/sci/ - Science & Math

Everything is going to be screwed up.
Nuclear winter, etc.

does /sci/ believe in groundbreaking developments in nanotechnology which will allow the humans to totally rule over matter and be like gods?

>>1360401
you really think so? i doubt that

We have reached a point where funding comes into direct conflict with the projects we undertake. They are more complicated, require more sophisticated (and therefore expensive) equipment to make, or maintain. The slowing down will not come from the running out of ideas, but economic stagnation.

Attempting to predict progress beyond a decade or so is a fools errand.

>>1360407
but there are *some* healthy economies all around the world, also big companies who invent crap use to be really liquid

>>1360408
>>1360408
>>1360408
>>1360408
>>1360408
>>1360408
>>1360408
>>1360408
>>1360408
>>1360408
This.

>>1360394

>The room I'm sitting in right now (normal good developed 4 star hotel) could be the same about 30 years ago, except TV, computer, etc..

Yeah it is not like computers revolutionised a world. I can't even remeber the last time I used one.

Well OP, technological development in the first half of the 20th century was more physically prominent maybe (the evolution of the airplanes, spacecraft, computers, televisions etc) and lately it's mainly about computer science and making things more and more integrated.
But it's still growing exponential.
As for airplanes: low orbital travel is the future my friend.

>>1360408
the question is not only WHAT will come, the question is also if you can imagine that nothing will change much..

>>1360422
yes, I think that probably I don't understand the revolution of the computer because I grew up with it and don't know how it was without it, can't even imagine

>>1360401
I suspect humanity would benefit a good old fashioned nuclear winter. We would have some time to think about at what point did we fuck up so badly.

>>1360423
honestly I'm also missing a bit the development about computers.
think back to 2005, despite some teeny web2.0 startups nothing changed much. you even had facebook back then I think.
and now think about 2000-2005, a lot more happened in this era.

the only thing that develops are sophisticated smartphones which no one *really* needs..

>>1360442

Yeah damn right. Prosperity and education does shit. If we really want to advance we need to destroy civilization as we know it.

>>1360442
only real life newfags think that we "fucked up badly"..
actually everything is awesome and fine, you are just manipulated and too stupid to see that and too stupid to profit from that

>>1360449

WoW was released in 2004, that was a cultural revolution for a lot of people. perhaps americans benifited less but as a britfag I got to talk to eurobros for the first time.

>>1360449
I think Japan is doing pretty good with their tech in everyday life.
Don't be fooled, Apple is not presenting you the very frontiers of our technology.

>>1360460

Also i wonder when gps became popular. Taht is in all cars now and google earth perhaps.

I know you want to see flying cars but life is changing. but it is kinda like how you never see yourself grow,

>>1360468
yes that's pretty true about apple.

do you know any website/resource where I can see news about the "real" technical developments?

>>1360452
>>1360456
/sci/ - not getting the jokes since the beginning of time.

>>1360468

Ipad is a revolution. we are going from books to pads.

>>1360477
Yet you can't watch Youtube on it. It's a fucking joke imho.

>>1360476

there are a lot of emos on 4chan. It is impossible to tell if it is a joke or a cry for help.

>>1360471
OP here.. I think flying cars would be totally uneconomically.. think just about the security it would require to have cars flying around in manhattan

>>1360483

That wasn't the point I was making though. We are witnessing the end of books.

way more stupid

>>1360477
hmm
I don't really think its a revolution, it's old technology which was put in a new, sophisticated (and maybe revolutionary) DESIGN

>>1360492
Meh. I don't like reading more than 3 pages worth of text on any digital screen. I say printed media will be around for a couple more decades.

I predict a similar outcome as from the movie "Idiocracy."

>>1360394

>except computer

thats a huge one, its not something you can really set aside as an exception.

As far as the future goes, I would say during the next decade computers will continue to increase in performance and decrease in size; nearly everyone by 2020 will have an "iphone level" personal device (think how cellphone use went from 2000 to 2010, even the youngest kids and the most elderly have some kind of cell phone.)

In terms of robotics, I don't expect much, most manufacturing places will probably increase their use, but you aren't going to have robot waiters or anything like that for hundreds of years (too many people looking for work would work against automation of most services, but ultimately automation will go forward through a much larger timeline).

In the coming decade, cameras watching and listening to citizens on streets will become more accepted and widespread as generations will grow up with these things and view them as normal.

Also, music is going to suck even worse this next decade.

>>1360477
>>1360483
>>1360492
imho a real revolution would be if we change the way that we exchange communication totally (reading/writing)
reading & writing is actually totally inefficient and stupid. think about it.

