Sulphur on 3/10/2010 at 21:18
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
But then this is just it; I can't see an easy way past the current methods. In 50 years there is bound to be something that supercedes it.
In 50 years' time, people will just jack directly into the chips in your brain and you'll hear their voices in your head.
Kinda like how it happens today just before people throw themselves off a bridge or a building, but with an added technological assist.
Bluegrime on 3/10/2010 at 21:40
Quote Posted by Assidragon
Sure enough, big alliances worked in favour of making wars larger a while ago. Like, until MAD kicked in. Now, with everyone and their pet dogs having nukes, they seem to make the world a bit safer, as noone wants to die a fiery/radioactive death afterall. Well, not until some lunatic presses the red button and we all die anyway.
I believe they still do work towards larger scale destruction, though. Any alliance involving the USA, Russian Federation, Chinese and (possibly) the Isreali's is going to mean a potentially world ending war.
But a nuclear exchange between the smaller powers wouldn't spell the end of it all by any means. If India drops the bomb on Pakistan it isn't going to make the US and Russia immediately turn the planet into an atomic fireball. Will it be devastating? Yes. Does anyone outside of the four countries I named have anything approaching the stockpile to destroy a single country much less the world? No. The possibility of a cold war style "fuck it lets kill everything" nuclear war dosen't come into play until you tangle in potentially hostile/vulnerable nations (and smaller nuclear powers) with the big boys on the block. In a worst case scenario this would lead into non-belligerent nations being forced into action by their alliances and treaties, leading into something like World War I with a fast forward button.
Just my 2 cents though.
Assidragon on 3/10/2010 at 22:03
Quote Posted by Bluegrime
I believe they still do work towards larger scale destruction, though. Any alliance involving the USA, Russian Federation, Chinese and (possibly) the Isreali's is going to mean a potentially world ending war.
History has proven it didn't. During the Cold War there were a lot of close situations (Cuban missile crisis, for one) but in the end noone dared to risk going all-out nuclear. The alliances' of both side had enough nuclear power to utterly annihilate the planet multiple times, making both sides certain that whoever shoots first doesn't matter - everyone dies in the end.
Nowdays... most nations are so economically dependent on each other that I could safely rule out going to war with each other.
Quote Posted by Bluegrime
But a nuclear exchange between the smaller powers wouldn't spell the end of it all by any means. If India drops the bomb on Pakistan it isn't going to make the US and Russia immediately turn the planet into an atomic fireball. Will it be devastating? Yes. Does anyone outside of the four countries I named have anything approaching the stockpile to destroy a single country much less the world? No. The possibility of a cold war style "fuck it lets kill everything" nuclear war dosen't come into play until you tangle in potentially hostile/vulnerable nations (and smaller nuclear powers) with the big boys on the block. In a worst case scenario this would lead into non-belligerent nations being forced into action by their alliances and treaties, leading into something like World War I with a fast forward button.
Just my 2 cents though.
I doubt that would be enough. Say Israel gets nuked, and it nukes entire Middle East in return. Would the US/NATO suddenly start firing nukes all over the place? Doubtful. Again, the concept of MAD at work - unless someone decided to nuke a european or american target, I see zero chance of them going nuclear on anyone. Because until that happens, it's someone else's problem. Oh, conventional war would most likely erupt - but it'd be again a proxy war, some remote african/middle eastern country getting bombed to the stone age, caught in a war between other countries. Not world war, though.
Renzatic on 3/10/2010 at 22:05
Quote Posted by Sulphur
In 50 years' time, people will just jack directly into the chips in your brain and you'll hear their voices in your head.
Kinda like how it happens today just before people throw themselves off a bridge or a building, but with an added technological assist.
Or even worse, when companies use this brain chip to send advertisement directly to your visual cortex. Imagine the irony of getting mauled up in a car crash because of an insurance popup blocking the view of the road in front of you. Or plowing through a bunch of kids on a crosswalk because your email display was taking up the visual space usually reserved for your right eye.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is the future.
And still no moon cars.
Sulphur on 3/10/2010 at 22:08
That's almost exactly what I pictured when I saw that virtual HUD on the car windshield that SE linked to. We're almost there already!
But I do still want a flying DeLorean, god damn it.
Renzatic on 3/10/2010 at 22:14
The first thing I thought when I saw the windshield HUD was "hey, that's neat". The second, "like we need yet more ways to distract people while they're driving". By itself, the HUD is a fairly decent idea. But it's only a matter of time before some dipship thinks putting up his twitter stream on the passenger side of the windshield is the best idea in the history of the world.
Assidragon on 3/10/2010 at 22:15
Quote Posted by Renzatic
Or plowing through a bunch of kids on a crosswalk because you talking on your phone was taking up all your attention.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is the present.
fix'd that for you
Also:
Quote:
Imagine the irony of getting mauled up in a car crash because of an insurance popup blocking the view of the road in front of you.
I don't know for outside europe, but most EU countries have laws about car safety. You might notice that all the HUD elements in all designs are on the very bottom/side of the windshield, and also that all stickers (like ones for motorways etc) are always required to be on the very side too. That's because laws require that the central part of the windshield
must be free of any obstruction, be it displayed or physical. I'd imagine that if HUDs become common, they'll be unable to project anything on that area.
Quote Posted by Renzatic
But it's only a matter of time before some dipship thinks putting up his twitter stream on the passenger side of the windshield is the best idea in the history of the world.
Shouldn't that be already possible? All you need is a smartphone. As the display is reflected by the windshield, you can project anything fairly easily - it'll be blurry unless you put something relflective there (like tint), but it works. There are iPhone apps that work as car HUDs. So I don't think projecting twitter there would be impossible, maintaining a stable connection in a moving car nonwithstanding. Of course the police don't look too kindly on those kind of things here.
Renzatic on 3/10/2010 at 22:32
Quote Posted by Assidragon
fix'd that for you
No fixing necessary, I was playing off that. The future only gives us slightly different, more efficient ways of doing the exact same things. Having the same info displayed on your windshield, or, god forbid, directly into your brain that you usually get on a 3 inch screen will only serve to be fancier, more consuming ways to deliver distractions.
Not that I'm totally against cell phones or any near future means of conveying information. It's when people decide to use them that I have issues with.
Tocky on 4/10/2010 at 01:25
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Voice activated texting
I spit my cherios when I read this. You know they have this device that takes sound waves and sends them through a satellite connection where they are emitted again and decoded by your brain right? If you have the ear piece right next to your ear nobody can hear and decifer what is being said too. It's like you are having an actual conversation and you don't even have to read or type. It's true you couldn't get away with it in class and as such you might actually have to learn something besides what toilet paper Justin Beiber wipes with but everything has it's drawbacks.
SubJeff on 4/10/2010 at 02:38
You know you just messed up, right?
