Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

World's First Encyclopedia of Future Inventions 222

Posted by michael from the where's-my-flying-car dept.
Deb Hellman writes "WIRED Magazine Writers, Cory Doctorow and Wil McCarthy, have joined VC Rick Patch and 2 futurists to judge the Immortalizer Technologies Project - a project designed to uncover a comprehensive list of future inventions. The project is being spearheaded by a futurist think-tank, the DaVinci Institute. The goal of the project is to create a compendium of future inventions, a roadmap of sorts for innovators. They probably won't get it right in the first edition, but I like how Tom Frey is thinking on this one. People can submit their ideas and have a future invention named after themselves. Deadline for submissions is April 30th."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

World's First Encyclopedia of Future Inventions More

World's First Encyclopedia of Future Inventions

Comments Filter:

  • Will this kill all future patents? (Score:5, Funny)

    by gpinzone ( 531794 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @01:35PM (#5712216) Homepage Journal
    Hey look! Prior art!
    • No, you have to submit a working example of the invention, I believe.
      • I only think you need a working example of a perpetual motion machine. All others are issued on plans and descriptions.
    • That's actually a really profound statement. Prior Art can stop a patent application dead in its tracks. Prior art can include cartoons (the Jetson's cartoon killed several patent apps), books (fiction and non-fiction), and even movies!

      I tend to think this is a horrible idea because of its "future" impact on independent/small entity inventors.

      IANAL, however, I work in a law firm full of them; and IP is a frequently discussed topic (one of the attys is a Patent atty).

  • Nope, can't do it. (Score:5, Funny)

    by ites ( 600337 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @01:37PM (#5712229) Journal
    My pending patent application ("A SYSTEM FOR FUTURE INVENTIONS", US Pat. Reg. 2221-222633-003) covers this. Invent anything, at all, in the future and I'll sue your pants off.

    Luckily I've not had to enforce my patent yet, since every invention since 1998 (including patented ones but excluding mine) are ideas blatantly stolen from prehistoric (pre-1996) times.

    • Re:Nope, can't do it. (Score:5, Funny)

      by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @02:01PM (#5712445) Homepage Journal
      My dad invented the automatic lawn mower. The project was concieved on a rainy night in 1978. It had voice recognition, anger avoidance, and would even refill the gas tank! It took a little over 10 years to develop, but once perfected I got paid $10 every two weeks to keep the lawn trimmed.

    • Hmm, but when the future arrives it is no longer the future, it is the present, and then instantly the past, thus any invention I create in the future will be created instead in the present and the rapidly the past, thus your patent doesn't apply. Nod. Sure. Works here.
    • Well, as luck would have it, most of the truly innovative things being invented today don't come out of the US anyways. Everything except music. Music we like totally rock at.

      I know you were joking but would any of us be suprised if the patent office did issue you this patent? I know I wouldn't be suprised in the least.
  • A book that lists future inventions. I call it "Billy and the future inventionasaurus".


  • If Wired is involved, I'm pretty sure one of them won't be a time machine. ;)

  • Roadmap for innovators? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DrMrLordX ( 559371 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @01:38PM (#5712245)
    It would seem to me that anyone attempting to create an invention that appears on a "to invent" list of this sort would not be an innovator.
    • It would seem to me that anyone attempting to create an invention that appears on a "to invent" list of this sort would not be an innovator.

      Haven't you learned yet that the people who think of the idea get very little. The people who get off their ass and build/market/produce are the ones raking in the cash.

    • Re:Roadmap for innovators? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by russellh ( 547685 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @02:33PM (#5712676) Homepage
      It would seem to me that anyone attempting to create an invention that appears on a "to invent" list of this sort would not be an innovator.

      People had the idea of flying machines long before the Wright brothers came along and invented one - and you know what? it didn't involve feathers or an archimedes screw. And people had the idea of mechanical musical instruments long before any were invented, but they were often imagined to be similar to mechanical musicians playing existing or modified instruments rather than, say, an electronic synthesizer.