Ghost int he shell had bluetooth, they used the wires for a secure line. You may be noticed there was alot of hacking going on? Sometimes they needed to not be listened in on. When Makoto is driving and surfing the net at the same time, or when they are on a mission and talking to each other "telepathically"-like, it never occurred to you they were using wireless communication?

>>1360510

Carrying a library around with you is a revolution.

>>1360477
What about kindle? They came up with it a lot earlier

>>1360521

and now this is a tranhumanism thread.

I don't care bout y'alls goddamn Ipads, I still print out a few pages of reading whenever I go to the shitter.

>>1360521
see this:
>>1360526

Global societal collapse, followed by the re-population of the Earth by the shadow government.

>>1360546
interesting topic, didnt know about it

>>1360394

>like planes for example, it wouldn't be economically to make them faster or bigger,

Why not? The faster you get from point A to point B, the less fuel is consumed in the flight AND the better service is given in terms of flightplans, allowing the airline to charge premium prices for premium tickets. And shit, they're making bigger airplanes all the time, look at the Airbus A380?

Your beliefs are retarded, you orangutan. Pick up a goddamn newspaper or magazine once in a while, would you please?

>>1360599
the A380 is not much bigger than the hercules which was a passenger plane 50 years ago, also the Boeing 747 is about the same sice.

The problem is that an Airbus A380 which would fly with 3000 miles per hour from point A to point B would have ticket prices of $100,000 for economy class because of the incredible fuel consumption. this is why it's not economically.
And past development showed that, planes use to fly the same speed for AGEs! they don't get faster, even the A380 isn't faster than any other planes built long time ago

>>1360599
wrong
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Giant_planes_comparison.svg

>>1360599
>The faster you get from point A to point B, the less fuel is consumed in the flight
>Faster=Less fuel

will planes get much more efficent in the coming years?

How about single wing passanger planes?

>>1360599
brb, making FTL plane. Shouldn't need much fuel, it's so fast

>>1360647
They could if the companies involved wouldn't be facing bankruptcy ar gave more of a shit in general.

Ahh, following the old "If I haven't heard of it, it hasn't happened." Just because you don't know about advancements or that they were not the the advancements from sci-fi movies, doesn't mean there have not been several.

I am hoping we get better trains in the coming decades.

>>1360647
learn2read, probably not

>>1360634

The Airbus can carry something like twice as many passengers as the 747 if you remove seat classing AND still uses 20% less fuel per passenger than the 747.

>>1360665
ROFL ROFL ROFL
>>1360656
for example?

The Coming Era of Nanotechnology, what does /sci/ think about it?

>>1360676
why would the number of passengers be acounted for then?

>>1360687
>for example
what?

>>1360676
well, of course there was progress.. but WHAT progress? it became a more economically plane, OK. but it's not really faster, neither really bigger.
Don't forget that the 747 was invented 40 YEARS earlier, yes, 40 fucking years, thats when your fucking mummy was born.

>>1360689

Passengers per flight is a big deal for airlines because the more passengers you have on each flight, the less money you have to spend on fuel per flight. The Airbus uses something like 30% more fuel than the Boeing, but can carry upwards of 60% additional passengers per flight.

>>1360690
ah, sorry, I mixed up the quotations... just flip them in my post

>>1360700
see >>1360698

>>1360698

It doesn't need to be faster or bigger. It fits more people for the same size, and uses less fuel while doing it. That's progress at basically its most primal level. This is outright ignoring the advances electronics have given airliners, pilots, and passengers, too.

>>1360719
oh my fucking god, you just don't understand it, right?
of course there was a development in the A380, this is not the topic.
The topic is that planes won't get faster and bigger.

>>1360732

Faster and bigger are not the only metrics for technology, you shithead. In fact getting bigger is sort of the antithesis of the modern age of technology to begin with, where we have what would be considered supercomputers a scant 20 years ago which can fit in our pockets.

The Fab Four is always a safe bet: War, Famine, Pestilence, and Disaster. When the fuel runs out, the shit will seriously hit the fan. Famine or plague would hit our overpopulated world pretty hard.

On the other hand, I don't think we are anywhere near reaching the limits of any technology. There is plenty of room for simple refinement, not to mention breakthroughs and discoveries we can't even begin to imagine today.

