Technology in 2020

[ph4zr]

First impression: Talk about a house of glass! ... For a second, I almost thought it was going to turn out that her clothes were made of it. (I should lay off the ecchi...)

[5]hoverboard or airtreks from airgear that can go up to 40kph atleast

Because everybody wants to stand on a board going 40km/h... And going in a straight line, seeing as attempting to turn on a hoverboard would make you smash your head into the ground.
Or going 40km/h on rollerskates which, if they hit a rock or edge, would also make you smash your head into the ground. Double thumbs up from me!

I see no reason you would fall on your face into the ground turning on a hoverboard any more than you would smash your head than into the side window turning in a car or fall off of a motorcycle doing the same. You adjust the sharpness of your turn based on your speed, and for something like a hoverboard or motorcycle you would lean into the curve, counteracting the so called "centrifugal force" by means of gravity. The drag might make it hard to stay on, though, since you don't have some kind of anchor like you would for a motorcycle. It never seems to stop people standing on plane wings or train cars, though, so meh.* Er, but that's not why I wanted to reply.
*I find it rather unlikely anyone could keep their balance on a train moving that fast, but I've never been there, so who knows. Standing on a plane wing is just plain silly, though.

The question that's bugging me, and I mean -really- bugging me, is... where the HECK are they going to dig up that much SAND?! ... XD

(click to show/hide)

Seriously, though... As far as the feasibility goes, I don't know if I see the technology for 2020, at least not to that extent, but talk of embedded displays in flexible, glass like material has been around for awhile. Really, really strong/durable glass isn't a new idea, either. It's horrible of me to say this without citing sources, but I remember reading articles about displays that could be flexed like a sheet of paper, with the potential intent being to use them as animated labels for grocery products (or some such rather silly "practical"* purpose). "Glass is fragile" as a stereotype just doesn't apply in a lot of cases. If all glass were so fragile that someone could just smack it and make it shatter, we wouldn't be using it like we are now.
* *scoffs* Imagine, using technology to do something practical. The fools! /jest

What I -don't- see happening is it becoming mainstream anytime soon after its introduction. I have to think that, with the price of screens still making it fairly impractical for the everyday user to line a wall with them, integrating display enabled glass at that level is simply not going to be affordable for quite awhile. A world of glass seems about as "near future" to me as Academy City. Heck, the latter even seems more plausible to me (sans magicians+espers, of course).

(click to show/hide)

As for the robots a previous post mentioned, sadly I somehow see adult service bots becoming a reality before androids of that level. Whether or not we end up continuing down the road of human-like robots, it seems like it'd be easier to implement that than a robot capable of understanding human speech at the level that it could carry out more than the most basic of commands with any accuracy.* Maybe a basic command set, though. Voice recognition is apparently pretty decent, after all.

*Which would probably require a level of intelligence above and beyond that of an average human. -sighs sadly-
**C'mon, what's with all the bobbing up and down while walking? Why not maintain a constant elevation with rollers?

But I still don't think human-like robots are particularly practical. Flying or rolling around seem easier than walking, as well as most likely being more energy efficient.** And the human hand, as amazing as it is, could probably be improved upon for additional flexibility and/or durability. I'm thinking more R2-D2 than C3PO, as far as practical robots goes. Or Johnny, Johnny was pretty nifty.

Cyborgs sounds cool, though. Issues with magnetoflac* aside, I'd love an external computation processor** or enhanced skeleton, among other things.

*Orhwhatevertheheckitwascalled.
**Redundant?

Disclaimer: I know absolutely zero about technology or the relevant science.

Pre-edit: Can I "inb4 wall-of-text" my own post?

Edit: Grr... If I'm going to end up the top post of a new page*, I might as well go all out.
*It always happens.

