Is this the year we make contact?

  • silverfox

    Posts: 3178

    Jan 03, 2010 4:54 AM GMT
    Screenshot2010-01-02at113409PM.png


    Once upon a time.....this time seemed so far, far, away......


    Is this the year we make contact?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2010 5:00 AM GMT
    I don't care about making contact. I just want my hovercars, damn it! icon_lol.gif

    jetsons.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2010 6:35 AM GMT
    We already have flying devices that travel through time....we call them airplanes. icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2010 7:46 AM GMT
    i thought this thread was referring to an RJ meeting. :p
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2010 2:13 PM GMT
    xrichx saidI don't care about making contact. I just want my hovercars, damn it! icon_lol.gif

    jetsons.jpg

    Exactly! This is 2010, damn it, and when I was a kid in the 1950s we were told we'd be living on the Moon and Mars by now, experiencing the Jetson's life in your picture. I'm still riding around in a car with 4 rubber tires, just like my grandparents did before World War I.

    I see not a lot different happening during my lifetime. Indeed, I did a college lecture on this subject in 2002, my thesis being that the most recent 50 years have seen fewer advances than the previous 50 years before them.

    Yes, FEWER, despite notebook computers and iPods, video games and roller blades. What we're getting are refinements, but not breakthrough technology, that marked the first 50 years of the 20th Century.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2010 2:57 PM GMT
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/article575370.ece
    that article was interesting on why we are not advancing as we thought we would 50 years ago. It is a little doomy though. It has a interesting analogy on why we haven't though. Humanity has picked all the easy discoveries first like picking from a apple tree. Then we need more specialization and it just gets harder to discover new things.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2010 3:15 PM GMT
    chris8787 saidhttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/article575370.ece
    that article was interesting on why we are not advancing as we thought we would 50 years ago. It is a little doomy though. It has a interesting analogy on why we haven't though. Humanity has picked all the easy discoveries first like picking from a apple tree. Then we need more specialization and it just gets harder to discover new things.

    Well, a rather challenging article to read, packed too full of subsidiary issues like capitalism, environmentalism, torture at Abu Ghraib... it just goes on & on. Does nobody know how to stay on topic?

    But I still contend the slowdown in fundamental new technology is something very real. Has the human race reached a technological ceiling? Should we all all be singing "Curly's" lyrics from the musical "Oklahoma"?

    I went to Kansas City on a Friday
    By Saturday I learned a thing or two
    But up 'till then I didn't have an idea
    Of what the mod'rn world was comin' to.
    I counted twenty gas buggies goin' by theirselves
    Almost every time I took a walk
    An' then I put my ear to a bell telephone
    An' a strange woman started into talk.
    What next! What next?

    Everything's up to date in Kansas City
    They gone about as fer as they can go
    They went an' built a skyscraper seven stories high
    About as high as a buildin' orta grow.
    Everything's like a dream in Kansas City
    It's better than a magic lantern show.
    You can turn the radiator on whenever you want some heat
    With every kind of comfort every house is all complete.
    You could walk the privees in the rain and never wet your feet!
    They've gone about as fer as they can go.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 03, 2010 4:06 PM GMT
    I recently watched "2010" to see if it was still dumb. Yep, it is one of the worst movies ever made; a sacrilege built upon one of the great works of art produced in the 20th century. The plot (a very liberal description) actually revolves around a war with the CCCP! Special effects that were so prescient in 2001 (like the soon-to-be Apple-tablet-style device that Poole and Bowman use to watch the news) and the pervasive use of flat screen monitors) are actually abandoned in the sequel 2010 for some of the crappiest props of all time. Entire visual scenarios are lifted, really badly, from the Nostromo in Ridley Scott's "Alien".

    Ugh, it is just endlessly bad. Bob Balaban is great though. John Lithgow, poor guy, he was better in "Buckaroo Banzai".

    That said, some thoughts about the actual question. The Times of London (a Rupert Murdoch property) is wrong AGAIN.

    There is a very often a significant lag time between discovery in the laboratory and the commercialization of an actual product. The last 60 years have seen so much discovery that they amount too a second Renaissance. (This is likewise true in the arts and culture where the last 110 years stand apart from all of preceding history.)

    It is a patent absurdity to describe the recent past as the collection of low-hanging fruit. Um, we actually have several companies in several countries that are seriously pursuing the commercialization of space travel.

    The biggest advances have been in biotech and nanotechnology. Molecular circuits, described in "Star Trek the Motion Picture" as coming from an intelligence that the denizens of the 24th century consider radically advanced, are up and running. Moore's law was supposed to peter-out by now, but it hasn't and likely won't.

    Enough progress has been made in stem-cell research and genetics in general that there are no legitimate concerns (I don't mean the right-wing one's either) about the power of the technology.

    Here is what amazes me. There was a time when people like Stanley Kubrick, Michael Chrichton, and Douglas Trumball actually hired scientific advisors to help them explore the outer reaches of the future. They wanted to know that the product that they were putting out was truly provocative, innovative, and as accurate as it could be imagined.

    Most (not all) actual films these days haven't caught up with present reality, much less taken a truly serious look at the future. How many film plots do you see that actually account for the pervasive impact of something as ubiquitous as the cellular telephone? Many do, yes, but many still don't.

    If Stanley the K were alive today I'd like to think he'd still be exploring the outer limits of technology AND storytelling.