity you need.)

      Oltion's technique for landing on and taking off from a planet is, uh, interesting. Personally I'd rather have thrusters.

      --
      -- Alastair
    2. Re:No, not by itself by kabocox · · Score: 1

      Really, it's not like Masters of Orion or some other 4x game.

      Nah, its exactly like Masters of Orion. The thing that folks tend to forget is that each turn may be anywhere from 10 to 100 years. I think at turns being set at 100 years that we'd colonize the other system planets within 20-30 turns. It would also take lots of turns for use to send out scouts to the nearer systems. Remember the best thing to do was colonize, colonize, colonize. So you'd think that there would be some species that has gotten far enough along that they could afford to build/send out hundreds or thousands of colony ships. At that scale, it doesn't matter if you lose a percentage, the important thing is that another 50 turns down the line that your empire/species will have 100s or 1000s of systems colonized and somewhat productive.

    3. Re:No, not by itself by jdigriz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If the Go Fast Anywhere drive is magic, it can be like the spacefolding ships of Dune. No need for take-off and landing, just appear right on the surface of whatever planet you want to be on. Disappear from said planet the same way. Yeah, you'll need to find the planets first, but since you can Go Fast Anywhere, just spacefold to the near vicinity of the star and use a big radar dish, or synthetic array and telescopic observations to survey the system. No need for "magic star trek sensors", Arecibo works just fine in planetary radar mode, when it has funding. Spectroscopy and physical probes should suffice for the "analyze planets" part, once you're close enough. Yeah, it'll take a bit of time and multiple observations to work out the orbits, so you can predict where the planet will be so you can spacefold to that exact location, but it's not anywhere near impossible. Power sources? A Rickover-style nuclear plant should do fine for powering the electrical system of the ship, weight's not a real issue since we are spacefolding. That's assuming you can't tap whatever magical force powers the spacefold drive for ordinary power. Life support? We've been working with sealed environments for a while now. It's not tremendously difficult, assuming you don't spacefold to say, Venus, Jupiter or Io (radiation) or too close to a star. The relative velocity thing would not be a problem with spacefold drive, as we've seen that it matches velocity perfectly during the fold in the sequel novels because it is not smashed to bits by the planet it appears on.

      So yeah, a properly dreamed-up magic Go Fast Anywhere drive would open up the galaxy. Implementation is left as an exercise for the reader.

  34. Never use psuedo tags by gatkinso · · Score: 1

    What I meant was: ultimately not contradictory in (some metalogical framework that logic and language only approximates}, then it is possible.

    My bad for putting that in an HTML tag like expression (and not previewing first).

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  35. Oblig Futurama by tick_and_bash · · Score: 1

    Pfft. How about something useful like the fing-longer or the what-if machine?

  36. Ovheard at Hotel Coral Essex by bckrispi · · Score: 1

    "What if "C-a-t", really spelled "Dog"?

    --
    Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
  37. Screw that, I want space colonies by Quattro+Vezina · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Read High Frontier, by Gerard O'Neill. Space colonies are perfectly feasible. Building one is more an exercise in putting existing technologies together than inventing new technologies.

    I want to live in an O'Neill cylinder!

    --
    I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
    1. Re:Screw that, I want space colonies by brianc · · Score: 1

      Screw that. I'm STILL waiting for my flying cars.

      --


      SIGLOST && SIGUNUSED && SIGQUIT
    2. Re:Screw that, I want space colonies by nicklott · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Possible, just insanely expensive. From the wiki wallah:

      O'Neill's reference design ... consists of two counter-rotating cylinders each two miles (3 km) in radius, and twenty miles (30 km) long

      I'm not going to do the maths, but you can imagine how much metal goes into a 3x20 mile long cylinder. Now imagine cutting that up into 20x5 metre sections and launching it into space. It might take a while.

      I think we need to invent smelting in space before we can try these things, not to mention doing some proper research into closed ecosystems.

  38. Faster than light travel. by Is0m0rph · · Score: 1

    Faster than light travel.

  39. I endorse the above post. by Valdrax · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Michio Kaku's predictions on technology frequently make me wonder just how good of a grasp he actually has on physics. My favorite is the old article where he predicts the way to escape the heat death of the universe by sending "atom-sized" nanomachines through a wormhole into a parallel universe where these machines would spread in a sphere at nearly light speeds.

