The Computer Revolution

[Integral]

The first section of the book Visions concerns how and where solid state technology is going to evolve. MK makes several short term predictions for 2005. I believe was that by 2005 30% of computers would be using flat panel technology. Can anyone verify this prediction? How did he do?

He makes other long term projections. Perhaps this thread can developer into a conversation about those predictions.

[selfAdjoint]

Good idea. I don't have Visions, maybe some of our good posters can help?

[Ivan Seeking]

Here is a start. By this it appears to be close.

Trendy Flat PC Monitors

Similarly, the spanking-new flat-panel computer monitors are quietly supplanting the older, bulky CRT monitors in American homes. In a study published in June, CEA found that flat-panel monitors have found their way into 21 percent of U.S. households with computers, up from 16 percent last year. Due to such rapid growth, CEA estimates that more than 26 million flat-panel PC monitors are now installed in homes around the country. [conitiued]
http://www.ce.org/publications/vision/2004/novdec/p10.asp?bc=dept&department_id=14

Funny note: The web site is called "Visions". :biggrin:

[Integral]

MK's specific predictions were:

"Flat panels out sale CRT in 2000"

In 03 LCD business is worth $19Billion, Plasma Screens $5Billion.


I think he fell short on all of these. Some of this may be 911 backlash.

[Ivan Seeking]

Looking back at 2003, CEA Market Research calculates that manufacturer sales of LCD [TV] sets surpassed the 1 million-unit mark for the first time, reaching 1.1 million and generating $651 million in sales. Electronics manufacturers also sold 315,000 plasma sets to dealers in 2003, nearly triple the total in 2002, to produce another $1.5 billion in revenue.

Was he talking about PC's only, or does he include flat panel TV's?

[Integral]

I think he talking flat panels in general. A subsequent topic is ubiquitous computing. Where computers are so common as to be disposable. He predicts (longer range) flat panel scratch pads.

[Ivan Seeking]

I never read Visions.

Does he predict anything about one of my favorites - smart toilets? Those are coming soon. I plan to open a company that sells smart-toilet joke software.

Woudln't it be great to have a wise-guy for a toilet? :biggrin:

[cronxeh]

Disposable computers? Preposterous! I'm in a process of mourning for a massive pixel loss on my PDA, and you talking about throwing out computers like if it was a piece of paper. That should never happen - not only due to environmental impact but also due to economic considerations

[Ivan Seeking]

We are beginning to design cell phones (http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents/pressreleases/NE1000000097300/), cars (http://www.recyclingtoday.com/articles/article.asp?Id=247&SubCatID=75&CatID=23), and many other products, I assume computers as well, so that they may easily be recycled.

[ramollari]

Besides the LCD display technology, which surely is the latest, I've read about projects to introduce another exciting display technology involving very thin layers of carbon that change color with electric field. They can be layed on any surface, such as your book, on the table, the wall, etc, and offer economic and practical advantages.
Though future technology is notoriously difficult to predict, nanotechnology will almost surely prevail. Feynmann's dream about miniaturization expressed best in his famous 1959 talk "Why cannot we write the entire 24 volumes of the Encyclopedia Brittanica on the head of a pin?" is gradually being realized. I've read this (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0407/p14s01-stct.html) article about research on an ANTS project where nanorobots swarm to form more complex shapes and functions, that are also more robust. It looks like science fiction.

[Sempiternity]

In Visions, Michio Kaku explains how economic and technological progressions will eventually bring us to a point where computers are produced on such a mass scale as to be practically as disposable as paper waste. He goes to describe the continually falling price of computer chips and how technology is becoming ever more compact and efficient.

As the price of microprocessors continues its plunge, many predict that the sheer power of economics will drive the computer industry into the next phase. Ron Bernal, president of MIPS Technologies, predicts that the price of the microchip will drop to 10 cents by the year 2000, 4 cents in 2005, and 2 cents in 2010. Thomas George, general manager of semiconductor products with Motorola, basically agrees, estimating the microchip will cost 50 cents in 2000, 7 cents in 2005, and 1 cent in 2010. Eventually, microprocessors will be as cheap as scrap paper, and just as plentiful.