      The point is, having the general idea doesn't in any way diminish the innovation of the actual workable implementation; the ancients who imagined themselves flying like birds using some aparatus doesn't at all take away from the Wright brothers.

      • In 1876, two Frenchmen, Alphonse Penaud and Paul Gauchot came out with a plan for an airplane quite similar to modern ones and very different from the Wright biplane. Penaud's plane was a monoplane, it had retractable landing gear, windshield and a single control for pitch and directional control - way ahead of time... This ahead-of-time idea is not the thing he's remembered for, though - Penaud's most famous invention was a rubber-band propelled airplane model, which inspired many a men attempt building a
        • Yes... yes, and what was cool about that time was that the invention of a flying machine was "in the air" - lots and lots of people were trying (and many not surviving). It seemed like it was only a matter of time... and once it is done, many people all of a sudden seem to be able to do it. Few inventions are truly isolated, and the myth of the lone brilliant inventor is... just a myth, but they play a key role . So though I said the work of the previous thinkers don't detract from "the inventor", it also

  • Failed Sci-Fi writers. (Score:5, Funny)

    by gurps_npc ( 621217 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @01:39PM (#5712252) Homepage
    So basically these are people that came up with cool ideas but were too lazy or too poor a writer to write a Sci-Fi story about them.
    • You may have a point about these guys being failed Sci_fi writers, I mean look at the names associated with it.

      "VC Rick Patch" - If that isnt a sci-fi name then ive never watched Robotech

      "The DaVinci Institute" - Obviously a front for M15

      And Cory "Doctor O" - This would have to be the leader at The DaVinci Institute.....

      Man with a name like "VC Rick Patch" I could rule the world!
    • So basically these are people that came up with cool ideas but were too lazy or too poor a writer to write a Sci-Fi story about them.

      No, judging by the examples given, these are people that read existing science fiction stories and then nominated the cool gadgets in them as their own ideas.

      Rejuvination devices, controlling the weather, space hotels, never heard of _those_ anywhere else =P

  • Personally... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by andyring ( 100627 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @01:39PM (#5712255) Homepage
    I never cared for all these futuristic predictions. Seems like way more often than not, they are way off. I'm a believer in the old adage "necessity is the mother of invention." Granted, it's not always the case, sometimes the invention preceeds the necessity, but I think a capitalistic society should let things be invented and develop on their own without feeling burdoned by someone else's oddball prediction.

    It's one thing to say "gosh, I wish there was a device that did such-and-such, I could really use something like that." It's another to say "In 10 years, we will have this and that invention." and it being dead wrong 95 percent (or more) of the time.

    • That's because, anyone who can predict the great inventions of the future, goes out to build and patent them. So what's left? The windbags! Same goes for psychics. Perhaps they do exist, but I'm sure they're multimillionaires at this point, and your $3.99 per minute is nothing to them.

      More seriously, the problems with inventions is thinking them up. If there is a niche to be filled, and you can think of how to fill it, it can be done. The problem is that most inventions are flops, so companies have t

    • Re:Personally... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by CommieLib ( 468883 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @01:56PM (#5712402) Homepage
      I think the problem with these kinds of predictions (and hey, anyway, it's a lot of fun) is that while people are fairly good at predicting the advance of human knowledge, they are very poor at anticipating the economic ramifications.

      There's a great commercial with Captain Sisko where he says "This is the year 2000; where are the promised flying cars?" He then goes on to correctly point out that the advance of telecommunications has substantially decreased the demand for real world transportation.

      Could we have flying cars today? Absolutely [moller.com]. I have a model [moller.com] of one on my desk. It's just that there's no great push for one. Sure I'd like one, but it doesn't solve any great problem in anyone's life, at least not without creating ten more.

      Technology is often the least important factor in the success of a new invention.

