the Magicball Network Forums

the Magicball Network Forums (https://forum.magicball.net/index.php)
-   Off topic (https://forum.magicball.net/forumdisplay.php?f=11)
-   -   The Hi-tech thread (Hoverboards,slowmos and Spaceeeeee) (https://forum.magicball.net/showthread.php?t=9247)

Zerath^ 2008-02-27 00:55

The link doesnt work for me..

ChaosFish 2008-02-27 01:11

It's http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6335899.stm

Doomsday vault... if they don't sign me up, I don't like it.

Darkflame 2008-02-27 01:35

Your a seed then are you? :p

ChaosFish 2008-02-27 02:21

Nah, I'm a leech.

*drumroll*

Jasiek 2008-02-29 01:48

Might be cool,

http://worldwidetelescope.org/

Darkflame 2008-02-29 13:08

hmz...so its like Celestia/Google Earths nightsky only with more photos?

Jasiek 2008-02-29 15:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darkflame (Post 344755)
hmz...so its like Celestia/Google Earths nightsky only with more photos?

Basically yeah, but the quality will apparently be better.

Jasiek 2008-02-29 20:22

Nokia Morph concept phone

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX-gTobCJHs

I'd like that :D

ChaosFish 2008-02-29 22:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jasiek (Post 344784)

So, you're afraid of Augmented Reality, but not of this?!

This thing scares me. It looks like it has too much potential - it can do anything. What if someone programs a thing like that to kill people?

Darkflame 2008-03-01 02:22

How do you get a job making these concepts anyway?

Its like, draw what you like, and use words like "nanotech" to claim its theorticaly possible :p
Great job to have.

Id still prefer "real" concepts of things that could be made with present day, or nearly present day tech.

Jasiek 2008-03-01 02:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChaosFish (Post 344794)
So, you're afraid of Augmented Reality, but not of this?!

It's not the technology I'm afraid of, but the impact on peoples lives and the perception of reality - human sanity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darkflame (Post 344808)
Id still prefer "real" concepts of things that could be made with present day, or nearly present day tech.

It's 7 years away, not THAT far. You remember that nanoradio? It isn't really as farfetched as it may seem.

Darkflame 2008-03-01 12:58

7 years for a shape shifting material on that scale?
I believe in the singularity but not THAT extreme :p

We are just starting to get black and white paper screens now, given a year or two, colour transparent and more freefoldable is quite possible. Adding self-cleaning and solar power generation to the list to material requirements without changing the flexible screen will very hard, however. Adding haptic and touchsensing to the list too...harder still.
Its all very possibly, but not as a consumer device that quickly.
When we have everything seperately we can then look towards a date to have it all rolled into one :p

Its not that i have any objection to these concepts, it just seems bezire to get paid to make them. (rather then being paid to make concepts for things using present tech....I mean, mobile phones are the moment are mind-bogglingly dull and all the freaking same shape)

Jasiek 2008-03-01 15:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darkflame (Post 344838)
Its not that i have any objection to these concepts, it just seems bezire to get paid to make them. (rather then being paid to make concepts for things using present tech....I mean, mobile phones are the moment are mind-bogglingly dull and all the freaking same shape)

It's like science fiction, concepts like these shape the direction science moves. Also remember that there where almost no cell phones 7 years ago, computer graphics where rather primitive too. And now look at it all? It made huge steps forwards, and so did nanotechnology. I remember I found this site once, wich showed working nanoscale clocks with geards and springs and mini electrical motors. We're not that far from that phone as you might think.

Darkflame 2008-03-01 16:29

Not quite, we have had cell phones for, like, 20 years. They have only been mass-marketable in the last 7.
If your saying this thing will be possible in 7 years then thats much more likely then it being for sale/mass produced :p

Quote:

It's like science fiction, concepts like these shape the direction science moves.
Well, thats what science fiction is for.

If Nokia is paying for something, however, Id rather see more interesting mobile phones NOW, rather then sticking to the same square design that has really only shrunk since it was first introduced.
Theres lots of things possible now, not in 20 or even 7 years.
While I like crazy sci-fi ideas, I dont like them so much when we arnt getting much ideas today.

Of course, I mainly talk AR systems here which are possible now but underdeveloped, but so much more as well.
Why has everyone decided on the same base design for mobile phones without expirementation?
I want wrist-band designs, cuff-links, earphones, thing built in clothing or glass's. Maybe pens which arnt just phones, but you can also littarly "write" text messages with. Why dont we have projectable fullsize keyboards on phones already? You can get them as plugins for some PDA's.