    Oh sure... we'll just ignore how something the size of an atom is supposed to contain any sort of parts capable of manipulating the environment as well as how they're supposed to encode information and make decisions. Might as well also ignore where such a machine is getting the energy to spread at light speed. Heck, why don't we just ignore reality entirely and get into exercises of sheer mental wankery, and...

    Never mind, I keep forgetting he's a string theorist. Exercises in mental wankery that have no real attachment to physical reality is his bread and butter.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  40. CowboyNeal replicator by that_itch_kid · · Score: 2, Funny

    Replication! That way, every Slashdot guy and gal can have his or her very own CowboyNeal!! Even your pet CowboyNeal can have his or her very own CowboyNeal!!

    1. Re:CowboyNeal replicator by MR.Mic · · Score: 1

      Bob Barker: "Help control the pet population, have your CowboyNeal spayed or neutered."

  41. "Why don't we invent that tomorrow?" by chrishillman · · Score: 0

    Sounds like a procrastinator's approach to invention.

    I like the idea of the "finglonger", since they are close the the Smell-o-scope
    (http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/13/1418216&from=rss "Smell of Space").

  42. It won't happen tomorrow or over the weekend but by Khyber · · Score: 1

    I'd like to see more research into faster than light communication. I've had several ideas using Quantum Entanglement and the 'Spooky Effect' to achieve this but there'd be some testing needed, thankfully none of it would require launching anything into space.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  43. On my Wish list! by aim2future · · Score: 1
    • A united world
    • Extendable brain
    • Artifical intelligence (ethical strong AI)
    • Nanotechnology (especially assembler/disassembler)
    • Neural interface
    • In situ hackable mediated reality
    • Thought communication
    • Ability to fly
    • Teleportation
    • Our Wish-IT® (patent applied)(Wish Innovation Technologies) manufacturing model up and running which enables customer driven innovation, to make everyone's wish come through (hint to investors).
  44. Stop Aging by localman · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Out of all the tech that could be made, this is the only one that allows you to see all the tech that could be invented down the line. Time has become to me my most precious and scarce resource. By the time I've got things worked out well enough to really be great, I'll have very little time left. I could easily enjoy 500 years of life. Beyond that I can't say for sure, but I'd like to see.

    I predict that at some point in the distant future, the idea that people let themselves die when they didn't really want to will be considered absurd. To the degree that it is possible for us to solve aging, our current apathy about it is a little like voluntary genocide. Of course there are certain odd implications when people can live as long as they like, but population scaling is something we have to deal with in any case.

    People are working on this, the notion of the afterlife (just about the most tenuous fairy-tale idea I can imagine) keeps us from really making it a priority.

    (I realize that solving current diseases and war and such are just as important and in the same vein, but we're talking outlandish tech here.)

    Cheers.

    1. Re:Stop Aging by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      The world suffers from the emotionalism and brutishness of youth. If population growth can be controlled (and it can), then I firmly believe the world would benefit enormously from allowing more people to grow old enough to gain more knowledge and wisdom.

      While not all people gain wisdom (or knowledge, for that matter) with age, I believe enough of them do to make this a worthwhile enterprise. Perhaps even essential for the survival of humanity.

      Let us not, however, belittle ideas like the "replicator". While probably not something we will see tomorrow, the elimination of world poverty and hunger could have a little-appreciated side effect: How many Einsteins and Ramanujans never achieve anything like their potential, because they must expend all their effort and talent on mere survival? If basic needs were supplied, we might benefit from these "potentials" actually being able to reach toward their true capabilities.

      Of course, there will always be the deadweight and useless. But if people do not have to compete for basics, then the talented will have more opportunity to stand out.

    2. Re:Stop Aging by localman · · Score: 1

      Depends what that work is -- as I move through life I seem to get closer and closer to "work" that I love :) I don't look forward to retirement; I look forward to doing work that is more in line with my natural goals. Who wants to sit in a retirement home when you can run your own dream company or direct movies!

      I imagine microfilm wouldn't be needed for resumes; anything that was more than 50 years ago wouldn't be relevant anyways ;)

    3. Re:Stop Aging by localman · · Score: 1

      Good points.

      Although I wonder how the world would work if material scarcity were eliminated... it happened with digital creative works online and society hasn't adapted yet (admittedly it's been only 10 years at most). I guess all business would be service related? Maybe that would be a good thing? It's hard to imagine :)

      But yes: for every grumpy old coot I've met, I meet an inspiring old person who seems luminous in their balance and understanding, and it's a tragedy to watch them disappear.

      Cheers.

