I recommend that anyone interested in PRTs read the book "Aramis, or the Love of Technology." It is mentioned in the paper which the article links to.
Aramis was an attempt to bring PRTs to Paris, and while the paper says that the problems resulted from trying to fit the system to an urban environment, I got a distinctly different perspective from the book.
Basically, the problems involved the incredible computer-related difficulties in the system (which may be irrelevant at this point), and the fact that the frequent stations combined with track would result in a huge amount of space being used for the infrastructure.
Another problem that was discussed was safety, and not safety in the practical sense, but in the political/legal sense. Apparently, there was great difficulty finding a way to guarantee that the system would be secure enough.
In the end, the result was that the numerous delays caused by technical problems, combined with political issues, pretty much sealed the fate of the system. However, what the book dwells on rather excruciatingly is that technology is not separate from society. One of the main reasons why the book was written was to demonstrate that no single factor killed Aramis; rather, it was a confluence of factors.
For this reason, I have taken proposed PRT systems with a grain of salt ever since. Yes, there are test systems, but they don't experience a serious passenger load.
Am I the only person here who thinks Compaq is the Hardware equivalent of Microsoft? Compaq produces some of the most non-standard hardware configurations, and not only that, they pack the computer with weird "Compaq Control Centers" and things like this. I spent maybe a year trying to use a Compaq LTE/Lite 20 laptop, which didn't have custom hard disk settings and it was hell to get into setup (there had to be an error). I've also dealt with a Compaq Presario Pentium 100, which HAD no ROM setup program, and depended on one that ran from DOS. Both machines are now thankfully gone. These were machines separated by three or four generations of PCs and they have the same problems, and the same amount of different non-standard designs. It's clear that Compaq is trying to make people depend on them for systems, and I don't like it. Gateway doesn't do that. IBM does it much less. Sony does it more, but their memory stick etc. have an actual purpose, to allow all of their devices to work well together. So what is Compaq's problem? I think that they have the Microsoft syndrome, expansionism. They swallowed up DEC, and half of all laptops I see on the street are compaqs. I just think that they're an all-around BAD COMPANY.
OK, I see some people saying that it's a good thing to optimize efficiency, and that simplicity/idealism just isn't worth it. I see some other people saying that this is unnecessary, and should not be installed.
Now, I'm not for simplicity. I'm for _quality_. I want a car that's durable, reliable, and repairable. Now, a 1966 Mustang is durable and repairable, but probably not very reliable. A 1991 Honda Civic might be reliable, but it's not durable (try whacking some part of it with your fist) or repairable.
Adding electronically controlled valves is a great idea in itself. The human body doesn't have shafts going from the stomach to the mouth to synchronize the digestive process: it's all handled "electronically." And it works well, so we know that in principle, this could work.
However, what happens is that companies get lazy and say, we're going to build an electronic valve, and each one will have an EEPROM inside it to control it, and it will all be encased in two welded pieces of metal that can't be pulled apart.
This might work, it might improve fuel economy, but it's not going to be repairable, and it's not going to be as durable as a mechanical camshaft. This is very much a concern for me, because an internal combustion engine or a diesel engine is a very simple machine in theory, and a good purely mechanical engine can outperform an electronically controlled shitty engine. That's what this post is about. The companies can do anything they want, but there's no guarantee that they'll do it well.
For one thing, there is nothing in modern neuroscience to warrant the claim that quantum physics plays a role in the abstract functions of the mind. In fact, neurons have shown so much oomph that the quantum physics aren't even necessary.
Secondly, classical evolution never says that every feature of a living being is there for a reason. What it _says_ is that the probability of a race surviving with a debilitating feature is low. This means that the human brain could well be useless, but as long as it doesn't harm us in any way, it will continue to be carried on to descendants.
Thirdly, if you're into pseudoscience, read "The Physics of Immortality". It's a book that attempts to prove the existence of God using physics, and encompasses the above debates. The book is really BS but is still enjoyable for those of us interested in wacky theories. (In a nuthsell, the book says that God will exist in the future when the universe collapses into a singularity; God will in fact perceive everything that happened before him, and he will resurrect everyone by emulating them in his giant mind.)
There's definitely going to be a lot of disappointment. There will be a continued increase in terrorism, poverty, and population, until something snaps. I expect a major war to take place, maybe not destroying all life, but one that will wake a lot of complacent Americans up.
Also, I expect to see the human brain unravelled. We will be able to make machines that can work as well as a brain does, and we will be able to deal with the brain itself in a much more sophisticated way. We will also be able to manufacture machines on par with animals, something happening on my very desk.
I agree with other comments that things don't change fundamentally, but perhaps at least one person will be able to transform himself into something higher. For instance, to be able to directly interface with a computer and thus gain a sort of artficial ESP.
Really, right now, we're at the stage of being able to make a machine which can pass a Turing test, for instance. The only issue is time taken to develop such a machine. Of course, when it is ever made, it can develop new ones.
The only barrier is politics, and the dangers that government poses to private resources. A nuclear war, an economic failure, or a disaster can all cause the society to go bonkers and prevent people from making these wonderful things.
