What is Digg?73 Comments
- sobpanic, on 04/19/2008, -0/+23The accuracy of Kurzweil's past predictions about the growth of technology and thorough scientific approach to future predictions lend them a lot of credibility, in my view. Check out his predictions for the next 25+ years, pretty fascinating:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Kurzweil#The_ ... - inactive, on 04/19/2008, -3/+21Dugg for Ray Kurzweil
- andburn1, on 04/19/2008, -8/+21Dugg because it's a cool concept. However, the idea that technology will overcome money interests is naive. He says that "Take energy. Today, 70 percent of it comes from fossil fuels, a 19th-century technology. But if we could capture just 1/10,000th of the sunlight that falls on Earth, we could meet 100 percent of the world's energy needs using this renewable and environmentally friendly source. We can't do that now because solar panels rely on old technology, making them expensive, inefficient, heavy, and hard to install." I'm sorry, but we've had the raw technology to solve the energy problem for a while. The oil companies control so much money and influence that its implementation is almost impossible. It's political and social change that we need, not technological.
- jecruzs, on 04/19/2008, -9/+22Perhaps in a few years, a common computer will actually be able to run Crysis at max settings.
One can only wonder... - Farik, on 04/19/2008, -0/+12Until the transistor features are only a few atoms in width and we need to move to a new technology.
- krawkula, on 04/19/2008, -3/+14Only 1000 times more powerful? Is that based on trachphone hardware or jesus phone hardware.
- finanigan, on 04/19/2008, -0/+11Damn that joke is getting old...
- Janizzary, on 04/19/2008, -1/+11If we could use technology to work and produce for us - technology that can manage and fix itself, we could probably end the need for money/greed/war.
Let’s say, we develop technology that can provide us with all the food, clothing and shelter we need, then why have money? Let’s imagine this technology can fix itself when broken and can continue to produce with minimal human involvement. Why use money when all our necessities and luxuries can be manufactured and delivered to us automatically? With no use for money and all our needs and desires satisfied, then greed, thus war, will be unnecessary. I’ll be as bold as to say governments and nation-states can even be eliminated.
I know, it sounds crazy. Personally, I don’t see it happening for at least another 100 years, but, barring a worldwide catastrophe, it is feasible. With the advancements in computing, nanotechnology, energy acquisition and management, and bioengineering, this worldwide utopia can be established. - akkibaba, on 04/19/2008, -0/+9It's articles like this that make me proud to be a science geek. Hurray for science!
- cheezintern, on 04/19/2008, -2/+11In other news, Moore's law has, and will continue to hold true.
- Enasni1212, on 04/19/2008, -0/+8My Jesus Phone can e-mail, play music and movies, surf the web, and save souls. And it's a phone.
- SLockhart, on 04/20/2008, -0/+7Hello there, I'm from two hours in the future. You were right, it's awesome here.
- WindReaver, on 04/19/2008, -0/+7We will just add more until your computer, once again, has it's own building.
- icexe, on 04/19/2008, -0/+7The future's so bright.. I gotta wear shades.
- GBladeCL, on 04/19/2008, -0/+7Technological Singularity here we come!
- inactive, on 04/19/2008, -0/+6Based on flintstones technology.
- johnbr, on 04/19/2008, -0/+6Your comment is buried because in the midst of making a good point about the dangers of technological oppression, you declare blanket sterotypes about other people (the readers of your comment). Blanket sterotypes are a tool used to keep people from thinking for themselves.
And yes, I do know how much of my technology works, and I can and do manipulate it and change it on a regular basis.
But thanks for playing. - localzuk, on 04/19/2008, -0/+6We're already starting to make a move on optical logic gates, so that new tech is only just round the corner.
- m0laria, on 04/19/2008, -1/+7because they want you to spend 20,000$ every 2 years to buy a new one.
- jeffinfremont, on 04/19/2008, -0/+6I'm excited for The Singularity.
- localzuk, on 04/19/2008, -0/+5You're posting on Digg - a news site for geeks. The majority of us do know about the tech we use, and lots of us either work changing the tech, are in universities learning about tech or are hobby geeks... Know your audience.
- inactive, on 04/19/2008, -3/+8***** yeah! The future is gonna be awesome.
- wil2200, on 04/19/2008, -1/+6not if ***** politicians, special interest and retarded 'family groups' or whatever get their say and limit the use of technology - look at net neutrality
- MioTheGreat, on 04/19/2008, -0/+5>Btw, do any of you know how any of your technology works?
Yes. (Engineer) - MacEnvy, on 04/19/2008, -1/+5We need both.
Technology has, from the start, been about solving political and social turmoil. From the discovery of fire that met the challenge of local climate changes in caveman days, to weapons technology that allowed for personal protection in the pre-civilization era, to the Internet, which exposes political corruption and allows for the general populace to have a free exchange of ideas like never before, technology has been the prime mover in every kind of "revolution" you can describe.
Provided we are sharp enough and brave enough to circumvent those who would hinder technology from progressing, technology will continue to make humans freer, safer, and better able to fulfill our full potential as a species. - inactive, on 04/19/2008, -2/+6So someone explain to me why Detroit can't do for cars what Silicon Valley does for computers. Every year computers are more powerful and cheaper, why not cars?