    4. Re:Stop Aging by Oligonicella · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "To the degree that it is possible for us to solve aging, our current apathy about it is a little like voluntary genocide."

      I'm pretty familiar with the topic and you're simply wrong. There's no apathy and there's not a lot of progress. Unless you have some new research I'm unfamiliar with and could provide a link?

    5. Re:Stop Aging by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      I was referring to basics like food and shelter, but actually if "free" energy or something like the "replicator" were available (the latter very much dependent on the former), then it would not just be the elimination of hunger; it could be the end of material want as we know it.

      I wrote "could" rather than "would", because we both know what Government and others in power have been capable of doing with good things.

      But if that came to be, then there would be no reason for the existence of "business" as we currently know it. People might supply services as part of something like a barter system, in which people gain popular "credit" for services performed... or maybe a model in which people just contribute for the good of their fellow man, because our values could very well change to emphasize such. Competition could still exist; it may be necessary for people to have competition in some form. But WHY NOT compete for how much you can help others? Is there anything wrong with that? You help yourself and gain acclaim by your accomplishments, in science or art or whatever field of endeavor you choose. Arguably, all conceivable fields have merit and benefit others, including garbage collection. Improvements in any of them benefit us all.

    6. Re:Stop Aging by localman · · Score: 1

      Actually, what you said at the end there makes me think -- in a society with limitless replication technology, some garbage collectors would be the most sought after people in the world. Unless there was a limitless disposal technology too :)

      My guess is that limitless energy and material aren't possible in this universe. Though I suppose if we can just get enough energy and material to build a perfect virtual reality then there could be limitless energy and material there. In any case, it's hard for me to imagine how such a world would operate. I'd certainly like to see it, though. Thus my desire to live longer -- it won't be happening in my natural lifetime!

      Cheers.

    7. Re:Stop Aging by trenobus · · Score: 1

      On the one hand, I empathize completely with your desire to live 500 years or more, if for no other reason, simply to satisfy my curiosity about what the future will bring.

      On the other hand, many of the people now living into their 80's and 90's have lives I would not want to live, and not just due to the state of their health. A lot of old people live their last years in the past, never embracing anything new. Many live in abject fear of anything resembling change. So when we say we desire extreme longevity, it is very important to qualify that. What we really want is a much extended vital adulthood.

      But consider this: after 500 years of learning, relationships, and general experience, in what sense (other than legal and historical) could you consider yourself to be the same person? You will have forgotten more than you remember even if you if are the smartest person in the world after 500 years. What I think is that when it comes down to it, the only thing that would really make you the same person is that you believe that you are.

      The founders of the world's ancient religions attempted to preserve their cherished beliefs through their teachings and writings. Over time that information has been corrupted and forked so many times that the essences of their beliefs probably have been lost. But today, if you have a truth to tell, you can tell it to future generations with excellent fidelity. This raises the question: is there anything you know now that someone 500 years from now would find novel and relevant?

      We humans generally have a very narrow conception of "self". We are constantly changing both physically and mentally, and yet most of us wake each day thinking of ourselves as being the "same" as were the day before. We think of others as necessarily being other "selves". For the most part, we treat "myself" as a binary property - I am myself, and you are not myself. I think that is very narrow and limiting thinking, given our current and future technology for storing and manipulating information. I think of "self" more in terms of a bundle of knowledge and beliefs, which can exist in multiple places (or people) and times. I like to think that this is what some misunderstood founder of an ancient religion meant by "eternal life".

    8. Re:Stop Aging by localman · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I understand your comment?

    9. Re:Stop Aging by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Well, for "free" you might substitute "abundant and cheap". I can see that happening.

    10. Re:Stop Aging by localman · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's why I said "stop aging" as opposed to just "live forever". Although if I go much further I'd want to say "reverse aging" :)

      I totally agree we are more or less different people as time goes on. I'm 34 but I can hardly relate to the person I was 20 years ago for example. Quite likely then if I lived for 500 years, I'd go through many phases.

      But I wouldn't say that my body of knowledge and beliefs feels like "self" to me. Self seems very tied to my awareness and even if all my knowledge and beliefs were transcribed, a form of eternal life, I wouldn't be all that thrilled. I like actually being alive and aware :)

      Cheers.

    11. Re:Stop Aging by blahplusplus · · Score: 1

      "To the degree that it is possible for us to solve aging, our current apathy about it is a little like voluntary genocide."

      Have you considered the end of aging would be the end of the world, what exactly are the billions of poor people going to do when they find out there will not be enough life to go around? Why even play by the rules of any economic system anymore? If someone had access to immortality I could see people burning down the hospitals so that no one did.