With regard to the electric cars and adding in the infrastructure for powering them, the answer is obvious: flying cars and microwave radiation!
... It doesn't matter if the driver gets a little sunburnt, it's the proof of concept that's important, right? XD

[Freedom Kira]

Flying cars are even less feasible than city-wide induction-powered vehicles. For one, the amount of energy needed to keep them above the ground is huge. Then add in the costs of accidents (instead of just sliding a few meters when you crash, you fall a few meters - ouch), cost of training, time required to train drivers, etc. and you're in for one heck of a ride. Not to mention that all aircraft using the airspace require clearance for a reason. And notice how there are no power lines near airstrips? I think you can figure that one out too. The convenience gain is pretty much zero (or even negative) - not to mention driving becomes way more difficult and stressful. It'd just be cool - that's pretty much it. And even that would die down after a while as it becomes the norm.

Microwaves would be an interesting way to transmit energy, but it needs far more research than what has been done already. Also keep in mind that they can be blocked easily. The ideal EMR to transmit energy would be stuff that goes through the occasional obstacle (i.e. human) so anything X-ray and up. Unfortunately, those rays are rather harmful to human health. If you don't mind being baked, you could have the road emit microwaves, but that has the same implementation problems as induction power, which doesn't bake you.

You don't need to know a ton about the technology - you just need to understand the basic idea of how it works, and think realistically.

[ph4zr]

see original post above

Er... the flying cars thing was actually a joke. As much as I find the mad scientist types amusing in shows, I wouldn't -really- want to microwave the humans inside, so I had thought that last point would indicate the tone.

Granted, it's pretty hard to tell when I'm joking and when I'm serious, so I can't say I blame you for thinking I meant that part.

I guess replying seriously, though... Movies aren't the best source for information, but I watched one about a person doing air traffic control once, which is nowhere near the level of traffic we would see if every car became a flying car... so yes, I can see the logistics + safety issues being an utter nightmare. Not too familiar with the science of aircrafts. I presume the power lines bit has to do a lot with the interference it would generate with either the navigational systems, communications systems, and/or other electronic, magnetic, or radio devices.

(click to show/hide)

As for why I brought them up: the flying cars wouldn't use the existing roads, so the inductions systems wouldn't have to be built beneath (or near) them, which would necessitate digging the roads up. Rather, any power system could be built from the ground up with flying cars in mind. Re-using existing infrastructure may be useful at times (why re-invent the wheel?), but at some point starting over leads to a much better design (square peg, round hole).

(click to show/hide)

The microwave bit was also a joke. Part of the joke was that, even if the technology was there, it's likely far too dangerous to use anywhere near biological entities. Even -with- some pinpoint accuracy targeting system, it's just too easy for something to go wrong. It could be a glitch, bad programming, human error, human malicious intent (think virus, disgruntled employee), anything. The other part was that such short, high-energy waves probably don't propagate very well over long distances. I don't really remember my physics very well, though, so I could have it backward. IIRC, though, longer wavelengths tend to deal better with long distances.

(click to show/hide)

I know that's not what you actually said, mind, but I'm not so sure about the induction bit being entirely "safe". Whether it's a coincidence or an actual causative relationship, I don't know, but it seems that the incidence of cancer increases somewhat for those that live near high voltage power lines*. Again, I don't remember my physics, but I would assume an inductor of the type necessary to mass power vehicles would involve high voltages somewhere along the lines, to keep down the energy loss from transporting the required energy over such long distances. I presume such a system would have some centralized source of power, after all. Otherwise why bother powering them on the road rather than individually, thereby allowing them to -leave- the road for some non-negligible length of time?

Edit: * Feel free to call me on not citing this source. For the life of me I don't know where I heard it, it's just something I thought I heard or read about at some point.

I'm probably confusing inductors with something else, though. It's been a few years since I last had a physics class, and it was just the typical introductory stuff that virtually every first year college student takes. But I guess cancer is rather pointless thing to discuss, anyway, since it seems like everything these days "causes" cancer according to some group or other. Without doing multiple "unethical" studies there's no way to rule out all the confounds necessary to conclusively indicate a causative relationship, which I'm sure is a key point for any big business fending off related lawsuits.

(click to show/hide)

I really need to learn to write shorter sentences/paragraphs / use fewer words. And find an alternative to "though".

