Time Travel discussion

Thought I start a thread on current newsworthy technological breakthroughs/progress that in the past we've only classed as Science Fiction.

Well I'll start of with this. Android in Space!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-...


I want one! You cant beat the Japanese for cuteness. I love robots, I have a few in my house, from R2D2 (moody fella at times, bit of an attention seeker) to Buzz Lightyear (ridiculously upbeat when he doesnt realise he is a toy), they are so cool.

I approve this thread. :P

Oooh, I LIKE! Now I must Google search...

When I first read your post Tej I thought for sure you were referring to Robonaut 2

http://robonaut.jsc.nasa.gov/default.asp

Makes me laugh that because the robot you mentioned can "speak" they make it sound like its a robotics breakthrough.

Lincoln wrote: "When I first read your post Tej I thought for sure you were referring to Robonaut 2

http://robonaut.jsc.nasa.gov/default.asp

Makes me laugh that because the robot you mentioned can "speak" they ..."

Yeah, the Japanese have been so far ahead in the robotic world, their robots are nimble, charming, can play football (have you seen that? they're awesome), can actually do something useful (albeit with limits), have cute accents (particularly the females)...and are really going into Space! Compare to Robonaut...no contest!

Robbie from Forbidden Planet, Robot B9 from Lost in Space and the 3 robots in Silent Running, no longer fiction :)

AI still has a long way to go though.

The time is right to get your very own jet pack (which will hopefully work better than the Chitty Bang Bang one): http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsi...

Ooo it would be so cool to have a jetpack but man, that thing is nearly as big as the helicopter! Sure wouldnt call that a pack size. But it is still cool and it actually has the look of the jetpack James Bond used in Thunderball albeit 10 times bigger.

Imagine one day going to work via jetpacks (albeit with an rapid rate of jetpack crashes).

I think the coolest recent Jetpack scene for me was in Kickass but hey Amy, I dont recall a jetpack in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang??

Tej wrote: "Ooo it would be so cool to have a jetpack but man, that thing is nearly as big as the helicopter! Sure wouldnt call that a pack size. But it is still cool and it actually has the look of the jetp..."

Definitely a jet pack in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang! That's the type of movie we get to watch around here these days. Saw it last week. :p

Seems like an awfully expensive way of getting one person from A to B

Frances, doesen't your headgear provide the same service?

Ooh, I so want a Kirobo now.

Here's a list of "Isaac Asimov's Predictions 50 Years On". It makes me wonder what he would have predicted for the year 2064 knowing what technology exists now:
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27...

Amy #12:

Amy, I heard Nostrodamus said the same things, only in an ole timey kind of way.

Oh wait, maybe that was me.

Here's something "futuristic" (it's about time):

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sci...

I've got a stash of old magazines called Modern Wonder from 1938 and 1939 that I was given when I was about ten. In one of them, life in 1968 is imagined. It's decades since I looked at them, but I recall that one of them predicted a trip to Mars just being a matter of some kind of teleportation. I think the difference is that these were journalists selling to wide-eyed boys, whereas Asimov was a scientist and futurologist.

Mark wrote: "I think the difference is that these were journalists selling to wide-eyed boys, whereas Asimov was a scientist and futurologist. ..."

Yes, exactly. Who's today's Asimov capable of making such accurate predictions? There are plenty of predictions out there, but Asimov had a sort of level-headedness when it came to his predictions. They're not too grandiose because they often guess the possible shortcomings.

Robert wrote: "Here's something "futuristic" (it's about time): ..."

I've really been following genetic advances lately. They're both exciting and scary. I predict that it will be the next big religious debate we'll see in the future (is it right to genetically change god's creation, etc.?) Scientists have learned that it's possible to suppress the expression of the extra chromosome in Downs Syndrome. When they start doing human testing, it's going to have huge repercussions. On an even larger scale, have you seen that scientists have created a prokaryote (non-bacteria life form) for the first time? Yeast. That's big. What worries me is that they're removing the "junk DNA" (which scientists change their minds about every year) and coding for new super characteristics. That has the potential for something wonderful as well as something straight out of sci-fi horror. I wonder if they'll try creating a plant or an animal first when yeast gets boring. Anyhow, the article is here: http://www.livescience.com/44404-firs...

Amy wrote: "Mark wrote: "I think the difference is that these were journalists selling to wide-eyed boys, whereas Asimov was a scientist and futurologist. ..."

Yes, exactly. Who's today's Asimov capable of ma..."

"But humans have been engineering plants and animals for a long time, spanning from selective breeding to transgenic species, he added." I used to buy into that, as someone who works in the Pharma industry. I no longer do. When we bred hundreds of species of dogs from wolves we didn't go in an manipulate the actual genes. The overwhelming majority of scientists are responsible people who understand the enormity of their responsibility. Give this kind of technology to an extremist or fanatic - religious, political, whatever - and they will run away with it. I can't remember which sci-fi author did it, but it was around 1980 that he wrote a novel about a geneticist who created a virus that killed only women because he was that pissed off. You give this technological capability to some nut who wants to bring about the End Times and you have something far more devastating than a nuclear weapon to deal with.

On the plus side - it's amazing, and could make the lives of millions of people so much better. There was a great article in the FT colour supplement the other weekend about the fact that helping a single disabled person can lift an entire family out of poverty.

The fun fiction is in the bad guys!

Mark wrote: "On the plus side - it's amazing, and could make the lives of millions of people so much better. There was a great article in the FT colour supplement the other weekend about the fact that helping a single disabled person can lift an entire family out of poverty...."

Absolutely. It's far different than selective breeding. The progressive side of it is exciting. Unfortunately, as you mentioned, there's bound to be that rogue genetic engineer that gets into it for evil rather than good.

I love what you say about how this has the potential to lift families out of poverty. I'd not thought of that side of it. Family members who have been tied to home as caretakers can seek employment, people who have had to rely on disability checks can work, the barrage of never-ending medical bills cease. Additionally, the stresses of never ending caretaking would be lifted which would have the potential to positively affect the caretakers' mental and physical health.

Amy wrote: "Mark wrote: "I think the difference is that these were journalists selling to wide-eyed boys, whereas Asimov was a scientist and futurologist. ..."

Yes, exactly. Who's today's Asimov capable of ma..."

It's a miracle that we all are not suffering from cancer. There's a gene called the guardian angel gene that prevents cancerous mutations. It's when this guard fails that gene correction is an obvious benefit. It is the quest of most cancer research. But, yes, it can lead to abuse. Society has to define that term.

The May 2014 edition of Smithsonian Magazine is all about 'Seeing Into The Future' with articles on how Science Fiction authors are shaping it & how, in terms of new developments, the Future is already here, etc.

It mentions Asimov's predictions, too.

The 'Phenomenon' section states 'Life must be understood backwards. But it must be lived forwards.'

Sounds exactly like my new book.

Just saying

Found this today (related): "The World of Tomorrow"

http://life.time.com/culture/1939-new...