      The elites of history have never been enlightened, or good, period, they have never shown mankind a better way, it's always come from below. Martin luther king, etc. Would you want to immortalize racists, prejudice people, etc, just because they have money? I wouldn't. If immortality ever existed the rules of the games must fundamentally change completely about what kind of quality person qualifies for life.

      We have enough scum here on earth thanks, the last thing I want to do is immortalize such people.

    12. Re:Stop Aging by trenobus · · Score: 1

      "Knowledge and beliefs" probably was too narrow a description. What I'm trying to get at is that your exact brain state is not necessary for your sense of "self". It obviously changes somewhat from moment to moment, and somewhat more during sleep. And it can be affected by drugs or a blow to the head. But none of these things generally creates a sense of becoming a different person. You may be aware that you've changed a belief or acquired new knowledge, and yet maintain that you are the same "self". But if you change enough, I don't think it is really unreasonable to say that you are not the same "self" as at the beginning of the changes. In particular, if one could live for 500 years without becoming stagnant at some point, the cumulative changes would be such that you would have little more mental relationship to your original "self" than to some other random person.

      Leaving the semantics of "self" aside, when you say you want to live for at least 500 years, what is it that you want to preserve for that time? Continuity of awareness? But sleep interrupts that fairly regularly. Ever have the experience of waking up from a deep sleep and not knowing who you are for a second? Then your memories come flooding back and you accept the resulting person as "you". But over 500 years many of those memories will be lost. So the memories were not necessary for "you" to exist. What is necessary is for you to keep believing that you are the "same" person each day when you awake.

      What I wonder is whether we are so fixated on this notion of a singular self that we are missing the potential of a plural self, that is, a "self" composed of multiple people. I think many religions attempt to be this, but are limited by the lack of precision in their dogma, as well as their goals being oriented toward some kind of afterlife instead of this life. With modern information technology and some more practical goal, a group of people could dedicate themselves over several generations to accomplishing the goal. For example, suppose the goal was to establish an independent human colony on Mars. Imagine a group of people not just working together, but dedicating their very "selves" to that purpose (the way some people dedicate themselves to religion). Some would become scientists working on various aspects of the problem. Some would follow other walks of life, in which they would also contribute to the goal economically or politically. Others would recruit new members, teach, or manage knowledge or otherwise ensure the continuity of the plural "self".

      Some problems in science already could be said to have a plural self dedicated to their solution. But they are largely composed of only scientists, who have to rely on people outside their plural self for funding and support. As a "self", they are rather limited in self-awareness, just as primitive man might have been.

  45. A peace ray. by smellsofbikes · · Score: 3, Funny

    We need about 6.8 billion of those.
    Although if someone could recreate the "camera" that Oliver Wendell Jones first built, that'd be good for some laughs, too.

    I'd settle for a teleporter, if worse came to worse.

    --
    Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    1. Re:A peace ray. by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      How about a POV gun? That would probably do the trick.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    2. Re:A peace ray. by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      That's a fantastic idea, although instead of a gun I recommend shoes.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
  46. Down and out by cybereal · · Score: 1

    Subvocal embedded comm links, and HUDs either in contacts or also embedded. Along with everything else from Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom.

    --
    I read the script, and I think it would help my character's motivation if he was on fire. -Bender
    1. Re:Down and out by ray-auch · · Score: 1

      > Subvocal embedded comm links

      as recently reported on your local news-for-nerds site: http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/03/12/2225204&from=rss

    2. Re:Down and out by cybereal · · Score: 1

      I guess as a consumer I don't see something as "invented" until I can grab it myself relatively affordably and easily. But that's a good start. I'm pretty serious about this "wish." I'd love to be able to have a conversation on the train without anyone hearing it and more importantly without the other end needing to hear the train. Also part of this would clearly need to be something for me hearing the other end, just as undetectable.

      --
      I read the script, and I think it would help my character's motivation if he was on fire. -Bender
  47. Needs inventing by Saturday night by snowful · · Score: 3, Funny

    Free beer and pizza

    1. Re:Needs inventing by Saturday night by cpricejones · · Score: 1

      and fembots

    2. Re:Needs inventing by Saturday night by maxume · · Score: 1

      Estimate the difference in the amount of time it would take you to farm, process and cook and brew, and the time it takes you to earn the money to pay for pizza and beer.

      Then make do with the nearly free beer and pizza.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  48. Re:Sex-Bots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You'd still be a virgin anyway.