This description of the falling price of the microprocessor goes to support the continuing subject within the next chapter, "The Intelligent Planet." With chips falling in price at such a rapid pace, companies will be better able to mass produce intelligent technologies and distribute it around the world at an affordable cost. Already, this is happening! The Massachusetts Institute of Technology is "developing $100 laptops for children" in developing countries, which are distributed by participating government bodies across the globe:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/ptech/04/04/hundred.dollar.laptops.ap/index.html

The first step toward ubiquitous computing is to create marketable computer devices called tabs, pads, and boards, whcih are roughly an inch, a foot, and a yard in size.

...The larger, foot-size pads are the counterparts of disposable scrap paper that we scribble on. In appearance, they will resemble extremely thin computer monitors, and will eventually become almost as thin as paper itself. Instead of employees lugging a heavy workstation from room to room, each room will have "disposable" pads. These pads will have no individual identity at all. As with sheets of scrap paper, we might have scores of them scattered around our desk. Unlike ordinary sheets of scrap paper, however, each of these pads will be fully operational PCs connected to the main computer. It is, in a sense, the beginning of smart paper.

When we scribble on such smart paper, the graphics program inside will be able to convert our idle doodles into beautiful graphics or use editing capabilities to convert our notes into grammatically correct text. And after we are finished with it and have saved our work on the main computer, we simply toss it in the stack of pads on our desk.

Here, Michio Kaku discusses the potentials for the potential of computers to become as common as paper, essentially making "smart paper." It has come about that such paper now exists, although it is still under development:

Next digital screen could fold like paper
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0108/p14s01-stct.html

Thin- Film Transistor LCD Displays
http://www.cs.ndsu.nodak.edu/~revie/amlcd/

Michio Kaku also continues on to describe a type of board that is "smart," which could "function as wall-size video screens for interactive TV or the Web. At the office, they serve as bulletin boards and 'white boards' on which we can scribble notes and post notices or which we can use as a full-fledged PC connected to the Internet.

You may also notice that this "smart board" has now been invented and is in use in many modernized schools across the country. (My math teacher uses one almost every day.) However, this new technology is bound to continue developing, as smart boards range in hundreds to thousands of dollars and are not powered by LCD or plasma screens (as I believe that was the intended note of Kaku). For now, these smart boards are used by either projection or existing screens, although the board itself is programmed to fit the screen and can be used like a normal touch-screen with a variety of additional options.

http://www.smarttech.com
http://www2.smarttech.com/st/en-US/Products/SMART+Boards/default.htm

...The market for LCDs and plasma screens is projected to soar to $19.23 billion and $5.11 billion, respectively, by 2003.

By 2020, the flat panel displays will likely come in a variety of forms. They will be minaturized to work as wristwatch screens and amy be added to eyeglasses or key chains. Eventually, they will become so cheap they will be everywhere: on the backs of airplane seats, in photo albums, in elevators, on notepads, on billboards, on the sides of busses and trains. They may even one day be as common as paper.

In the latter part of the quote, Kaku mentions a few of the places screens may one day be located. You may notice, as far as I have seen, that all of those have come true, just not on a massive scale.

It's amazing to see how these advances in technologies were predicted and proposed by Michio Kaku and associated scientists back in 1997 and 1998. Although these technologies still have a while to go until they reach fruition, they are certain to create new waves in the future.

[jdlech]

Yes, MK did make many short term predictions that have proven somewhat accurate. But like many of the visionary scientists before him, when he makes his longer term predictions, he fails to take human greed and stupidity into account. Politics and passions always seem to get into the way of progress more often than not. Therefore, most of his long term predictions will prove wildly optimistic. Just as the predictions of those who came before him.

Sorry for the raincloud folks.

[Sempiternity]

But like many of the visionary scientists before him, when he makes his longer term predictions, he fails to take human greed and stupidity into account. Politics and passions always seem to get into the way of progress more often than not.

This is certainly somewhat true. Except that his predictions are based on the predictions of numerous other scientists from a wide range of fields and that he does mention the hindrance of scientific progress (specifically the space program) by governing forces.

It is difficult to chart the future of space travel because the driving force behind the space program has often been politics, rather than science, with politicians demanding that astronauts perform glamorous but largely ceremonial stunts in space which could be done by robots for a fraction of the cost.
Up to now, the laws of physics have been fairly straightforward in setting the framework for the exploration of deep space. The chief uncertainty has been politics.