      • Flying cars (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Orne ( 144925 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @03:29PM (#5713058) Homepage
        I totally agree. People have trouble enough maneuvering in 2 dimensions, then they want to add a 3rd dimension of movement? I shudder to think of the accidents caused people flying to work, while they drink their coffee, read their papers, and use their cell phones...
    • What I find the weirdest is, the barrier to entry to "inventor" is now not "doing things", but "thinking of things for other people to do" :)

      Actually, that really sounds ike management.

  • I've been asking for this for yeeeeeaaaaaars (Score:5, Funny)

    by L. VeGas ( 580015 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @01:40PM (#5712263) Homepage Journal
    Chick Magnet

  • AKA Vaporware Catalog (Score:5, Funny)

    by Limburgher ( 523006 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @01:41PM (#5712277) Homepage Journal
    Got a great idea you've not yet executed?

    Want it to bear your name even if it goes undone until someone else does it after you die?

    Even if it's impossible?

    My submission: Zero-Point Energy source /w built-in UPS, Line Conditioner and Drink Mixer.

  • Whatever (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Highwayman ( 68808 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @01:42PM (#5712289)
    Yippie! Venture capital and futurists. Two great tastes that get nothing done together! Don't we ever learn. It is the year 2003 and yet no hover car in every garage, jet packs the realm of a few weirdos, and my computer's cooling system sounds like a malfunctioning jet engine. Why don't we finish the work of the futurists from 50 years ago first?
    • Think about that. People have a hard enough time paying attention while piloting a car on a 2-d course. We really don't need the statistics of road travel to be extrapolated into the air where drunk motorists will come raining down on schools and a stalled engine causes someone to land on some old fashioned wheeled vehicles.

      Besides, we waste enough fuel as it is without someone driving a floating SUV. The advantage of taking to the air would be improving travel speed, and I don't trust the common Joe to
  • I only have 19 day's to invent the next programming language [slashdot.org]?!? I'd better get to work!

  • Mobile phone home network (Score:4, Interesting)

    by smack_attack ( 171144 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @01:49PM (#5712336) Homepage
    This would allow people to plug their mobile phones into a cradle device, then use any phone in their house instead of having to have a landline phone. The idea consists of a cradle device (or multiple cradles, a base station (that utilizes the wiring of the house, and converts the analog signal to digital so mutiple mobile phones can be used at the same time), and digital-to-analog converters for each analog phone in the house.
    • I'm sure some telco employee is probably going to read this now and say: "OMGLOLBBQ, that's not the future, we're fucking doing it right now!"

      And then I'll never get the royalty payments that I obviously deserve :)
    • You mean this? http://www.cellsocket.com/ [cellsocket.com]
      • dammit I just knew someone beat me to this.

        I still want to see a digital version where multiple people can plug in AND have seperate rings AND talk at the same time. It's not a technological feat, it's a matter of "will people buy it"
    • My boss bought one of these to use with his Verizon Motorola phone. I don't remember a site off the top of my head, but it was a cradle that you put the cell phone into, plugged into wall-power, and had a RJ11 (phone) jack on it.

      It worked just fine, but the standard dial-tone sounded slightly off tone. It was either the weird dial-tone or the fact it was going over the cell network that stopped him from doing his ultimate goal, having his Tivo dial over the cell network and get listings.

      Unfortunately, I c

  • Wrong Idea (Score:5, Interesting)

    by barryfandango ( 627554 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @01:49PM (#5712337)

    "Controlling the Weather - Since the beginning of time, man has been fighting the forces of nature. Clothing protects us from the weather in a small way. Buildings protect us in a much larger way. But wouldn't it be nice to spot a hurricane when it first starts to develop, shoot a special wave into it, and just put it out."

    Better invention: How about clothing and buildings that are strong enough to withstand any weather? Why disrupt the natural world when we can adapt to it?

    "Instant Sleep - People who need to finish an important project, but are beginning to get exhausted can just walk into the instant sleep chamber. In just a few seconds they can walk back out totally rejuvenated, ready to tackle their rest of their work."