Seriously... though... ah, I really hadn't put much thought into the flying cars and microwave statement when I made the initial post, as I didn't consider it an actual viable alternative to begin with. I grew up with every other movie I watched seeming to promise flying cars by the year 2000, after all, which led to being rather wary of promises of seemingly "futuristic" technology. Quotes because much of what is possible today probably would have seemed like a dream back then, making the term rather subjective. But, think flying cars, hoverboards, and robot maids/butlers. A machine that makes something almost, but not entirely, unlike tea is a borderline case.

[kitamesume]

the thing that should be invented right now is wireless power transmission with no less than 70% efficiency, for example, using it on an electric car saves you the use of heavy bulky batteries that needs to be recharged frequently, if you use that WPT instead, even if its heavy and bulky, it should atleast make your car 24/7 operational without stops except if you go on places where theres no transmission lines to get energy from =D and one more thing, this could remove those huge ass electric posts you see on streets, its one hell of an improvement over economy, the only things that would use powerlines would be from stations to stations.

you`d want your mobile phone, ipod, laptop and psp to last 24/7 without recharging and plugging it into those power sockets right?  

reread pls =D(as you would know, most cheap power supplys are about 70% efficient in its minimum) as for energy being stolen, the thing you should pay for to is the equipment and the meter attached on it, its a working electric meter, every receiver should have one and if it doesnt, its automatically confiscated. like you mentioned, you just got rid of the wires, the receiving end still has the meter on them  

edit: for illegal power receivers, they could track them by locating the spot where theres a receiver not being monitored, confiscating the unit and jailing them XD

[Sosseres]

edit: for illegal power receivers, they could track them by locating the spot where theres a receiver not being monitored, confiscating the unit and jailing them XD

Would be simpler to make the state take over all electricity and provide it free of charge. Would probably end up around the same costs and wouldn't be an experience in futility.

[Natheria]

edit: for illegal power receivers, they could track them by locating the spot where theres a receiver not being monitored, confiscating the unit and jailing them XD

Would be simpler to make the state take over all electricity and provide it free of charge. Would probably end up around the same costs and wouldn't be an experience in futility.

Government already regulates electricity companies and gives companies franchise rights on market areas. If the government did any more than regulation (full control over electricity companies) they would instantly become shitty due to the bureaucratic shit. Anything government touches withers because if it's one thing the government fails at is actually thinking and functioning like a proper company (because real companies can't just ask for more money when they fuck up).

And yes, wide scale induction for a power grid fails because the magnetic fields required would be far too big (forget messing up HDDs and other small scale things, think more like messing up the earth's magnetic poles).

Within the next few years we're more likely to gravitate toward Ghost in the Shell and less Back to the Future.

[Freedom Kira]

reread pls =D(as you would know, most cheap power supplys are about 70% efficient in its minimum) as for energy being stolen, the thing you should pay for to is the equipment and the meter attached on it, its a working electric meter, every receiver should have one and if it doesnt, its automatically confiscated. like you mentioned, you just got rid of the wires, the receiving end still has the meter on them  

edit: for illegal power receivers, they could track them by locating the spot where theres a receiver not being monitored, confiscating the unit and jailing them XD

I addressed the point of efficiency. Realize that induction power relies on magnetic fields. As the distance from the source of the field increases, the resulting field weakens, and the amount of energy transferred drops. This is physics.

On this metering thing, if it was that simple, don't you think we would be able to stop wireless network hacking by now? The thing about wireless is that you have to broadcast it when you're communicating. You're basically sending your data in all directions, which is why you need encryption. The same idea can be applied to wireless power, except you don't need encryption to protect any sensitive information. You can't exactly encrypt electricity anyway. But because you emit the energy in all directions, you cannot control who receives it, nor can you accurately track the location of an unauthorized receiver, the same way that you can't tell where someone is hacking your network from. At best, it'd become something like illegal downloading - be discreet about the theft and get away with it, or not and be arrested.

(click to show/hide)

Er... the flying cars thing was actually a joke. As much as I find the mad scientist types amusing in shows, I wouldn't -really- want to microwave the humans inside, so I had thought that last point would indicate the tone.

Granted, it's pretty hard to tell when I'm joking and when I'm serious, so I can't say I blame you for thinking I meant that part.

