Anyone using one of these?

Message edited on: 11/25/2004 06:39

lol...hmm....nope, but the setup would be cool in my den, LOL. We do have a wheel, though, LOL, but for racing games. I have no clue what they thought it would be used for, lol

giggle Can't REALLY blame them for not having foreseen transistors and stuff.. but it's still funny :o) As a comparision, look at how much of the sci-fi stuff in Star Trek (even in TNG) that has actually been INVENTED by now. And that's just in about 10 years. I wouldn't want to predict how the world looks 50 years from now. With a little luck I will be there to see it though G

Attached Link: http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/computer.asp

Sorry to be a wet blanket, but it's a hoax (see link). It's a FUNNY hoax, and a great picture, though. ;-) bonni

The communicators from Star Trek are a reality, not sure about anything else, care to enlighten us ernyoka? :)

They also have the hyposprays from Star Trek in use in some places

Let me check the attic...Nope I don't have that.

I only stopped using FORTRAN commercially about 2 years ago! CHUI's/CLI's rule!

Oh well - I fell for it, and now I know, it's obvious.

Even at first, though, I did think the last sentence jarred with the rest of the paragraph (was FORTRAN around in the '50s?); but other than that...

It may be a hoax, but the attitude is exactly accurate. Hell, even after true desktop computers were available from DEC in the early '70s, only a handful of sci-fi types could envision that they would be in every home. The best prophet of all was sci-fi writer Murray Leinster, whose 1946 story "A Logic Named Joe" got it almost exactly right... even down to Google. Leinster didn't even try to imagine the internal technology that would make the dream possible.

Lucifer: The theory behind transporters have been verified too. Single atoms HAVE been transported. (can't remember exactely HOW they did it, but it's been done) And that new Sony (?) Robot... Might be the first stem towards Data? Somewhere I have a program taped about the Science behind Star Trek, from Discovery Channel. They showed how much of it that has become real. And explained why some of the thins probably would NEVER be real too :o)

honda made the robot that can climb ladders, dance etc. matter tansmition is to power intensive for it to be developed with current technology. ( it has been done but way to expensive a power bill for anything larger than small molecules ) the best prediction was Jules Verne. the Nautilus, a nuclear powered submarine. about 40 years before subs were first built. and 60 years before nuclear power was developed. though he had it fusion powered ( "power of the sun" ) and we haven't controlled fusion yet, only fission.

LOL.. thats so funny. Im playing half life 2 right now and my 7 year old (who I wont let play or watch) says to me... "wow dad, they didnt even have video games when you were a kid".... They had pong, and we loved it! I said.

I've got a feeling that while someone might figure out a way to make a Star Trek style "transporter" actually work -- such a device could only be used for transporting inanimate objects.

I suspect that anything living would emerge very dead on the other side of the transportation process.

Being disassembled at the atomic level would amount to little more than being physically ripped apart.

Take a frog, slice him into 87 pieces, and then glue him back together again. The frog's body is still there, but the frog is dead.

Most likely, a "transporter" would have the same sort of effect on living things.

I know that this thought will be disappointing to hard-core sci-fi fans. But while a few of the Golden & Silver Age sci-fi ideas have come to pass, most of the old ideas were (and remain) pure fantasy.

Message edited on: 11/25/2004 10:25

Attached Link: http://ssdoo.gsfc.nasa.gov/education/just_for_fun/startrek.html

I was using Fortran IV in 1971, but imagine my surprise when a quick Google came up with this (from A Brief History of Fortran, http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/languages/fortran/ch1-1.html): "This wonderful first FORTRAN compiler was designed and written from scratch in 1954-57 by an IBM team lead by John W. Backus and staffed with super-programmers like Sheldon F. Best, Harlan Herrick, Peter Sheridan, Roy Nutt, Robert Nelson, Irving Ziller, Richard Goldberg, Lois Haibt and David Sayre. By the way, Backus was also system co-designer of the computer that run the first compiler, the IBM 704." As for the science behind Star Trek, see the link; there was a book on the subject as well, but I can't turn up the author right now.

Attached Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4015227.stm

Scientists are testing an ion engine - can TIE Fighters be far behind, lol ?

Ion engines have been around for several decades. The aircraft engine company that my father worked for back in the 60's (they supplied helicopter engines for the Vietnam war) was testing an ion engine during the late 60's/early 70's era.