    Better invention: lets come up with an economy and lifestyle where we get a nice eight-hour sleep at night. I like sleeping. No more sleep, so that my employer can enjoy my improved productivity? This is progress?

    • Re:Wrong Idea (Score:4, Funny)

      by barryfandango ( 627554 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @01:51PM (#5712358)
      Also: there's some prior art on the Instant Sleep machine. The USAF has been using this technology for some time under the codename "amphetamines."
    • Probably because it's easier to dissipate a hurricane than it is to make buildings able to withstand them for hundreds of years, even after decay, creep, and mismaintenance.
      • There are some notable buildings in Egypt that have withstood the weather for four thousand years. I suppose they don't get hurricanes there, but I can't imagine it would make a difference. Making buildings that withstand hurricanes is no big trick. Making them also nice to live in is a little harder, but I know of some very nice houses that have gone through several hurricanes. It's just a matter of construction methods, materials, and location.

        I think you're crazy if you think dissipating a hurricane
    • I don't think the problem with the Instant Sleep machine is the fact that your employer gets more productivity... the REAL problem is "Where's the time for sex?" :)
      • I don't think the problem with the Instant Sleep machine is the fact that your employer gets more productivity... the REAL problem is "Where's the time for sex?" :)

        Easy. The "Instant Sleep" machine would be right next to the "Instant Sex" machine. Step inside, and come back out "satisfied".

    • Re:Wrong Idea (Score:2, Insightful)

      by mfrank ( 649656 )
      Or, you can increase the amount of your daily free time by 5 or 6 hours.

    • Slightly OT: Anti-narcolepsy drug (ab)use (Score:5, Interesting)

      by swb ( 14022 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @03:02PM (#5712876)
      I've read a few references about a fairly new drug that's been given to narcoleptics and been adopted by others that really seems to be a stay-awake drug that has few known side effects. Unlike stimulants that crank you up, this new drug simply keeps you from getting sleepy.

      Non-narcoleptic users reported being able to stay awake for 4-5 days straight without any sleep. When they stop taking the drug, they get tired as per normal and sleep a normal 8 hours and wake up rested and "normal."

      I think this is pretty revolutionary -- we talk about free time as being important, but what would it be like to get 10 additional hours a day? Feel like watching that 3 hour DVD, but its 11 PM and you know you'll be shot the next day if you do? What if the bigger worry was whether you had enough DVDs to occupy your time between 2 and 6 AM?

      They don't know what the long term psychological impact of sleep deprivation like this would be, but there's no apparent physical problems reported by people who have been up 3-5 days. None of the paranoia and other psychotic behavior typically associated with long-term stimulant use and other sleep deprivation.

      The amount of extra free time would be truly amazing, even if you only stayed "up" 2-3 nights a week, you could be gaining the equivilent of 50 days free time a year.
      • Here's [go.com] a link.

        The drug is Modafinil, and is sold under the name Provigil.

        This report is from Dec. 3 (doesn't say what year, I'd imagine 2002), and it discusses the military uses. It warns that we might be messing with something we don't fully understand (like the effects on the endocrine system), but I for one would love to try this out.

      • I was prescribed Provigil (modafonil) as a stimulant to combat sleep disorder induced narcolepsy - didn't do much for myself, unfortunately.

  • Umm No. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Flamesplash ( 469287 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @01:50PM (#5712345) Homepage Journal
    People can submit their ideas and have a future invention named after themselves.

    If someone thinks something up and puts in in a book, and then 100 years later I actually make the stupid thing, then I'm pretty sure I get to call it whatever I, or the marketing department, want to call it.
    • I am 100% behind you.

      Millions of people thought about flying machines, but the wright brothers actually put one in the air (unless you want to count da vinci's helicopter). Who deserves the credit? The thousands of dreamers or the one 'doer'?
    • I think that for ideas that are truely novel that it is ok to attach your name to it for eternity and have it remain, but I'm talking truely novel ideas.