I guess replying seriously, though... Movies aren't the best source for information, but I watched one about a person doing air traffic control once, which is nowhere near the level of traffic we would see if every car became a flying car... so yes, I can see the logistics + safety issues being an utter nightmare. Not too familiar with the science of aircrafts. I presume the power lines bit has to do a lot with the interference it would generate with either the navigational systems, communications systems, and/or other electronic, magnetic, or radio devices.

(click to show/hide)

As for why I brought them up: the flying cars wouldn't use the existing roads, so the inductions systems wouldn't have to be built beneath (or near) them, which would necessitate digging the roads up. Rather, any power system could be built from the ground up with flying cars in mind. Re-using existing infrastructure may be useful at times (why re-invent the wheel?), but at some point starting over leads to a much better design (square peg, round hole).

(click to show/hide)

The microwave bit was also a joke. Part of the joke was that, even if the technology was there, it's likely far too dangerous to use anywhere near biological entities. Even -with- some pinpoint accuracy targeting system, it's just too easy for something to go wrong. It could be a glitch, bad programming, human error, human malicious intent (think virus, disgruntled employee), anything. The other part was that such short, high-energy waves probably don't propagate very well over long distances. I don't really remember my physics very well, though, so I could have it backward. IIRC, though, longer wavelengths tend to deal better with long distances.

(click to show/hide)

I know that's not what you actually said, mind, but I'm not so sure about the induction bit being entirely "safe". Whether it's a coincidence or an actual causative relationship, I don't know, but it seems that the incidence of cancer increases somewhat for those that live near high voltage power lines*. Again, I don't remember my physics, but I would assume an inductor of the type necessary to mass power vehicles would involve high voltages somewhere along the lines, to keep down the energy loss from transporting the required energy over such long distances. I presume such a system would have some centralized source of power, after all. Otherwise why bother powering them on the road rather than individually, thereby allowing them to -leave- the road for some non-negligible length of time?

Edit: * Feel free to call me on not citing this source. For the life of me I don't know where I heard it, it's just something I thought I heard or read about at some point.

I'm probably confusing inductors with something else, though. It's been a few years since I last had a physics class, and it was just the typical introductory stuff that virtually every first year college student takes. But I guess cancer is rather pointless thing to discuss, anyway, since it seems like everything these days "causes" cancer according to some group or other. Without doing multiple "unethical" studies there's no way to rule out all the confounds necessary to conclusively indicate a causative relationship, which I'm sure is a key point for any big business fending off related lawsuits.

(click to show/hide)

I really need to learn to write shorter sentences/paragraphs / use fewer words. And find an alternative to "though".

Seriously... though... ah, I really hadn't put much thought into the flying cars and microwave statement when I made the initial post, as I didn't consider it an actual viable alternative to begin with. I grew up with every other movie I watched seeming to promise flying cars by the year 2000, after all, which led to being rather wary of promises of seemingly "futuristic" technology. Quotes because much of what is possible today probably would have seemed like a dream back then, making the term rather subjective. But, think flying cars, hoverboards, and robot maids/butlers. A machine that makes something almost, but not entirely, unlike tea is a borderline case.

Heh, I had an inkling that you were joking. Microwave energy, however, is real, albeit experimental last I heard. It was supposedly used for beaming energy to an experimental space elevator, a project at our University. I didn't hear anything about the results. Also note that it is not dangerous, since its frequency is lower than that of visible light, meaning the light you see on your monitor is more able to cause skin cancer than microwaves, assuming they are emitted at the same intensity. The problem is the limit of intensity though. The same way that increasing the brightness of your monitor to high enough levels could blind you, microwaves at a high enough intensity can burn people. In the end, though, it's worth a shot.

Anyway, magnetic fields used on a small scale are definitely harmless. The Earth itself has a magnetic field, and a fairly strong one, at that. That's why your compass works. I'm not so sure about magnetic fields that are significantly stronger than the Earth's, though. Might screw with your nervous system, even, if it gets really strong. But heck, by the time we have magnetic fields that strong, we'll have nuclear fusion power.

