Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Toys Technology

Ideas Unlimited: 11 Suggestions for New Inventions 554

securitas writes "The New York Times asked 11 prominent people to write about a device that they'd like to see invented (Google). Contributors include John Perry Barlow, Scott Adams, William Gibson and Bill Joy, among others. There are some intriguing ideas and some that are way out there, but lots of fun for geeks everywhere."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ideas Unlimited: 11 Suggestions for New Inventions

Comments Filter:
  • by BWJones ( 18351 ) on Thursday October 30, 2003 @10:16AM (#7346833) Homepage Journal
    Hmmm. Aside from the rather rediculous suggestions that ended up in the NYTimes, why not spend the ink space and advocate some suggestions for real innovations that could change peoples lives. Like bionic/biological/cybernetic retinas that actually work?

  • by kruczkowski ( 160872 ) on Thursday October 30, 2003 @10:28AM (#7346910) Homepage
    No late return fees?

    You know that companies make a lot of money of silly things like that.
  • Trumpy? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by hampton2600 ( 654273 ) on Thursday October 30, 2003 @10:34AM (#7346964) Homepage
    From Donald Trump's response, I think that he should personally donate $5 billion dollars into circuit/brain interface development... you know, since that will be feasable in the near future... right?

    A comment on Moby's harmless drug idea... That's impossible. Several drugs are not physically harmful. They do not horribly scar your brain chemistry or anything (LSD, for example... save for flashbacks). Though, the problem with them is that they may not be phsyically addictive, they are psychologically addictive. If there are pills to make you feel good, then people are going to become reliant on them regardless of their not being phsyically addictive.

    But, how about self washing clothes! Now that's something my fellow collegiates would like to see!

  • Pathetic! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by geeber ( 520231 ) on Thursday October 30, 2003 @10:36AM (#7346974)
    Pat Russo, CEO of Lucent, at one time a supposed leader of the technology revolution (Lucent, not Russo, that is) says she would like "One Gizmo to Supplant 15," a laptop, cellphone, and pda all in one. Wow. Amazing. I can't believe no one else has thought of that.

    Shouldn't someone leading a giant technology company be able to come up with something a little more clever than that?!? It could be at least a little more interesting - like an all in one device where the power comes from an organic photocell for photosynthesis. Jesus. No wonder Lucent isn't going anywhere!
  • by mattbot 5000 ( 645961 ) on Thursday October 30, 2003 @10:42AM (#7347030) Homepage
    I love the New York Times, but they could've gotten more insightful predictions from grade schoolers on some of these. Drugs that don't addict? Come on Moby, think of something that might have more of an impact beyond just increased profits for your lame brand of new age trance music.
  • by kalidasa ( 577403 ) * on Thursday October 30, 2003 @10:48AM (#7347067) Journal
    Invention is not merely dreaming up an idea, but figuring out exactly how to do it.
  • by Glock27 ( 446276 ) on Thursday October 30, 2003 @10:48AM (#7347071)
    "I would love to see recreational drugs that aren't bad for you and that aren't addictive."

    Well, there is a problem with that. You see, the anti-drug puritans have basically defined "addiction" as "liking something and doing it regularly". Soon we'll be hearing about Internet addiction (oops too late), sex addiction (oops too late), chocolate addiction, McDonalds addiction and psychologist addiction.

    Let's face it, when people like something, they often do it frequently. When people really like something, they really do it frequently.

    To put it a different way, is skiing good for you? It might help your mental attitude, and might help your conditioning, but it could also land you in the hospital or the morgue (ask Sonny Bono). So, is someone that skis every day an "addict"? Should skiing be illegal because it's dangerous? Should Big Macs?

    My answer to all of that is no. People should be held accountable for their behavior, with the freedom to do what they please even if it is "partly bad for them". If someone uses drugs and kills someone they should be tried for murder. If someone uses drugs and eats a pizza, well...let the punishment fit the crime.

  • by Bish.dk ( 547663 ) <haas@@@itu...dk> on Thursday October 30, 2003 @10:56AM (#7347143) Homepage
    I must say that some of the suggestions are far from being interesting enough to warrant a page in the NYT ... or a Slashdotting for that matter.