As far as matter transmitters are concerned, I was in complete agreement with renowned science-fiction author Larry Niven when he stated, "I don't know. I wouldn't ride in one of the god-damned things."

(excerpted from his "Exercise in Speculation: The Theory and Practice of Teleportation", which I feel should be required reading for all sci-fi geeks)

It's called the Physics of Star Trek..I've got a copy..it says most of it is physically impossible..but not everything..transporters were one of those 'nuh-uh's..;) I suppose Fortran could be that old, but I think it's a red herring; the teletype doesn't look like a 50's version..I used to see these when I was in college in the 70's..;) Actually, the console behind it looks more like a power station substation (have seen a few of those in my time..;) but as Patsy once said it's only a model..;)

Well, considering that integrating the CRT display was long in the future, the console television set apparently hanging from a bracket is a dead giveaway that this is a collage. I do like the wheel, though; cool touch. A thing to remember in "predicting" future technology is that tools only exist to describe what is currently understood in physics, with very small predictions as to the general shape and parameters of what might be the next development or theory. Something like "warp drive" or "transporter" or "Gleeb-Tok Ramnor" would be based upon the principal beyond the principle beyond the one we understand. Another two or three steps removed and not possible to infer from where we are. Most futurists are much more conservative and will not speak on anything that can't be done with some extension of present-day engineering methods and principles. However, considering the sorry state of science education, I am glad that books like "The Physics of Star Trek" generally back away from speculation and instead make an effort to educate on present-day science and engineering.

"the best prediction was Jules Verne. the Nautilus, a nuclear powered submarine. about 40 years before subs were first built. and 60 years before nuclear power was developed. though he had it fusion powered ( "power of the sun" ) and we haven't controlled fusion yet, only fission." erm no.. the Nautilus wasn't nuclear powered. she ran on electrical power derived as you can see in the following quote from 20,000 leagues := ""Your question will have its answer", Captain Nemo responded, "I will say to you, initially, that there exists on the sea-bed mines of silver, iron, zinc, gold, whose exploitation would be doubtless practicable. But I did not borrow anything from these metals of the earth, and I wanted to take only from the sea itself the means of producing my electricity." "From the sea?" "Yes, Professor, and I did not miss the means. I could, indeed, by establishing a circuit between wires plunged to various depths, obtain electricity by the difference in temperature; but I preferred to employ a more practical system." "Which is?" "You know what sea-water is composed of. In a thousand grams are found 96 1/2 per cent of water, and about 2 2/3 per cent of chloride of sodium; then, in a smaller quantity, chlorides of magnesium and of potassium, bromide of magnesium, sulfate of magnesia, sulfate and carbonate of lime. You see, then, that chloride of sodium forms a large part of it. So it is this sodium that I extract from the sea-water, and of which I compose my ingredients.'' "Sodium?" "Yes, sir. Mixed with mercury, it forms an amalgam that replaces zinc in the Bunsen elements. The mercury never wears outs. Sodium alone is consumed, and the sea itself provides it to me. I will say to you, moreover, that the cells with sodium must be regarded as most energetic, and that their electromotive force is double that of the zinc cells." "I understand well, Captain, the excellence of sodium under theses conditions. The sea contains it. But it still must be manufactured, extracted it in a word. And how do you do this? Your batteries could obviously be used to power this extraction; but, if I am not mistaken, the expenditure of sodium required by the electrical apparatus would exceed the extracted quantity. You would consume more to produce it than you would produce!" "So, Professor, I do not extract it by the batteries, but quite simply employ the heat of the pit coal." "From the earth?" I insisted. "Let us say 'coal of the sea', if you wish", answered Captain Nemo. "And you can work underwater coal mines?" "Mr Aronnax, you will see me do it. I ask you for an only little patience, since you have time to be patient. I point out only this: I owe all to the ocean; it produces electricity, and electricity gives heat, light, motion, and, in a word, life to the Nautilus.""