I remember something about power lines and health as well, but (IIRC) the cause was attributed more to electric fields, not magnetic. Magnetic fields operate differently. And to me, magnetic fields are pretty weird, because magnetic force follows strange rules. Anyway, problems caused by electric fields are largely caused by lines running closer to the ground. As with magnetic fields, the strength of an electric field decreases as you deviate from the source. But we're kinda digressing here.

[Gangster301]

Because everybody wants to stand on a board going 40km/h... And going in a straight line, seeing as attempting to turn on a hoverboard would make you smash your head into the ground.
Or going 40km/h on rollerskates which, if they hit a rock or edge, would also make you smash your head into the ground. Double thumbs up from me!

I see no reason you would fall on your face into the ground turning on a hoverboard any more than you would smash your head than into the side window turning in a car or fall off of a motorcycle doing the same. You adjust the sharpness of your turn based on your speed, and for something like a hoverboard or motorcycle you would lean into the curve, counteracting the so called "centrifugal force" by means of gravity. The drag might make it hard to stay on, though, since you don't have some kind of anchor like you would for a motorcycle. It never seems to stop people standing on plane wings or train cars, though, so meh.* Er, but that's not why I wanted to reply.
*I find it rather unlikely anyone could keep their balance on a train moving that fast, but I've never been there, so who knows. Standing on a plane wing is just plain silly, though.

You can't compare it to a motorcycle. The reason you would fall on your face if you try to turn is because a hoverboard pushes itself off the ground. Which means that it is being held up by the counter force of the force it's releasing, plus the reflected force off the ground. If you turn, you are no longer pushing down, but to the side, which will push you further to the side and turn the board over, making you fall (And smash your head into the ground). Basically, push your finger stright down on a table, then start gradually pushing diagonally. Your finger will slip, if it doesn't it's because of friction. A hoverboard doesn't have that friction, it would get turned over instantly.

[mgz]

i feel like more importantly then that is hoverboard or hover skates/shoes of any sort = forward propulsion from a very small portion of your body and your feet get ripped from under you

[ph4zr]

Re: Hoverboards. Counter the pincer attack!
I probably should have tried multi-quote, but I was lazy. I even took the time to figure out multi-quote!

i feel like more importantly then that is hoverboard or hover skates/shoes of any sort = forward propulsion from a very small portion of your body and your feet get ripped from under you

(click to show/hide)

You can't compare it to a motorcycle. The reason you would fall on your face if you try to turn is because a hoverboard pushes itself off the ground. Which means that it is being held up by the counter force of the force it's releasing, plus the reflected force off the ground. If you turn, you are no longer pushing down, but to the side, which will push you further to the side and turn the board over, making you fall (And smash your head into the ground). Basically, push your finger stright down on a table, then start gradually pushing diagonally. Your finger will slip, if it doesn't it's because of friction. A hoverboard doesn't have that friction, it would get turned over instantly.

On both counts I think that could be avoided by proper design. For the propulsion bit, it's probably not unreasonable to require the user to have some form of attachment to the board, much akin to snowboards. And, much like a snowboard, you don't start going 40kph right off the bat. Rather you accelerate at a sustainable pace until you reach it.

But I'm still not sure why we'd want to go 40kph on a hoverboard. I mean, if we have the technology to make things hover over the ground like that, for high speeds I suspect something a bit... more substantial would be safer, if only to allow for protective measures like windshields for flying rocks... or bugs, weather, et cetera. At low speeds these wouldn't really matter so much. Never mind, 40 kph isn't that fast, after all. I was thinking mph.

For the falling down bit, if they designed a hoverboard that you couldn't turn, they'd fail pretty hard. Likely the board would possess a lower plan for maintaining distance from the ground and a higher plane to allow the user to balance properly by partially rotating around an axis. Turns might be accomplished by projecting a force in the direction opposite the turn, which would cause the rear propulsion to face a different direction. Slowing down forward momentum would probably be handled in part naturally by drag, and in part by the outward force which is also turning with the board.