I think the type of propulsion systems they are using on commercial aircraft largely defines the limits of speed and size.
They should adapt those boosters NASA is putting on the Ares rockets or some shit.

from this
http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviation%20history/aviation%20timeline/1893.htm
to this
http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviation%20history/aviation%20timeline/1946.htm
in 50 years

VS
from this
http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviation%20history/aviation%20timeline/1946.htm
to this
http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviation%20history/aviation%20timeline/2001_to_present.htm
in 50 years

>>1360732
damn. who the fuck cares. A lot of progress has been done. GREAT.

But I think many people is unaware of a lot of new ideas and inventions. I'm not saying I know any more than you do. But I know that stuff happens even if I'm not watching/following it.

>>1360746
first outstanding intelligent post ITT
how old are you?

OP you realize that they just don't have the money right now to revolutionize the passenger jet designs?
If they did, they would.
I mean one of the most advanced piece of military technology is the F-22 and that shit is a 20 year old design. We clearly have better but it's just not worth the effort financially.

>>1360761
yes maybe true
however the problem is that from an objective point of view you don't SEE a lot of progress in the A380 for example, this is the same reason why it might seem that there is not much progress nowadays.
A lamp is looking the same shit like 100 years ago, but the bulb is now greater and more efficient. great, still it's the same shit in my eyes and I'm asking myself if there will come something new that will revolutionize the lamp. Apparently the answer is "no" because the lamp has reach it's peak point apparently 100 years ago

>>1360769
yes, exactly, that's what I'm talking about -_-
this is why in the end no new shit comes out, because if you really think about it the current shit is already good enough. and that is the crazy thing, this is the actual topic, that we are so advanced that we already have all this shit and won't develop much in future

ITT: Not as much fatalism as expected.

Good job /sci/!

OP is incorrect. 95% of our current technology is post-1950

>>1360813
really? interesting..
sauce?

>>1360793
I wasnt talking about your beloved plane or anything that was already invented.

>>1360813
oh snap. sauce please. Or is that an estimation made by yourself?

The vast majority of my time is spent on my computer or smartphone, in either case on the internet.

The world wide web is from 1991.

>>1360808
Well we are facing a major shitstorm in the Middle-East and mass faggotry in most of Africa, not to mention the milder fuck ups in the Gulf and dozens of other things.
My point is that there are too many money-sinkholes right now to devote any more of our resources to technological development not to mention that the current economical system seems to be more flawed every day and there really isn't much we can do.
All I'm saying is that the pic is related.

Yep, truly a marvel of the year 1990.

One of the main things you'll see happening in the near future is the ability of products and environments to intuitively adapt to your needs. Dynamically changing functions in accordance of anticipated actions and predefined desires on your part. Which will probably mean that systems will monitor your behaviour through smart sensors and in some cases recognize you in order to instantly adapt something to your needs. This all makes interactions with environments and objects easier as they are no longer aimed at serving some non-existent ideal every-man but tailor themselves to the individual automatically.

In short it will make man-machine interactions seem more natural, instead of you adapting your behaviour to a machine, it adapts their function to your behaviour.

>>1360886
i.e.: sexbots

>>1360886

>I believe that a lot of inventions that we use have been reached their peak point.

www.sciencedaily.com

Go fuck yourself, you fucking child.

>>1360880
and look at this Victorian Age technology!

>>1360903
I lold

>>1360910

get out you stupid fuck

>>1360929
Fuck Richard Branson!

is anybody else here 25-30 years old?

this thread sounds like a bunch of kids whining about the last couple years, because anyone that actually remembers the late 80s/early 90's until now knows we have made shit tons of progress.

cell phones, gaming systems, cars, computers, pretty much anything technology related is 100x better than it was 20 years ago. stop whining.

even the fucking pot we smoke is 10x better now.

>>1360903
Sexbots maybe, but also the room detecting you're horny and putting on some mood music and the sexbot adapting it's vagina to your penis size for optimum stimulation, while calling you by your favourite pet name.

>>1360910
Misquote, I assume?

- guise, the point is, that I'm wiping my ass with toilet paper like 5000,0000 years ago (and I don't care if toilet paper nowadays is a bit better than some time ago, its still toilet paper)
- I wear shoes and trousers like the apes in the dinosaur forrest already did
- I sleep in a "bed" and cook "food" which I eat

if you would have showed someone a pic of 2010 in 1970 they would be disappoint as shit! since they expected us to have flying cars like in 5th element or starwars.
and still we are the same faggot like in 1970 only except we have now iphones and ipads, wow good job
/ faggots

Being born on the wrong continent I will just shed one single tear of sorrow for that chances are I will never see a space shuttle launch in person.

>>1360967
hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

>>1360996
OP, you should educate yourself a bit more.
or just fucking deal with it.