As I recall, the inference of something byond batteries was made in "The Mysterious Island." Today we think more on sociological changes, and increasingly, on the structural changes of mind and society that come about from new forms of information transfer. Viewed through these filters, Star Trek does no better than Jules Verne does at predicting the future. Even on the subject of technology, most of what Star Trek had was simply contemporary items in new housings; phasers acted like pistols, communicators like the old Marine portable radio, hypo-sprays like ordinary needles. There was little sense of the re-organization of tasks that new technology brings.

the pic made me smile , so what the hell, i like it. thanks fore posting it, and your not a wet blanket, your forgiven

"Even on the subject of technology, most of what Star Trek had was simply contemporary items in new housings... was little sense of the re-organization of tasks that new technology brings. " You said a mouthful there. Consider this forum, or Google, or blogs. The notion that you can ask a question and get voluntary answers, or request voluntary work, from anywhere on the globe, was totally unforeseen. Even after the web was well-established, huge AI projects were still trying to build an authoritative database of all knowledge, using paid experts. Just like the 1954 idea of how an "electronic brain" should work. I haven't heard anything about those projects lately; I suspect they've faded away.

Yeah...TOS had communicators which had a single, plot-driving function; they communicated. The ship's computer was static and reactive; you addressed questions to it. It didn't anticipate or extrapolate. TNG advanced the mechanism of the communicator a bit in that it no longer had to be hauled around but was worn. It still just communicated, and to get data in and out of the engines, the sensors, or the computer, you had to go to either a station or a specific device (a PADD, etc.) There is no sense there of where the cell phone is evolving; to have innate computational power, to contain diaries and other data base, and to be seamless connected (eventually, that is!) to all the other data bases and information systems. Your modern cop has instant access in their car to license data bases -- they don't call them in, they interact with the data base. There are theaters where the lighting systems are on cable and can be run by a guy on a laptop in a hotel room. And the idea of the static computer that one addresses a problem to...we have micros running in toasters, cars, they are building them into the support girders of bridges!

Jules Verne also invented a time machine -- I've yet to take a ride in one.

BTW - where's the "family air-car" that was supposed to be sitting in my garage by the year 1980? And how come I can't smell anything coming over my TV set?

But, most of all: where's the pill that I can take to give me an IQ of 350????? I want it!

This could go on and on.......

Jules Verne also invented a time machine -- I've yet to take a ride in one. He did? In what story? Seriously. It's missing from my collection.

Attached Link: http://www.gizmodo.com/archives/kaori-web-internet-smellovision-018646.php

is finally coming to fruition... in Japan first, of course.

What's informative, Xeno, is that the family aircar has been mechanically practical since 1950. There are already various models of street-legal machines with foldable wings (or bolting, etc.) The problem was not one of engineering. The problem is the skill needed to run it, the airspace and regulation thereof, and the actual NEED (why, for instance, the Concorde failed. Few people needed to shave their trip time so badly that it was worth it to pay the fare.) I also wasn't aware of a time machine story. Verne had some harsh words for writers like H.G. Wells -- "I make my space ship in a way that is practical. He invents something that doesn't exist to make it run." Of course, in hindsight of better physical modelling, Cavorite makes more engineering sense than giant cannon! In any case, I doubt he'd write a time machine story. Oh...smell'o'vision was available. No-one bought it.

Attached Link: http://www.moller.com/skycar/

***BTW - where's the "family air-car"*** Here's a link to 1 that's supposedly gong to be available soon: "A FAA certified model is more than four years away. We already have over 100 reservations for the FAA certified models. The timing of the models available to the public will depend on the speed of the government in certifying the vehicle as airworthy. Moller has little or no control in this process" So apparently ppl are working on it ***Today we think more on sociological changes, and increasingly, on the structural changes of mind and society that come about from new forms of information transfer.*** A better book that goes into a lot more detail than the Physics of Star Trek is the Ethics of Star Trek http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060933267/102-9522804-5512107 It goes into the different philosophies the characters use and what their motivations are to show the kind of societal changes inherent in dealing with cultures across the galaxy.

*Jules Verne also invented a time machine -- I've yet to take a ride in one.

He did? In what story? Seriously. It's missing from my collection.*

Actually, I have "Jules Verne" on the brain. That's what I get for snapping off a hurried comment......

No, it was H.G. Wells that invented the time machine.

In fact, Verne didn't like Wells' writing: due to the fact that he considered Mr. Wells' ideas to be "unscientific".

Ideas such as the concept of a "time machine".

We've touched upon the debate between "realistic" sci-fi and "imaginative" sci-fi in this thread.

The Wells/Verne fight continues to this day.

---

As for "air-cars" being practical -- various models of the "air-car" concept have come and gone since the 1930's.

I haven't seen one in anyone's garage yet.

Imagine traffic control for such a vehicle, when everybody in your neighborhood had one. Message edited on: 11/25/2004 19:05

(&#;(&@$(@*#&)@#&!!!! Gettin my hopes up and everything. pout

But, one has to admit -- an "air-car" is a far more realistic concept than a transporter.