The main difference I see between the hoverboard and the bike, is that the bike has a solid connection to the ground, whereas the hoverboard doesn't. They still need to provide a supporting force through turns to function properly. And, much like the hoverboard, a motorcycle will fall out from under you if you turn too sharply.*

*Edit: I'm ignoring gyroscopic forces. I don't remember hardly anything about them. Either way, the bike will still fall if you push the turn hard enough.

Controlling the board might be somewhat tricky, but if the side thrusters were controlled by the angle of rotation of the upper plane about the axis, why not? The trick would be adjusting it so that the user doesn't end up throwing themselves off the board due to the rotation+thrust relationship being too skewed. I.e. the thrust results in too sharp a turn for the amount of rotation required to maintain it. Heck, if one set of thrusters was always oriented toward the ground and attached to the rotational axis, you probably wouldn't even need a lower plane to host them, then the side thrusters could be attached to the board itself, rather than having a fixed orientation.

I'm just making stuff up, though. I'm no engineer. XD

Edit: Afterthought (and mph->kph fix in first paragraph): If you really want to go that fast on a hoverboard, it might be worthwhile to shift some of the support to an airfoil type design. You probably couldn't support the full weight of the user with it unless you were going way too fast for safety, but at least it might lessen the strain on the supporting thrusters, and perhaps mitigate some issues that might arise from rough terrain.

[Gangster301]

i feel like more importantly then that is hoverboard or hover skates/shoes of any sort = forward propulsion from a very small portion of your body and your feet get ripped from under you

Yeah, but like ph4zr said, slow acceleration and deceleration would minimize that problem. If you try to do things fast, that will be a problem.

@Ph4zr Still, the main problem with the hoverboard(Other than making one) is the complete lack of friction. You have zero grip. And the thrusters would have to be extremely accurate in both power and timing to work properly.

[ph4zr]

@Ph4zr Still, the main problem with the hoverboard(Other than making one) is the complete lack of friction. You have zero grip. And the thrusters would have to be extremely accurate in both power and timing to work properly.

And that, my dear friend,* is why scientists have their slaves comrades the engineers to actually make the stuff work for them.
*Not trying to be assuming or friendly, I just like the phrase structure.

Edit: Nitpick: "ph4zr", all lowercase. :'(

Edit: Amusement note: Isn't a frictionless* environment every scientist's wet dream, though? Besides, planes and boats have similar issues, since air and water don't provide the same interactive surface as solid ground. Ice skating or hydroplaning, too, try to avoid too much contact with the surface, don't they? I'd consider any grip with the ground to be a liability for a hoverboard, due to the already delicate operation of maintaining distance from the ground and micromanaging forces to maintain balance and direction. If it were possible for an unaccounted for variation in the ground to throw things off, like, say, a pebble or rut in the ground, you could be royally flipped.

*Yeah, yeah, drag from air. Details!

[xShadow]

@Ph4zr Still, the main problem with the hoverboard(Other than making one) is the complete lack of friction. You have zero grip. And the thrusters would have to be extremely accurate in both power and timing to work properly.

And that, my dear friend,* is why scientists have their slaves comrades the engineers to actually make the stuff work for them.
*Not trying to be assuming or friendly, I just like the phrase structure.

Edit: Nitpick: "ph4zr", all lowercase. :'(

Edit: Amusement note: Isn't a frictionless* environment every scientist's wet dream, though? Besides, planes and boats have similar issues, since air and water don't provide the same interactive surface as solid ground. Ice skating or hydroplaning, too, try to avoid too much contact with the surface, don't they? I'd consider any grip with the ground to be a liability for a hoverboard, due to the already delicate operation of maintaining distance from the ground and micromanaging forces to maintain balance and direction. If it were possible for an unaccounted for variation in the ground to throw things off, like, say, a pebble or rut in the ground, you could be royally flipped.

*Yeah, yeah, drag from air. Details!

Those are bad comparisons. If anything, it would be exactly like snowboarding, except much harder to get a "feel" for. People that are snowboarding probably go at pretty high speeds too. Planes use aerodynamics to their advantage in staying in the air, and water has plenty of resistance. This is purely speculative (this subject isn't quite within my major), but I would think that both planes and boats actually make use of fluid dynamics in a similar way. The boat is simply passing through such a different medium that they have to be designed differently.