- solidcube, on 04/19/2008, -0/+3Technology IS money. When a technology's time has come, the rewards to any defector from a market clique become so large that they exceed the value of suppressing the technology. This is particularly true in the case of startups, who have no vested interest in maintaining status quo. Technological and market lock-in only work so far. When enough pressure builds up, the lock-in shatters.
- comedianX, on 04/19/2008, -1/+4People will always get in the way of peace and prosperity. People are selfish and they think that everything in their time is unique to them and thus make the same mistakes.
- jrbevers, on 04/19/2008, -0/+3Wow an optimistic digg article about the future. Nice change from the normal economic/climate change/energy crisis doom predictions about the future.
- inactive, on 04/20/2008, -0/+3I for one, welcome our robotic overlords!
- dnl2ba, on 04/19/2008, -0/+3I was going to say the same thing before I saw your comment. According to Wikipedia, the Earth's surface area is 510 million square kilometers, only 149 million of which is land.
To complicate matters further, sunlight only strikes part of the Earth's surface at a time, and different parts of the surface get different amounts of sunlight. So do we just build redundant panels so that we continue capturing 1/10,000th of the Earth's solar input throughout the Earth's rotation? Or just capture twice as much energy for half of the time (which would require some new way to store energy)?
Not that I'm against green technologies or even solar energy in particular, but we're not going to replace fossil fuels tomorrow. It will take a lot of time and investment, and vested business interests aren't the only obstacles. - newms32, on 04/20/2008, -0/+3They are. You get a far better car for your inflation-adjusted $20k today than you did back in 1950.
- Incomp3tnt, on 04/20/2008, -0/+3Nanotechnology is already widely used.
- diggadigga, on 04/20/2008, -0/+2Personally, I am eating A LOT of veggies and eating only natural whole foods so live as long as I can to experience all of this. I wish I was born a couple years from now so I wouldn't have to do all this work >=/
- JYoungest1, on 04/20/2008, -0/+2Dugg for being one of the few optimistic articles involving the future of mankind.
- inactive, on 04/19/2008, -1/+3I agree.
- sobpanic, on 04/19/2008, -1/+3I think, yes and no. While you're right that political and social change would enable a much more equitable and efficient distribution of resources, technological change in itself is a powerful force to enable political and social change. Think of the massive effect of the internet, without which, for example, a Barack Obama campaign of this magnitude would have been almost impossible, because of the still evident effect of the mainstream media which consolidates power over information distribution.
Technology, at scale, and at cost, enables a massive decentralization and distribution of power from institutions to individuals. - localzuk, on 04/19/2008, -0/+2Overcoming the desire to have more than other people will be the biggest challenge there. There are those who simply desire the power to have more than others.
But yes, I agree. It would be a wonderful thing. The end of capitalism (or any form of monetary based system) would leave us to investigate more things. - RickyBarnes1960, on 04/20/2008, -0/+2The fearful will always be a drag on human progress. Evolution away from base fear is probably the greatest challenge of the species.
- gootecks, on 04/20/2008, -0/+2kurzweil ftw
- blast_flame, on 04/20/2008, -0/+1When you need less people to do things then you can do more things leading to greater prosperity. You suffer from "make-work bias." (see below)
http://www.reason.com/news/show/122019.html - InsaneOni, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1Are you stupid? The internet has given millions of people access to massive amounts of information. For the first time in history, the common man/woman will finally understand their place in society and the world as a whole. With the price of computers dropping every day, soon you'll see people that don't even own a home using a computer. This is already happening with cellular phones in Africa and India (seen it with my own eyes, in India I saw people living in shanties using cell phones).
Does this come without cost? No, there will be violent uprisings, extremism and the world order could possibly change, but I wouldn't say that's all for the worst. In the end, yes humans will be humans, but the more educated people become (almost solely through the expansion of cheap technology) the more they will understand their fellow beings. - Tenoq, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1With a low-res screen and very slow UI. Yes, I hate my Nokia. :P
- robbiemuffin, on 04/20/2008, -0/+1Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy ... the image with the black dots sums up this point. it's not as much area as you think... especially when you consider that the prime real estate for this technology happens to be the least inhabitable parts of deserts.
- localzuk, on 04/20/2008, -0/+1Not always - if the company is not a publicly traded company then there isn't any chance of that.
- RickyBarnes1960, on 04/20/2008, -0/+1Yes, but you're talking about human technology and, because the bulk of scientific and technological advancement is made cooperatively, you're necessarily talking about social change when speaking of technological change. One cannot actually be separated from the other. They are actually one and the same.
- InsaneOni, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1The processor in it didn't, that's what he's referring to.
- zelli, on 04/20/2008, -0/+1As you can see from this pic: http://i25.tinypic.com/wsr05w.jpg -Taken from: http://www.iea-pvps.org/products/download/rep1_16. ...
The technology is growing at an exponential pace as Kurzweil states. - skinboat, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1Kurzweil's 'Law of Accelerating Returns' not only depends on the continued exponential growth of computational power (re: Moore's Law) continuing, but also the successful grafting of this same computational power to other technologies. Though i'm a big fan of Kurzweil's views, this duration of this 'grafting', though not as easily mappable as computational growth, is almost definitely not exponential, so this puts me in the "lots of little singularities camp"...although i'm going to have to come up with a better name for it...
- InsaneOni, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1Your understanding of math is flawed. Exponential means:
f(x) = x^n where n is any number.
In other words the rate of growth is continually increasing (as long as n >1). -
Show 51 - 72 of 72 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 