Attached Link: http://www.cswnet.com/~dbruce/other/wells.html

*Gettin my hopes up and everything.*

Sorry....my fault.

The renowned author, Jules Verne and H.G.Wells vigourously denied that the other had any influence on their work. (Wells accused Verne of being unable to write his way out of wet paper bag; while Verne accused Wells of scientifically implausable ideas. It's interesting to see this conflict continue in SF up to the present day).

Part of that conflict is an over-rationalizing. Now, playing with the actual science is part of the game in "Hard" SF, but the attempt to rationalize is out of place (and poorly executed as well) in other dramas. TOS; "There's an energy barrier at the edge of the universe." The ship hits it, takes damage, and Gary Mitchell gains pychic powers. Exposition out of the way and on with the story, which was about Mitchell and Denner's struggle to retain their humanity against the godlike power that had been thrust upon them. TNG; "We've struck a string fragment that depolarized the ion emmiters. The warp core is too unstable to allow us to escape the worm hole, but we might be able to creep out on impulse if we use the deflector array to saturate subspace with polaron particles...." Aka, total bafflegab, a substitute of meaningless buzzwords for meaningful story, and no more "scientific" then the TOS version, despite the occaisional scientific term (used incorrectly more often then not). The drama is lost in the shuffle and ignored in the self-congradulatory glow of "being about real science." Same oddness in the comic books, of all places; of fans trying to nail down exactly how Superman flies, a trend that has given us "organic" web shooters as they are somehow "more realistic," a trend that substitutes one buzz-word ("gamma radiation") for something more current but no more meaningful ("nanotechnology"). These sorts of changes have the shallow sensibility of Verne's giant cannon over Well's Cavorite; we've heard of cannon, on the surface it sounds more plausible. If you actually look at it, though, the cannon would crush the crew and fly apart -- we're talking a velocity quite a bit higher than cannon are capable of.

Speaking of the air car, it's one of those ideas that sounds cool in concept - but is probably a bad idea in execution. There are people who don't properly maintain regular cars, let alone abide by some simple traffic rules. (Just how difficult is it to properly use a turn signal or turn on the lights when needed?) Sheesh, I'd hate to see what they would do with flying cars. LOL.

Also isn't it funny that robots were predicted as being everywhere and computers portrayed as specialty items? Now it is quite the opposite, and robots still have a way to go in catching up with predictions.

Message edited on: 11/25/2004 21:03

get your Cavorite paint here.. cheapest prices... always loved the idea of that stuff.. a material that can shield gravity like lead does for radiation...

the transporter..of course, the first version I remember was 'the Fly'..the first transporter malfunction..;)
The real reason Roddenberry came up with the transporter was to speed up the action (no long shots of spaceships landing, or shuttles..how far we've come..;)
On the shows, I think the operative word for the scientific displays was 'technobabble'..;)
As for flying cars, think about it..do you want the idiots in front of you on the freeway flying over your house?..;) Mainly keeping something in the air takes too much energy to be practical..at least as far as hoverin'..;)

It's interesting to note that the Wright brothers were convinced that within a few years of Kitty Hawk, the "aeroplane" would become a common means of private transportation. Everybody would have one.

I never was a TNG fan. I objected to the political correctness most of all: but I also found the techno-babble to be extremely irritating. The term "tachyon" was so over-used.........

Voyager made me ill. I only made it part way through the first episode. ((All of the aliens on the other side of the galaxy speaking perfect American-style English? Sure.)) But, once again, the primary offense for me lay in the infestation of PC-ism's throughout the series. Worthless junk.

Classic Trek was a Western in space. That's what made it work, junk science or not -- the stories.

Nowadays, everything has to be painfully PC. And the accompanying techno-babble is just an additional negative ingredient added into the mix.

No wonder the ratings keep getting lower.

I was just thinking what a dangerous world it would be, if you put the cell phone from the future, in the car from the future.

Reminds me of Stephen Fry telling a story about Alexander Bell. He apparently said "I hope I'm not being immodest to suggest that one day, I believe, there will be a telephone in every town".

Heh. SF writer Larry Niven had one of his characters react in shock and awe to the modern freeway. Unlike his time, with computer management and automated roadways, the driver of today navigated their hurtling machine by "muscle power and guesswork."