The main problem is that the hoverboard has to simulate actions that a snowboard can do. Since it's in the air, slowing down or coming to a complete stop like a snowboard does has to be handled much more carefully. Since you don't even know the shape of the fatass riding on top of the thing, specific calculations for aerodynamics would be difficult, etc. etc.

Now, if you made hoverboards roughly twice the square footage of a snowboard, with four separate air propulsion areas, things could get easier... but then the design itself gets more complicated, and the costs skyrocket. You'd be better off making the actual PERSON fucking fly. The board is pointless. If you have that kind of technology, the Iron Man-esque (as seen in the movie) devices he uses to fly would probably actually be more intuitive. If you're about to fall, put your hands out. At worst, you can go through the air on all fours.

... And by the way, if the scientists enslaved us engineers, we could build a few weapons to get us out of that jam. >_>

As for the frictionless environment... it would minimize energy loss, yeah... but that's not really useful for safe transportation purposes. Maybe trying to create perpetual machines and whatnot, but not for transportation.

Just my 2 cents on that topic.

[ph4zr]

Words that you can read in the previous post

-shrug- I won't argue beyond that point. Anything more and I'd just be putting my ignorance even more on display. XD

BUT! Would the failure of hoverboards as a technology, leading to the invention of flying suits, really be such a bad thing? -grins- Failure can be just as useful as success. After all, if you fail 1001 times, you have gained knowledge of 1001 things that do not work to solve your problem! ...and hopefully a bit more than that telling you -why- those 1001 ways didn't work, what they had in common, or what they didn't, et cetera, et cetera, and so on, ad infinitum.

As for scientists and engineers: And that would merely be one facet of the Great Mad Scientists' Legion's master plan, involving the escape of the engineers and the necessitated invention of the gadgets with which they escaped, creating even more technology for them to play with in their many mad scientific experiments.

It's really all one big experiment, you see. This so called "God" some people believe in is really just a science major.
/jest, no ill intent to religious individuals intended

[kamuixtv99]

A few problems with that sentiment:

1. Wireless electricity can (or rather, would) be easily stolen. Thus, electricity would have to be more freely available than it is today.

Don't we hate it when you need to pay for electricity in the late 20th century? Nikola Tesla (Edison Thompson's assistant and pioneered AC(alternating current) power) wanted electricity for free and you can also create on your own. But that didn't happen, our world is now run purely by money. Watch the "The Prestige" wireless electricity was demonstrated as early as 1930's.

[Gangster301]

A few problems with that sentiment:

1. Wireless electricity can (or rather, would) be easily stolen. Thus, electricity would have to be more freely available than it is today.

Don't we hate it when you need to pay for electricity in the late 20th century? Nikola Tesla (Edison Thompson's assistant and pioneered AC(alternating current) power) wanted electricity for free and you can also create on your own. But that didn't happen, our world is now run purely by money. Watch the "The Prestige" wireless electricity was demonstrated as early as 1930's.

You there's such a thing as a residential wind turbine, right? You can buy your own win turbine which will generate electricity for your home.

[kitamesume]

yes buying your own nuclear powerplant will do you good too, but he wanted it free =P hence it beats all reasons of alternate solutions  

   "Free" is god 

[kamuixtv99]

A few problems with that sentiment:

1. Wireless electricity can (or rather, would) be easily stolen. Thus, electricity would have to be more freely available than it is today.

Don't we hate it when you need to pay for electricity in the late 20th century? Nikola Tesla (Edison Thompson's assistant and pioneered AC(alternating current) power) wanted electricity for free and you can also create on your own. But that didn't happen, our world is now run purely by money. Watch the "The Prestige" wireless electricity was demonstrated as early as 1930's.

You there's such a thing as a residential wind turbine, right? You can buy your own win turbine which will generate electricity for your home.

Yeah but it's not applicable to anyone, Australia promotes solar energy but not all Australians can afford it. Some Japanese can afford residential wind and solar panels.