      For the most part such things only reside on mathematical theories or other such currently useful ideas. Ie. the Shannon Limit or the Turing Test. If I simply come up with a idea for something like a "glass magnet" to make recycling landfills easier, that's just fairly pointless. No one is going to speak of Flamesplash's Glass Magnet, especially since i

  • Wee! (Score:3, Funny)

    by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Friday April 11, 2003 @01:50PM (#5712347) Homepage Journal

    I predict... flying cars will be commonplace! Oh wait, that was the predictions for 2000..

  • Top 10 Future Inventions (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 11, 2003 @01:50PM (#5712348)
    This is not for yucks; just a list of way-cool things I've seen in science fiction over the years.

    10. The Dream Recorder

    9. Impervious material (like Adamantium, General Products Hulls, Mithril)

    8. Teleportation booth/transporter

    7. Time machine

    6. Intelligent, walking robot (I'm thinking more Asimov than Star Wars). Something that can balance, walk and think. Hondo "ASIMO" is a mere toddler.

    5. FTL space drive

    4. Stasis Field (see Larry Niven....who needa a fridge when you have one of these?)

    3. Antigravity

    2. Fully creative genetic engineering. Yes, we need Moties and dragons in our world.

    1. Brain wave reader machine that makes telepathy a reality.

    • Re:Top 10 Future Inventions (Score:5, Funny)

      by SomeoneGotMyNick ( 200685 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @02:06PM (#5712477) Journal
      9. Impervious material (like Adamantium, General Products Hulls, Mithril)

      Plus last night's steak dinner

      7. Time machine

      A point in time where the book becomes 100% accurate could prove this invention had (or will have) been invented. Think about it....

      4. Stasis Field (see Larry Niven....who needs a fridge when you have one of these?)

      Built into every Twinkie. They never age.

      1. Brain wave reader machine that makes telepathy a reality.

      My wife already has one. I can't get away with anything because she finds out about it. She just won't admit to having such a device.

  • Thieving bastards! (Score:5, Funny)

    by BabyDave ( 575083 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @01:53PM (#5712372)

    Bastards! I came up with this idea next week!

  • Human Information Storage Device (Score:3, Interesting)

    by smack_attack ( 171144 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @01:54PM (#5712380) Homepage
    This one is definitely in our future, once we realize the power of knowledge. It's simply a device that will bypass the learning process and education system that takes 16+ years and just beams information and knowledge into your memory. If we every figure this one out, we'll reach a golden age of humanity.

    • Re:Human Information Storage Device (Score:5, Insightful)

      by phorm ( 591458 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @03:20PM (#5712970) Journal
      The problem is, that knowledge is quite seperate from experience. And experience not only influences what we know, but what we do with our knowledge, and how we grow. If we copied actual memories, then we're left with a bunch of clones with less personal development.

      Think about when Einstein's theories led to the creation of atomic energy sources. Think about what others did with it (nukes). Einstein lacked the comprehension of the sheer evil this knowledge could impart, while others lacked the caution of experience and upbringing.

      How about giving a 12-year-old knowledge which would let him build a death-ray? How about giving a 6-year-old knowledge of sex? Even with useful things, like math/english/physics, knowledge would be more useful to some than others.

      Seriously. How many of us could read a book, understand the concepts, but completely screw up on the implentation? Knowledge is one thing: skill, ability, and experience are completely different.

  • I've got some... (Score:3, Funny)

    by ryanvm ( 247662 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @01:57PM (#5712414)
    How about the "Death Clock" or maybe the "Smellescope"?

    [Yes - I watched Futurama on TiVo last night.]
  • There are some inventions that no sane person could have ever predicted.

    This [boat-links.com], for example.

    (Warning: Adult content, Do not open if your children are nearby!)

  • Had to be said (Score:3, Funny)

    by Sanga ( 125777 ) <.ude.ucs. .ta. .najaratans.> on Friday April 11, 2003 @02:02PM (#5712453) Homepage Journal
    "Deadline for submissions is April 30th."