>I believe that a lot of inventions that we use have been reached their peak point.. like planes for example, it wouldn't be economically to make them faster or bigger, so I don't expect them to develop much in the next 50 to 100 years.

I can agree with that. I was disappointed when Boeing stopped their Sonic Cruiser development in favor of the 7E7 (now the 787). I was looking forward to saving some time flying across the US, but the Boeing business model favored increasing efficiency for the airlines at the speeds we have now.

>>1360477

IT'S A LAPTOP WITHOUT A KEYBOARD.

>>1360996
I think they would be amazed at how internet works and how it has changed society in such a relatively short timespan. It's not something they would have expected.

>>1361017
yes, sucks..
can we expect something similar in future?

>>1360996
Surprise, movie writers are shitty oracles.

@OP about airplanes having reached their technological limit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramjet

>>1361032
yes but still they would have expect way more physical progress

>>1361046
jesus, of course there are faster planes built than the 747, but not as passenger planes

>>1361046
Technology of the 60's.
Pretty cool though. It will never make it to commercial use, OP is not gonna be pleased.

>>1361017

no, boeing stopped the sonic cruiser because there is no way any airlines would buy any of them because they are inefficient and loud and expensive as shit to operate.

>>1361064
see
>>1361066

it's a point of view

a scramjet follows still the same principles that Leonardo Da Vinci came up with.
so those principles didn't made progress since then
(take the fact that there is a body of the plane and two wings and a turbine, this hasn't much developed in a long long time)

>>1361052
People always do, they were expecting moonbases by the 1980s in the sixties, but that's not what they got either.

>>1361081
yes, right
Airballoons, Jets, Rockets
thats all we have and nothing new has been developed in too long :(

>>1361095
Mag-lev trains?

>>1361099
maximum trolling?
has nothing to do with aviation

>>1361107
They sorta fly.

>>1361129

The Powell Launcher.

Brilliant.

Hold the fuck up!
What we need is a third world war. Ok, let me explain. What did we get out of WW2? Amongst other things jet engines and nuclear fucking energy! These two inventions were pretty much ground breaking and they defined the following 60 years.
Just imagine all the precious pieces of technology we could develop in another decade of global warfare in the present day! New fuels for everything as oil wouldn't even be a fucking option, cold fusion reactors, attack satellites, hell maybe particle beam weapons, armed low orbit spacejets, cloaking technology, energy shields, motherfucking robot utopia!
OH MY GOD!!

>>1361163

i'm down.

but only if the US wins and none of the fighting happens on our soil and all that good stuff like the last times.

For the past 10 years, I've been saying that one day, you'll be able to unleash your funk to the Guile Theme. That day has come to pass.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTYtH28esTg

>>1361213
Well, it's not that bad. Last time here, we had silly Germans on our land and we had to give up our Jews.

(and our dignity)

>>1361252
Yeah, having to give up your Jews isn't so bad. Although I kind of hope that in WW3, you'll also have to give up your Muslims as well.

>>1361163
ok I agree,
but honestly, do you really think a WW3 will come?

also, this is just about the 20th century, so the assumption that technological progress is only possible with a war is wrong.
so maybe WW3 is not required but something different?

>>1361266

I just realized that if such a time came when the goverment forced its citizens to denounce and persecute people who consider themselves a part of a religious organisation, I would be okay with that.

Does that make me a bad person, /sci/ ? ._.

>>1361163
WW3 is already happening:


World War III will be a "negotiated" war, with preselected targets, based on the Illuminati Agenda in the East and West. This will come at the same time as the financial collapse to distract and demoralize the people. It has been prophesied that this war will kill 1/3 of the inhabitants on this earth.

Problem is, real progress is almost universally dictated by energy capabilities. We jumped so far ahead on an exponential scientific scale from the 1800's to now because of the discovery of oil and electricity. We have since somewhat started to slow down.

However, if a new energy source that could harness power X1000 greater than oil with just as much cost and efficiency in addition to being freely available was discovered tommorow, our technology would begin to skyrocket again and we could be all be sailing the stars in just 10 ~ 20 years.

Or we could fail, have an oil war, and get stuck barely maintaining current technology with shitty solar energy and wind power.

>>1361305

No, because unlike being a certain race, religious actively choose to be a member of their ignorant group.

>>1360403
My vision is augmented...

>>1361333
yes that's true
I bet my ass that every scientist who comes up with a new energy resource has a headshot instantly, because those oilfaggots won't let go all this money
:(
-> stop the oil faggots

>>1360408
Alright, what is most likely to occur by 2020?