Theres a world of possibilitys unexplored with present tech, let alone future.

We are constantly getting higher spec processing on the phones, but not much other evolution. Putting cameras on phones was the last real addition, and even then thats underused. (eg, why cant I take a photo of a phonenumber/address and have it OCR-ed and put into my book? :p)

ChaosFish 2008-03-01 18:43

I thought singularity also means that things will take much less time till they're mass produced.

Darkflame 2008-03-01 21:19

It does, absolutely.
But I still think its 7+(mass market adaption time), not 7 years (includeing mass market adapation).

ChaosFish 2008-03-01 21:26

Hmm. I guess we'll wait and see.

Now about the problems of nano-technologies:
So much potential, so powerful. I guess the only way to defend ourselves from nano-technology killing machines would be nano-technology shields or something. Maybe nano-technology will be used to turn us into "Heroes" characters... Claire for instant.

Either way, as you say, nano-technology or not - a worldwide revolution is approaching and if no one kills me, I'll be alive to see it. Can't wait. Viva la revolution.

Odysseus 2008-03-01 21:28

Funny to think of... if machines somehow where to be a tiny bit more "smart" then humans they could trick us into believing they where extremely more smart lol.

Jasiek 2008-03-01 21:32

Imagine nanomachines as part of your body, and that you could controll them. You point at trash and say "make me an apple". That's magic!

ChaosFish 2008-03-01 21:58

Imagine friendly nanomachines in you brain, empowering it beyond current possibilities.

Jasiek 2008-03-01 22:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChaosFish (Post 344910)
Imagine friendly nanomachines in you brain, empowering it beyond current possibilities.

I wouldn't actually like blending like that. I would however like an additional memory source, that I could upload stuff and programs to and access it whenever I wanted like it was my own knowledge, but that it would still feel, that it is separate.

ChaosFish 2008-03-01 22:25

Try plugging a network cable to your brain :p

But seriously, why wouldn't you like blending like that?

Dino-Fly 2008-03-01 22:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChaosFish (Post 344915)
Try plugging a network cable to your brain :p


In that case, lets learn Kung-Fo Matrix style.:p

Jasiek 2008-03-01 22:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChaosFish (Post 344915)
Try plugging a network cable to your brain :p

But seriously, why wouldn't you like blending like that?

The same way I don't like the idea of the augmented reality. I think that with everything like that, people should retain both the perception of "reality" and the perception of who they really are, a sense of yourself; that's me, and that's the machine I'm using for my benefits; that's real, and that is not.

I think machines should become more and more discrete. So sophisticated, that they would gradually become almost invisible, hidden in everyday objects, customized to your liking.

You should be the one imposing reality on machines, not the other way around.

Darkflame 2008-03-01 23:47

Invisible machines everywhere is much more dangerious however.
Glass's or eye-projections you can just take off too see whats real. (or, rather, you simply never have the overlay at 100% opacity).

Unlike that, that nano-shape changeing chair could be programed to kill :p

Also, why draw the "reality" line at having overlays on your vision?
Is it not the same to saw that mobile phones "augment" your hearing, and thus are bad because they damage your perception of what sounds are "really" there ? :p
AR may become just like MP3 players and mobile phones. Just as we hear sounds "not really there" we might start seeing visuals "not really there".

Quote:

Now about the problems of nano-technologies:
So much potential, so powerful. I guess the only way to defend ourselves from nano-technology killing machines would be nano-technology shields or something. Maybe nano-technology will be used to turn us into "Heroes" characters... Claire for instant.
I'm sure quite a lot of potential weapons could be made with nano devices, but I think two big problems will prevent them from being that dangerious. (at least for awhile)

a) Power source. The smaller you get the less power you can store, even with exotic techiques, these things wont have much ability to keep battarys with them.
The energy they use merely to communicate with other nano-units and organise themselfs will be quite big in comparison.
In short, I think energy will need to be induced from an outside source...whipe out the power supply, or the connection to the power supply, and everyone would drop dead within minutes.
This is actualy a plus-point of some preposed medical use's. As soon as the patient is off the operating table, the nano-bots will just "die" from lack of power, and the body will pass them out harmlessly.

b) Flight. I think it will be awhile before we have controlled flight over things this small. Though lifting small weights isnt too hard, aircurrents and static effect things at this scale HUGELY. I mean, nanoprobes would be chucked off course by anyone waring nylon or owning a cat :D

Id say we got awhile before they get really deadly.
And, as you say, EM sheids or such may be developed.


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 07:33.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, the Magicball Network