  49. Cheap abundant energy. by WolF-g · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Near free, safe, energy. There's lots of it around, need better access to it.

  50. At last! by DynaSoar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Finally, a /. article for which the mention of golly gee whiz SciFi stuff in the summary isn't a gratuitous insert. Kaku really talks about this stuff. Rationally.

    Parts of the book relating to wormholes, time travel and teleportation have been adapted by Kaku himself and published in the March 2008 ("Special Einstein") issue of Discover magazine. You can get an unadulterated taste of the book and a bunch of other nifty stuff about Einstein, relativity and such all in one package.

    I think the claim he was an inventor of string theory isn't entirely accurate. However, he was co-author of the first paper on string field theory, which showed the five versions of string theory to be different versions of the same underlying mechanism. I think "rescurer" would be more accurate than "inventor" as well as being worth more credit.

    Despite publishing other popular books previously including a best seller, hosting a 4 part BBC special, a 3 part Discovery Channel special and two different weekly radio shows, he's so far managed to dodge the inevitable unwashed masses and supposedly washed whiny insiders who show up to tip the ivory tower of popularizers of science. Last time it was Brian Greene. Even Sagan was so assailed until he forced their forgiveness by dying at them. Let's see how Kaku weathers the storm following the massive attention this new book is getting him. Including one picture of the Stargate and one of a Kirk led landing party being beamed down in the Discover article should help bring them out of the woodwork.

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
  51. ZPM by rossdee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Obviously we need new souces of energy to replace fossil fuels. Zero Point energy seems to be a good choice. I don't expect that we could get a ZPM small enough to carry around in your hands like they do on atlantis, but something the size of a bus would be good enough.

    1. Re:ZPM by AshenFalls · · Score: 2

      If you consider 'physically impossible' synonymous to 'good choice', sure. Solar (I'd prefer this one for obvious reasons) and nuclear are where it's at. Fusion, maybe, but not gonna happen anytime soon, and the power plants will probably be ridiculously expensive compared to, well, anything.

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity. I enjoy every minute of it.
  52. OK smartie pants, how about this: by geekoid · · Score: 1

    We should invent the Enterprise NCC 1701

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:OK smartie pants, how about this: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, Millennium Falcon, any day of the week.

  53. I got one. by polyomninym · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I know this is so far out, but how about FOOD for HUNGRY PEOPLE. 3 words Duke Nukem Forever;)

    1. Re:I got one. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      We have food for hungry people. That's ot a problem, the problem is political and social, not technology. I am, of course, ignoring your fallacy that people can only work on one thing.

      Unless you mean dropping a device that makes food out of 'nothing' a'la Star Trek.
      That would be cool.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  54. Re:It won't happen tomorrow or over the weekend bu by genericpoweruser · · Score: 1

    I thought quantum entanglement is specifically what made faster than light (or at least so fast it arrives before it was sent) information exchange impossible. FTL communication sure would be incredibly useful though--it would obsolete those light-based computers before they finally become feasible.

    --
    A fool and his lamb are worth two in the bush.
  55. tomorrow, tomorrow.... by 3seas · · Score: 1

    tomorrow is always one day in the future, so how about we invent time travel one day into the future today?

  56. My picks by ultracool · · Score: 1
    Nanobots that live in your body and fix stuff, and do things like destroy tumours. Something that can complement the immune system and the body's ability to heal itself.

    Makers - like in Transmetropolitan. You feed it junk, and it reconstructs molecules to give you anything you want, eg. a cup of coffee.

  57. Girl Robots by JM78 · · Score: 1

    "...this is going to be the best prom ever..."

    --
    I am Jack's smirking revenge.
  58. Moved and seconded... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I vote with the two above. Wake me up when the String Hypothesis actually earns the name "theory"!

  59. Fembots... by OldFish · · Score: 1

    with delicious jubblies.

    1. Re:Fembots... by Viceroy+Potatohead · · Score: 3, Funny

      Granted it's not sci-fi tech, but...Fsck that sh!t. If I have my choice of sci-fi female/femaleish characters, I'll take the Bene Gesserit over lousy robots, any day...

      Crap... now I want to create a lulzcat image of a 300lbs, slick skinned, unshaven geek with exaggerated, plaintive eyes and the caption "U Has Bene Gesserits?"

  60. I want to believe! by Jorophose · · Score: 2, Funny

    I get to have something invented over the weekend??

    GNU Hurd!