Though, it's true that it's people (politics) that decides how science will progress. For instance, the SSC was cancelled through Congress to fuel the funding for the ISS, which is seemingly considered a waste of time and money by various scientists.

From a purely scientific point of view, the main criticism of Alpha [ISS] is that it does very little science for the $100 billion price tag. Almost all the planned experiments on Alpha can be performed at a fraction of the cost via single rockets or smaller orbiting stations like the Russian Mir.

Eventually, genetic research will be restricted as well, such as in the area of stem cell research. Though, despite these barriers to science and technology, it may be safe to say that certain types of progress will find little to no resistance, such as computer science and consumer electronics. This field especially helps the government and the people in practical, applicable ways that are indeed beneficial. The technologies mentioned previously probably will not face restriction as they help to further advance the cultural aspect of consumer technology. Not only that, but many government institutions commonly develop and use many types of advanced technologies. The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory uses the most advanced computer in the world, Blue Gene (http://www.llnl.gov/asci/platforms/bluegene/), in order to simulate nuclear weapons testing, protein folding, and other things that only a supercomputer could calculate. It is said that the National Security Agency is always at least 10 years ahead of the general public in terms of computer science and technology, as they must in order to ensure the security of America.

I think at least the computer industry is generally safe from the snare of politics. There's still much currently feasible potential for computer science, such that the government would want to pursue with vigor.

[jdlech]

Be careful of what you hope for, Sempiternity, you just might get it.
I remember the Alar tests. When the standard tests failed to find anything wrong with it's use, they were ordered to do the tests again, at 100 times the normal level. Imagine finding someone who eats 10,000 unwashed apples per day and you will get an idea of the level in which they found Alar to be carcinogenic. Why would they do this? Because the patent holder for Alar was a small chemical company who refused to sell themselves to the big chemical companies. So the big boys turned a billion dollar molecule into a political defeat.

You know about Meat Irradiation, don't you. America does it now without so much as a peep from anyone. But when it's use was first considered over 20 years ago, someone took out full page ads in popular magazines showing a plate of bacon and eggs stating that "The government has found a way to dispose of nuclear waste. You're going to eat it." Now it's true that the tubes used to create the radiation has some radioactive isotope garnered from the waste of nuclear plants, there is no contact between food and the nuclear material. But this did not stop whoever it was from scaring the public. Then there was the argument of the possibility of finding "Non Specific Compounds" (NSC). People were worried that the radiation could produce NSCs and that some may be carcinogenic. This despite the fact that Europe had already been using it for years and not one single NSC was ever found.

Meanwhile, we have religious fanatics trying to control the course of medical research. Psychic research is almost nonexistent despite the fact that remote viewing is an unheralded, but ignored, success. The scientists that ran the National Science Foundation are being systematically replaced with political and religious activists. We have the Sugar Producers Consortium lobbying congress to cut funding to the world health organization because they suggest sugars be no more than 25% of the average persons diet despite the Consoritum demanding it to be as much as 40%. You know who the WHO is, right? The guys that eradicated smallpox from the world, and came darn close to eradicating polio from the face of this world. But I'm sure the SPC has both our best interests and the interests of science in mind when last year, they spent over $200 million in an effort to lobby congress to cut WHO funding entirely. Nice guys, huh?

On the social sciences side, our interrogation techniques have progressed outstandingly. You see, we have developed an interrogation system effective at breaking down hardened criminals. Interrogations have become so efficient that we need to tone them down whenever there is anything "below average" about the subject, such as their intellectual, mental or emotional state. It seems we can now extract just about any kind of confession we want from people like that. That's why there's a national movement trying to get all interrogations in their entirety on tape. Any part of the tape goes missing and the entire confession should be tossed out of court.

Back in the 90's the government was really leaning on encryption companies to give them an exclusive back door key to all civilian encrypting programs. I would not be suprised if all the major ones today do. I happen to have an encryption program written before the debate started. It's encryption could probably be cracked in a matter of hours today, but if I ever need it, I know there's no back door key.