On a personal note, I intend to have a stable relationship with a female by 2100:)
Slashdot Mirror
I recommend that anyone interested in PRTs read the book "Aramis, or the Love of Technology." It is mentioned in the paper which the article links to.
Aramis was an attempt to bring PRTs to Paris, and while the paper says that the problems resulted from trying to fit the system to an urban environment, I got a distinctly different perspective from the book.
Basically, the problems involved the incredible computer-related difficulties in the system (which may be irrelevant at this point), and the fact that the frequent stations combined with track would result in a huge amount of space being used for the infrastructure.
Another problem that was discussed was safety, and not safety in the practical sense, but in the political/legal sense. Apparently, there was great difficulty finding a way to guarantee that the system would be secure enough.
In the end, the result was that the numerous delays caused by technical problems, combined with political issues, pretty much sealed the fate of the system. However, what the book dwells on rather excruciatingly is that technology is not separate from society. One of the main reasons why the book was written was to demonstrate that no single factor killed Aramis; rather, it was a confluence of factors.
For this reason, I have taken proposed PRT systems with a grain of salt ever since. Yes, there are test systems, but they don't experience a serious passenger load.
Am I the only person here who thinks Compaq is the Hardware equivalent of Microsoft? Compaq produces some of the most non-standard hardware configurations, and not only that, they pack the computer with weird "Compaq Control Centers" and things like this. I spent maybe a year trying to use a Compaq LTE/Lite 20 laptop, which didn't have custom hard disk settings and it was hell to get into setup (there had to be an error). I've also dealt with a Compaq Presario Pentium 100, which HAD no ROM setup program, and depended on one that ran from DOS. Both machines are now thankfully gone. These were machines separated by three or four generations of PCs and they have the same problems, and the same amount of different non-standard designs. It's clear that Compaq is trying to make people depend on them for systems, and I don't like it. Gateway doesn't do that. IBM does it much less. Sony does it more, but their memory stick etc. have an actual purpose, to allow all of their devices to work well together. So what is Compaq's problem? I think that they have the Microsoft syndrome, expansionism. They swallowed up DEC, and half of all laptops I see on the street are compaqs. I just think that they're an all-around BAD COMPANY.
OK, I see some people saying that it's a good thing to optimize efficiency, and that simplicity/idealism just isn't worth it. I see some other people saying that this is unnecessary, and should not be installed.
Now, I'm not for simplicity. I'm for _quality_. I want a car that's durable, reliable, and repairable. Now, a 1966 Mustang is durable and repairable, but probably not very reliable. A 1991 Honda Civic might be reliable, but it's not durable (try whacking some part of it with your fist) or repairable.
Adding electronically controlled valves is a great idea in itself. The human body doesn't have shafts going from the stomach to the mouth to synchronize the digestive process: it's all handled "electronically." And it works well, so we know that in principle, this could work.
However, what happens is that companies get lazy and say, we're going to build an electronic valve, and each one will have an EEPROM inside it to control it, and it will all be encased in two welded pieces of metal that can't be pulled apart.
This might work, it might improve fuel economy, but it's not going to be repairable, and it's not going to be as durable as a mechanical camshaft. This is very much a concern for me, because an internal combustion engine or a diesel engine is a very simple machine in theory, and a good purely mechanical engine can outperform an electronically controlled shitty engine. That's what this post is about. The companies can do anything they want, but there's no guarantee that they'll do it well.
For one thing, there is nothing in modern neuroscience to warrant the claim that quantum physics plays a role in the abstract functions of the mind. In fact, neurons have shown so much oomph that the quantum physics aren't even necessary.
Secondly, classical evolution never says that every feature of a living being is there for a reason. What it _says_ is that the probability of a race surviving with a debilitating feature is low. This means that the human brain could well be useless, but as long as it doesn't harm us in any way, it will continue to be carried on to descendants.
Thirdly, if you're into pseudoscience, read "The Physics of Immortality". It's a book that attempts to prove the existence of God using physics, and encompasses the above debates. The book is really BS but is still enjoyable for those of us interested in wacky theories. (In a nuthsell, the book says that God will exist in the future when the universe collapses into a singularity; God will in fact perceive everything that happened before him, and he will resurrect everyone by emulating them in his giant mind.)
There's definitely going to be a lot of disappointment. There will be a continued increase in terrorism, poverty, and population, until something snaps. I expect a major war to take place, maybe not destroying all life, but one that will wake a lot of complacent Americans up.
:)
Also, I expect to see the human brain unravelled. We will be able to make machines that can work as well as a brain does, and we will be able to deal with the brain itself in a much more sophisticated way. We will also be able to manufacture machines on par with animals, something happening on my very desk.
I agree with other comments that things don't change fundamentally, but perhaps at least one person will be able to transform himself into something higher. For instance, to be able to directly interface with a computer and thus gain a sort of artficial ESP.
Really, right now, we're at the stage of being able to make a machine which can pass a Turing test, for instance. The only issue is time taken to develop such a machine. Of course, when it is ever made, it can develop new ones.
The only barrier is politics, and the dangers that government poses to private resources. A nuclear war, an economic failure, or a disaster can all cause the society to go bonkers and prevent people from making these wonderful things.
On a personal note, I intend to have a stable relationship with a female by 2100