  61. The Future is Now!!11! by layer3switch · · Score: 1

    Light saber; because we live among freaking jedi???

    Invisibility; will that reduce the chance of innocent bystanders getting shot at and blown up???

    Force field; yes, because it's just next logical step to do so with technology that made light saber and invisibility possible can now be combined to create a freaking invisible force field which will only let my light saber to pass and stab you while your freaking has-been century old pistol with 120mm exploding pallets just won't be able to touch me.

    oh snap! did i just hurt your feeling, Jedi boy?

    --
    "Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
    1. Re:The Future is Now!!11! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      If you look at a light saber and only see a 'Sword' of some kind, you don't belong in these kinds of conversations.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:The Future is Now!!11! by layer3switch · · Score: 1

      [dazed]...when i look at a light saber and only see a sword of some kind... [empty stare into air] ...i don't belong in these kinds of conversations. [walks away]

      --
      "Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
  62. Re:Easy: Method of Locomotion to another Solar Sys by Traa · · Score: 1

    Your vision of the future is as sci-fi as your knowledge of human nature. What do you think would really happen if distances in space could be easily overcome and we would start a colonization run? Who would want to lay claim to what? How would these claims be resolved? What makes you think that just going to a new world would solve anything?

    It's a good dream though, but first we got to figure out how to live with each other in peace on this rock before we scorch the next.

  63. There's so much by Kamineko · · Score: 1

    There's so much energy just lying about the place. We need some kind of matter-energy furnace that allows us to dissociate matter into energy and resociate energy into matter. GO GO.

  64. Universal adBlocker by chord.wav · · Score: 1

    A pair of glasses with a universal ad blocker. By universal I mean digital banners as well as real ones.

  65. Oh goodie by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    So each holiday season we will have people tying their cowboyneals to a tree in the forsest thinking the critter can take care of itself.

    It is already bad enough the slashdot staff does this before every outing, do you really want our forests overrun by feral CowboyNeals?

    Now, cloning Natalie Portman, and some way to easily heat up grits, THAT is tech talk!

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  66. All of the flavor, none of the calories. by Rungi · · Score: 1

    High output, low (or no) waste power. Fusion or anti-matter. ...or high temp superconductors at the very least. Hundreds of things will stem from the former....

  67. Near future by bar-agent · · Score: 1

    Locators and augmented reality, a la Vernor Vinge. Locators reduce the world to something that computers can handle, and act as computers and sensors themselves. Augmented reality lets everyone in on the fun.

    --
    i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
  68. Re:It won't happen tomorrow or over the weekend bu by Khyber · · Score: 1

    The one thing we have yet to measure is how fast the "spooky effect" occurs. A good way to do so, I think, would be to make a pair of radios that use quantum entanglement for data transmission (IE they can only communicate with each other.) Place them on opposite sides of the world, and try holding a conversation. With that distance, you should be able to get an idea of just how fast this effect happens. If you could hold a conversation as if you were on a landline, as opposed to the lag you'd get with say, a cellphone, then there's the possibility that you could have faster than light communication. '

    Another way to test would be to build two quantum-entangled network cards, put one in a satellite, the other in a computer, and measure a round-trip ping a couple thousand times. Up and back would be typically around 1-1.25 seconds for normal satellite transmissions, last I remembered. Hopefully this would be far faster.

    Just ideas and theories, don't pay me any mind.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  69. Electric cars... by trum4n · · Score: 1

    We need that time machine idea so we can go back in time and get the cars of the future! In 1997 GM released the EV-1 (wiki it) Now if the oil companies didn't kill it....we'd have them right now. And no Iraq war probably...

  70. Two things I'd like to be invented: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Heisenberg compensator and painless suppositories.

  71. Why should we do all the work? by thefekete · · Score: 1

    Let's just pass a law, or whatever, that as soon as all this stuff gets invented 1,000's of years in future, somebody has to travel back to this coming weekend and divulge the secrets of this new technology.

    --
    The cool things is to have windows that bounce up and down like a good tits.
  72. Holodeck by Anrego · · Score: 1

    Lightsabers and transporters and all that can wait..

    I always found the stuff they did in the holodeck kinda boring.. re-enacting old books and walking around scenic places.. I`d be jumping motorcycles across buildings GTA4 style.

  73. Broiled tongue in cheek. by alfredo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Which sci-fi tech do you think needs to get invented over the weekend?

    A Windows release that actually works as advertised.