>>1361373
explain

>>1361379
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_Ex

>>1361377
What about all of our plastics?

>>1361394
I really want a t-shirt that says:

SAVE THE TREES
USE MORE
PETROCHEMICALS

>>1360456

Everything is not fine, we're using resources as if they're unlimited and the amount we use is actually increasing.

>>1361394
don't know what % of oil consumption goes to plastic, however if we have 1000x the energy we can come up with something better

>>1361163
As long as said war yields me augmentations like this guy has, I am all for it!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhqYBKZRg5I

Bump....for the future!

>>1361388
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6JTvzrpBy0
watch this crap, this is going to be our world in 15-20 years? well, your mom..

>>1361455
Fuck yes! How much will the augmentations cost?

Bump!

>>1361343
>religious actively choose to be a member of their ignorant group

fuck no they don't, they are converted as children before they know any better. most people i know were raised atheist and I don't know a single person that has "found jesus" after being raised without such delusions.

>>1361610
correct

unemployment

Bump and stay bumped!

>>1361682
I'll elaborate on that:
http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

Robots take over most simple service type jobs,
- massive unemployment,
-not nearly enough new jobs created,
-social instability,
-most of the population on welfare.

>>1361719
>That story
>People in another thread are discussing setting up a corporation to get money to buy and island and found a nation

What is this, Free Nation Foundation / buysealand nostalgia night?

>>1361719
Where the hell do my cybernetic augmentations fit into this?!

>>1361719
so what?

one of the biggest CEOs in germany said the government should give each german $1k-$2k per month.. and the german government could afford that, they have nearly similar spendings on similar stuff already

>>1361846
There are all kinds of problems with that. The massive unemployment problem is coming, there's a lot of uncertanity in how will they handle it. Wellfare seems like the most humane way to handle it, but that would change the economy in a major way and likely slow down progress, but its hard to say.

The fact that very few people understand how any of the new technology works and its likely get worse in the future, could cause problems.

Kurzweil

/thread

Active matrix organic light emitting diodes. Fuck yeah!

>>1362002
e-newspapers. Cheap, large and reducing newspapers to a single sheet.

>>1362008
I love it! I read ebooks all the time!

>>1362008
The power of an entire cluster on a single chip.

>>1362020
...or a large scale supercomputer on a single chip.

>>1362020
Thats one big chip

>>1362008

they have had these in a couple episodes of caprica, the new battlestar galactica prequel series. they are pretty sweet.

Cybernetics and bioengineering for health care and medicine look like promising areas of development for engineers and think tanks, but the problem is that as far as new discoveries go it's very difficult to get a grasp on when and how they appear, so it's generally good to have low level experiments going on and save the big money for engineering.

quantum computers would be nice to see in the next 10 year, and i think they are probable.
integration is what the trend seems now, which is really engineering more than anything. raw science in physics has hit a brick wall at the moment and needs more data that the lhc and other experiments going on at cern will provide. any information produced will determine what can be done.
something i would like to see is the use of quantum teleportation in communications devices.

>>1362041
This is the microprocessor. But I get your joke.

>>1362078
Intel corporation is planning to dump silicon chips by 2017.

>>1362084
that will hopefully increase processing power a few fold.
hopefully consumer electronics will benefit from it in terms of processing power.

>>1362084

not by choice, it will be because they will hit a point where they can't improve silicone anymore.

How far away are we from fusion power? Once we have that everything can become electric powered and we can launch planes by rail gun.

>>1364074
Technologically, economically or politically?

>>1364084

Technologically.

Last I heard was that we understood the physics but the gay engineers hadnt worked out how to adapt it.

>>1364099
Right, but my point was that even if we HAD fusion, technologically, do you really think we'd be using it? It's not profitable to the right people yet.

Just because we haven't improved on urban development doesn't mean we aren't advancing in other fields.

Come back when you've read up on current technology enough to have some idea of what you're talking about. Transhumanism is going to happen in the next 50 years. Think about the cell phone revolution, and how we now all have networking devices in our pockets. Once neural interfaces happen, we'll be Borg.

>>1364117
Fuck yeah! Effective Immortality!

>>1360422
heres your future OP, in 10 years you will have a computer that is somewhere of the magnitude of 100x as powerful and fast as the one you are using now. This hasnt changed and honestly it probably won't until we can't build circuits any smaller or compact

>>1364117
Cybernetic tentacles are fine too.

>>1361004
African?

Self driving cars, planes, everything

robots everywhere
automating everything

And no one knows how they work

Its gonna be great