    A hand-held relational database [nytimes.com] containing the personal information of you and your loved ones?

    A surefire way to tell if a tennis ball was in or out [nytimes.com]?

    A combination of laptop and cell-phone [nytimes.com] that works in both Europe and US?

    The only really interesting piece, is in my opinion that of William Gibson. The rest seems very much like something a person would come up with after being given only 15 seconds to think of a novel new idea.
  • by Bill_Mische ( 253534 ) on Thursday October 30, 2003 @11:02AM (#7347180)
    Two small problems...

    one...your kids almost certainly know what you want but have no intention of doing it. Back to yelling

    two...what if they get to implant the same device in you. Imagine never being able to ignore them, never to say "Sorry love I didn't catch that", never to say "If you keep quiet about bloody McDonalds for five minutes you can have one".

    If you want to imagine the future, imagine a five year old whinging for an ice cream...for ever!

  • by caveat ( 26803 ) on Thursday October 30, 2003 @12:26PM (#7348180)
    So just as we've taken the sting out of space travel, why can't we eliminate or ameliorate the toxic qualities and effects of recreational drug use?

    because it's bloody likely the toxic and addictive qualities of a drug are also the same ones that produce the high. sheesh...i would have thought he'd at least brush up on the subject before talking about it.
  • by Oddly_Drac ( 625066 ) on Thursday October 30, 2003 @12:49PM (#7348489)
    "Certainly some people can use recreational drugs and not cause a burden to society, but there are many more who become unable to maintain gainful employment."

    Swap 'Fast food' for 'recreational drugs'. Interesting, huh?

    The idea that recreational drugs turns you into an unemployable SOB is as old as 'Reefer madness', and given theres a social penetration of cannibis approaching 60% (UK Polls) there have to be some that are useful members of society. Hell, check out my tax bill for a rough idea.

    "Just don't let me see them in the unemployment line asking for a check, or in the ER with no insurance asking to have their heart evaluated or their lungs checked."

    Yeah, fuck the smokers. They contribute nothing in taxes...oh, wait...

    Funnily enough, some people think the same about the UK welfare state and NHS without remembering that it's a safety net for reasonable people. Yes, there are some that are perfectly willing to stay home and watch their ass spread, but that's the downside of society; create rules to provide for special cases and you start descriminating. I'm not suggesting that's a bad thing, but it doesn't take much to add another rule, and another, and another...

    Hopefully you get the picture.

    "Therefore, we must limit the burden by keeping some of these drugs on the illegal status list."

    Huzzah. That way we can keep track of the health implications and dangerous cocktails that dealers (notoriously bad in the field of personal health and safety) have a propensity to develop in the search for higher profits. While I agree that usage under some circumstances should be kept illegal, they present an interesting method of tracking health and black market taxation if they're regulated. The trouble is that the US is fostering a certain level of fear regarding recreational drug use that ignores such things as the current president admitting to having a drink problem up until the age of 40.

    On the one hand, it shows that he's human, but on the other hand you have to ape a certain amount of the shocked outrage that permeates any attempt at a reasoned discussion into drugs.

    I should point out that modern SSRIs (Anti-depressants) are functionally the same as MDMA with minor kinks; The prescription of Seroxat to under sixteens should be investigated as a criminal offence because of the neurology involved, but that might involve a bit of a scandal...

  • by spacecowboy420 ( 450426 ) <rcasteen.gmail@com> on Thursday October 30, 2003 @01:06PM (#7348694)
    Do what all of the other geniuses in the world and use one logon for the sites you rarely visit. I know I have three combos; a work related, a personal, and a junk. Obviously you change the important passwords (both of them) often, but the junk one - who cares?

    Quit your whining and exaggerating - it isn't that difficult, and you don't to give any more info than you want. Yeah, it's inconvenient, but you put it in one time and most browsers on most oses will remember your login from then on. Fucking drama queen.

  • by spilich ( 673566 ) on Thursday October 30, 2003 @02:06PM (#7349506)
    Spoken like a true Apple user. Apple's always had more sucess marketing the image then the product. Colored computers - sheesh.

This file will self-destruct in five minutes.

Working...