    --
    photosMy Photostream
  74. Subspace Data Network by Amphetam1ne · · Score: 1

    On monday I will be starting my own internet and the RIAA, MPAA, BPI, CRIA, etc arn't invited.

    --
    I only buy pepper spray that's been tested on anti-vivisectionists.
  75. I'm trying to find a research house for myself by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 1

    University or Corporation, and yes I even contacted M$.
    www.fossai.com
    I just wrote some papers on AI yesterday. I think chapter 1 bears a read by anyone interested in AI.

  76. Re:Easy: Method of Locomotion to another Solar Sys by Superballs · · Score: 1

    But the cold being cured takes away 5 legitimate paid days off work for me....please don't cure it....pleeeeaaasee?

    --
    Howe due yoo keap uh gramur natsee bizzy four ours?
  77. Which one? by kuzb · · Score: 1

    Which sci-fi tech do you think needs to get invented over the weekend?

    A cure to the common cold. Sooner is better than later. This cold sucks.

    --
    BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
  78. Re:Easy: Method of Locomotion to another Solar Sys by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    No other advance would ever be as important as a quick way between the stars for colonization of other places in the galaxy. It would change our world so much indirectly just by us having the ability to leave it.

    You think we have an illegal alien problem now, Zorton's are invisible.

  79. Plenty already have by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1
    End of story (no pun intended.) Lot't of SF stories have made great predictions that have come true. But that's not the point of SF.

    I'll leave it up to the hardcore fans to point out stuff like geosynchronous orbit satellites, small communication devices, etc. All that were mentioned in SF stories before their introduction to real life.

    20-20 hindsight is usefull here. Maybe you just haven't waited long enough yet for your favorite stories to yield uncanny farsightedness or simply get dated.

    The best stories do neither - they don't rely on tech that can become dated, nor make a good guess on what might be, they just tell a good story about a possible, but believable future...

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
  80. I'd take on 5 string theorists with light sabres.. by littlewink · · Score: 1

    with my trusty 12-gauge shotgun anyday. The "light sabre" is funny: easy to cut off a leg (or worse) with that one!

  81. Konichi Polis by argent · · Score: 1

    Actually, I'd be happy with Permutation City. Just get me out of this crazy chunk of meat.

    1. Re:Konichi Polis by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      You are a crazy chunk of meat.

  82. True story by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I was at a supercomputing conference in Oregon a few years back. Michio Kaku was the keynote speaker, talking about his predictions of fundamental limits on various technologies. He started spouting on about some semiconductor limit but as he was speaking there was a bit of a commotion coming from the back. Eventually it was revealed that there was a bunch of guys from some research lab disputing over whether or not to mention their latest work before making an official announcement. You see, they'd already broken Kaku's limit.

    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  83. well... by theheadlessrabbit · · Score: 1

    I would like to see a giant thinking machine that is able to answer any question we give it.

    then i would ask it for the answer to the ultimate question.

    --
    -I only code in BASIC.-
    1. Re:well... by robot_guy · · Score: 1

      Yes! We could eventually, once an for all, decide which is better, vi or emacs.

    2. Re:well... by theheadlessrabbit · · Score: 1

      if i were able to use my one remaining mod point in this thread, I would use it to mod that comment +1 funny. (or +1 insightful, which seems to be the current trend regarding funny posts)

      --
      -I only code in BASIC.-
  84. I Wish For... by GeneralPayne · · Score: 0

    Some device to rid the world of greedy lawyers, shifty music and movie companies. A device that will permanently and irrevocably rid the world of the RIAA/MPAA/MAFIAA/IFPI/CRIA. Nothing much just one simple device that will simply wipe them off the face of the earth as if they never existed.

  85. I'd settle for a car collision radar. by master_p · · Score: 1

    A technology that can be invented (unlike those Star Trek fantasies) is a radar to help avoid car collisions. Ever seen bats in a cave? they don't collide, even if they flight really fast and in very confined spaces...so it's doable for the cars, and it will save thousands of lives and lots of money.

  86. A cheap tricorder and pills to make you smart. by boombasticman · · Score: 1

    This would be really neccesary, because with the tricorder you would be able to see, how politicians and multinational companys fucked up this world, and with the pill that makes you instantly bright and smart like Albert Einstein, you would be able to understand the reading from the tricorder.

  87. Re:Easy: Method of Locomotion to another Solar Sys by kabocox · · Score: 1

    No other advance would ever be as important as a quick way between the stars for colonization of other places in the galaxy. It would change our world so much indirectly just by us having the ability to leave it.