    When did they start accepting entries?
    April 1.
  • While this seems like a good idea on the surface, am I the only one who thinks this is a waste of time?

    C'mon now, how many present inventions can be claimed to have been predicted? OK, the geosynchronous satellite. But what about the ones that aren't like TIVO ?

    There will always be stuff you can predict assuming progressive evolution of today's hardware and software. But then there will also be the stuff you can't predict no matter how far you take current technology. Flying cars anyone?

  • would be a system to use a planet's natural magnetic field as a renewable energy source.

  • Duke Nukem Forever (Score:5, Funny)

    by SILIZIUMM ( 241333 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @02:16PM (#5712554) Homepage
    Is Duke Nukem Forever on the list ?

  • HalfBakery (Score:4, Informative)

    by jbum ( 121617 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @02:18PM (#5712561)
    This sounds an awful lot like the HalfBakery [halfbakery.com] (which isn't nearly as pretentious-sounding as the "DaVinci Institute").

  • I'm working on a helmet with "eyeports" that only allow you to see things worth looking at and "earphones" that only allow you to hear things worth hearing.

    My prototypes are available at the supermarket under the code name "brown bag please".

  • Is Frey a common last name? Because the person who submitted this news item about Tom Frey is none other than Darby Frey (a.k.a Deb Hellman) [network-tools.com]

  • Five original future inventions (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @02:29PM (#5712643) Homepage
    OK. Here are a few.
    • The photon screen Turns high-energy photons into multiple low energy photons. Useful for converting gammas from radioactives into heat and light.
    • The flipper Turns matter into antimatter by rotating it through a higher dimension. Useful for making antimatter as fuel. Small versions only flip a few thousand atoms at a time, so the hazard is low. Use with the photon screen as an energy source.
    • High-volume mass spectrograph For element separation. Like the calutrons of the Manhattan Project, but with a useful throughput rate. Raw materials in, elements out.
    • Low-power wireless power transmission Just milliwatts, but enough to keep portable devices recharged. Available in homes, offices, hot spots.
    • Safe third-rail power Power trains, streetcars, etc. with a power rail that's off except for a short section under the vehicle. System safety comparable to other life-safety systems.

    The last two could be built today.

    Don't put these into that DaVinci site; their list is proprietary.

    • The neutrino-based power generator. We're still just learning how to detect the various types of solar neutrinos there are out there. I suspect it's only a matter of time til we can build a new-style "solar cell" to generate energy.

      speaking as a layman,dpk

  • An invention we need: (Score:4, Insightful)

    by timothy ( 36799 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @02:31PM (#5712658) Journal
    a safe, handy tool for disposing of whatever sadistic bastard came up with the molded-plastic clamshell packaging that too many smallish products come in?

    Bonus points if it also opens the stupid %$#@ packages themselves, without leaving finger-cutting edges, and double bonus if it leaves the package in a state where the thing can be returned to the store if unsatisfactory.

    timothy
    • It's called a key. Just take a sharpish key (Titan keys are really good, so are many car keys), slice directly against the edge on the back of the package.

      I do it all the time, and it works really well on that darn blister pack stuff. Even allows for returns.

      -WS

  • Self tuning complex organic molecules (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gelfling ( 6534 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @02:56PM (#5712838) Homepage Journal
    Molecular components that can dial in their own efficacy. Particularly useful for chemotherapy drugs.

  • I've been working on hamburger earmuffs, but I just can't figure out that damn pickle matrix!
  • We already have a good compendium of future technology. Steve Jackson games, makers of the Generic Universal Role Playing System (GURPS) published several supplements detailing future technology. Yeah, it's just a game, but they are very well thought out and plausible (at least for the next few tech levels above 7, which is where we're at now.)
  • I'm thinking of a booth on the steet, kinda of like a phone booth,where you go into it, deposit 25c, then select either a quick and painless death, or a bloody and gruesome one.