    Um, suicide booths would have the similar effects for the remaining earth population. Nah, sleeper colony ships that just use the colonists as spare body parts for the remaining population. It would breed out/lessen the urge to colonize. Star Trek replicators and Niven Style teleporters would have better positive social effects. All cheap space travel does is shift your domestic problems from home to the outworlds/rim where they aren't visible or have their power base any more.

  88. Why don't we invent tomorrow? Quite simple... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's called patents and it's fucking up human progress.

  89. Kaku caca by toddhisattva · · Score: 1

    The author is Michio Kaku, one of the inventors of string theory, so he bears a hearing. Kaku is a media whore who threw away his science cred by joining the nukophobes. Teller should have strangled him.
  90. Point of Origin by jameskojiro · · Score: 1

    You just have to set the gravitational point of origin to be the Earth, you know the pyramid with the circle on top.

    --
    Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
  91. Simple. A replicator. Then I would by nedburns · · Score: 1

    If they invented a replicator, I would get one and immediately have it produce a transporter, lightsaber, robots, holodeck, etc. Then I'd have all the goodies associated with each.

    Oh wait.. a replicator "REPLICATES" an existing object, so I guess I'd be out of luck. Dangit.

  92. I'm late to the party, but... by Animaether · · Score: 1

    ...where is the foundation in the assumption that if you travel back in time, your position in the three traditional dimensions (X, Y, Z) remains static?

    Presume you're currently traveling along with time so that at time t0 you're at [0,0,0], at time t1 you're at [1,0,0]. If you go back to t0, then why would you still be at [1,0,0] and not automagically back at [0,0,0]?

    ( Note that personally I presume in this scenario that if you timetravel you'll do nothing more than would rewinding a tape; you'd immediately lose all knowledge of your timetravelling and do the exact same things all over again, completely negating the point of time travel in the first place. It's a lot more elegant than having to worry about 'materializing' in the middle of something else, or worrying about there being two you's, or you changing the course of future history or somesuch. )

  93. Book cover by DCTooTall · · Score: 1

    So late comer to the conversation, and didn't see any other mention of it....But did anybody else notice the TARDIS / Police box on the book cover?

  94. Staples Easy Button by rla3rd · · Score: 1

    Give me a Staples easy button that *really* works.

  95. Calling Dr. Evil! by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

    Fembots, and you couldn't make them fast enough for the demand on Slashdot alone. Bra gun not included.

    --
    Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
  96. No New Energy Sources Needed by StCredZero · · Score: 1

    We could do it all with Solar, combined with currently available storage technologies. Heck we could even do it all with geothermal if we wanted to bad enough. (Yes, deep drilling tech has reached the point where we could access dry hot rocks just about anywhere we want to, and pump water into them, extracting steam to turn turbines.) If we use a variety of techniques, there's no reason we could cut fossil fuel use down to nothing, with tech we already have.

  97. Already Being Worked On! (SENS) by StCredZero · · Score: 1
    People are already working on this one. We've only identified 7 kinds of damage our metabolism causes which are the basis of aging. We're at the point where we can think about tackling all of them.

    • Cell loss, cell atrophy
    • Nuclear [epi]mutations (only cancer matters)
    • Mutant mitochondria
    • Death-resistant cells
    • Extracellular crosslinks
    • Extracellular junk
    • Intracellular junk


    Check out:

            http://www.mfoundation.org/index.php?pagename=research

    He's also given some TED talks:

            http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/39

    And a Google Tech Talk:

            http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8554766938711591377
  98. Cure for the common cold by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

    > I'd be happy for a cure for the cold personally.

    It's called Pleconaril. The FDA wouldn't approve it, even though it apparently works nicely and reliably stops a cold in its tracks, because they weren't happy about people taking antiviral meds for a disease (almost) nobody actually dies from.

    They're now trying to get it approved for some other disease. With a little luck, they'll succeed -- once it's stocked by drugstores, doctors can legally prescribe it "off label" for anything they like. Including (of course) a cold.

    1. Re:Cure for the common cold by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      1. It only works if taken within 24 hours of getting a cold (good luck pulling that one off).
      2. On average (well median) it only reduces the length of symptoms by 1 day for woman and half a day for man.
      3. It doesn't work for non-whites, possibly the same size was too small for those groups.
      4. Causes side effects for woman on oral contraceptives.
      5. It either doesn't work on smokers or makes their colds worse.

      So no it doesn't do what you say, please stop taking biased mass media reports written by idiots as if they were the word of god.