    I'll call it a Suicide Booth!!

    What?? Not my original idea? Damn...

  • Will hardly cover "all" inventions. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @04:57PM (#5713607) Homepage
    There's at least three fundamental types of inventions:

    1. Those people already want, but the tech isn't there.
    2. Those things people don't realize they want, until somebody offers it.
    3. The things people just aren't that keen on, but that just grows on you.

    Typically, #1 is what you'll find here. #2 are those low-tech inventions that just "show up" because one man had a smart idea.

    #3 is maybe the biggest, even though they don't appear that way. I remember before mobile phones took off, when people felt they were flashy and annoying. Well, they still are, but now everybody has one. Age group 18-35 have a 99% coverage here, 85% in general population. Another example is the microwave. In the beginning it was basicly a fancy heater used from time to time, now we use it all the time. With a grill element, even pizza is great, and much faster than a regular oven. This might sound a bit like a luddite, but it's not. You're not against technology, you just don't realize how it will evolve into a central part of your life. Same with internet, even though I admit I saw some of what was coming, many things I didn't. For example P2P and Napster, it was a direction I never expected the Internet to take.

    Ah, this is getting a long rant. The point is at least, much of what is happening is not fundamentally "new" technology, but it starts taking other forms and evolves to something else. For an example try to imagine everything a multi-gadget carryable computer could do for you. One that is integrated with your cell phone so it could connect with Internet, or other similar gadgets (alternatively over Wi-Fi?), and your laptop or tablet pc. Nothing truly new or groundbreaking so far, but I'm sure there's a lot of ideas we just haven't thought of.

    Kjella

  • shouldexist.org (Score:2, Informative)

    by throwaway18 ( 521472 )
    Perhaps they can steal a few good ideas from shouldexist.org [shouldexist.org]

  • Three types of inventions. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Restil ( 31903 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @05:14PM (#5713692) Homepage
    The itch scratcher is the most common. It's something that's easy enough to do with the technology of the time it was invented, but it was a novel idea that hadn't been though of before, or at least nobody had the patience or resources to follow through on it.

    You also have improvement on existing technology. The Pentium 4 processor is significantly different than the 4004, but it's more of a derivative product rather than an entirely new technology. Nobody who's familiar with the 4004 will look at the P4 and slap themselves on the head wondering "Why didn't *I* think of that!" Certainly there are steps of innovation along the way. The components got smaller, pipelines and cache were implemented to get more bang out of each clock cycle, the bus was widened. But in the end, it's just a technology that evolved from a simpler version.

    Then you have the pipedreams. These are the inventions that should have been invented but never were, simply because innovation didn't follow the path that everyone expected. We don't have flying cars today. AI is little more than a novelty except for a few nitch applications. No colonies on the moon, no men on Mars. Yet for all the fantastic technological advances that didn't happen, nobody predicted the rise of the internet. The concept of a computer on every desk and every lap was difficult to envison when the average computer occupied an entire room.

    Progress provides innovation opportunities. We can always interpolate what we have today to determine what we'll have tomorrow. CPU's will always get faster and cheaper over time and a CPU a year from now will most likely closely resemble a CPU today. But at some point, technology gives us an opporunity to do things that wouldn't have been possible before, and as a result, people will start finding unique solutions. But it's hard to determine what those solutions will be if we aren't aware of the factors that would lead someone to come up with that idea in the first place. And if people COULD predict the future in such a way, the patent office wouldn't be getting overwhelmed with patents based on 20 year old technology.

    -Restil
  • Once bitboys [bitboys.fi] invent the fastest GPU ever to grace the earth and Daikatana blows the whole concept of an immersive reality out of the water, future consequent advances will be so drastic as to be unpredictable as of this date.

    Pardon me.

    My spaceshiop needs me.
  • "I call it the Hawkings Vortex!"

Slashdot Top Deals

Every nonzero finite dimensional inner product space has an orthonormal basis. It makes sense, when you don't think about it.

Close