I really like your optimism about the NSA. But I ask you, who is watching the watchdogs? Especially today where we have an administration that has authorised peoples "dissappearance", and has ordered the detention of of thousands without charges or representation. The same administratin that ordered people detained several days without charge simply for having a peaceful protest outside the RNC in New York. The same administration who knowingly authorised people sent to other countries for torture.
Knowing they have access to computer and surveilance technology that is at least 10 years superior to anything else out there kind of gives me the warm fuzzies all over.
Nope, that's just my skin crawling.

[Sempiternity]

Irrational panics in an average society that takes information for granted and fails to pursue further studies may and will, of course, decide the progress of the fields being affected by these scares, since it's a win-win situation. The consumer decides what will be purchased to better benefit them and the supplier benefits by gaining revenue from the consumer's purchases. Similarly, the uneducated general public has enough power to greatly affect further scientific and technological progress. Acting upon less than substantial evidence when dealing with scientific and technical aspects can potentially lead to such irrational behavior. Society (America's especially) is constantly in search of the next threat to its existence, threats which they do not fully understand or fool themselves into believing that they understand all there is to know about it and enough to base decision on. There was the Y2K scare, the Chernobyl and Three Mile Island incidents that sparked a scare concerning nuclear power (and practically crushed its potential), the Africanized bees, the escalator scare, fears about weight-loss supplements, a scare of supposedly finding a finger in Wendy's chili, a gasoline scare in Arizona concerning a broken pipeline, and plenty more. Essentially, it's all based on lack of information.

Nevertheless, most of these scares find ways of working themselves out. Y2K never happened, nuclear power is coming back to the forefront of renewable energy methods, few people know of or care about the "terror" of the Africanized bees, escalators have become generally safer with people paying more attention, the finger in Wendy's chili was a scandal, the gasoline pipeline was fixed, etc. If something fails to keep the general public appeased (whether or not it's a real threat), other versions surface, people forget, the problem is eradicated, and people stop caring.

An article concerning the Alar incident also commented that:

While most consumers now believe that the Alar scare was overblown, recent research reveals that consumers are still very vulnerable to scare messages that involve health risk to children. This seems particularly so when long-term cancer development is implied. Research also shows that consumers find health authorities most believable when it comes to information on food safety. Therefore, the release of the NAS study creates an opportunity for alarmists to engineer a major crisis in consumer confidence that could be devastating to our industry.
http://www.ewg.org/reports/alar/alar.html

Concerning the NSA, I suppose I could say I don't know enough about the NSA's public relations to really say anything about it. However, the technologies developed by the NSA and other government institutions that are passed on to the public greatly help in advancing applied science and technology (http://www.nsa.gov/techtrans) in a similar way that the inventions of Xerox PARC's expert engineers further advances the computer science and technology industries.

[jdlech]

While I realize my previous post paints a very dark picture of the future based upon a very dark and albeit selective past, I also recognize the fact that, by definition, it's only paranoid if it's not true. Yes, technology keeps progressing after a fasion and the future is brighter than I first implied.
For instance, medicine coninues to advance in a wholly positive way. We keep coming closer to a cure for most of the ailments of our time. Despite the few whom we must drag kicking and screaming into the future, we are still making some wonderful progress.
Despite the United States's politicking, the world recognizes that something global must be done to prevent a runaway greenhouse effect. The world is even now becoming aware that global population control is environmentally sound advice. China has been successfully dealing with the problem for decades, despite the social problems and moral dilemmas that such a program poses. This represents clear progress since just 20 years ago.

In an age where material sciences and physics reign supreme, I have been an advocate of balance. I keep calling for more research into the so called "soft sciences" of psychology, sociology, anthropology, etc.. Because no matter how fast our computers get, no matter how far we travel, it does us no good when we rip each other apart and don't even understand why we do it.

All of my doom and gloom reveals an underlying problem that we could easily resolve within 30 years. It's merely a matter of priorities.

Strangely, I think our choices in research would be far more logical if we were to take a step back and first improve our society. I think the authors of propaganda, regardless of purpose, should be criminally liable for it. Anything published without an author should be banned and any published misinformation a crime. Published opinions should be clearly defined and separated from fact. So what and where are the facts? I think they should be centrally located and easily accessed by all. We need a central database of raw data and a continually improving series of search engines. The internet does not qualify because it does not have a central location for raw data. Refutations of the facts already go through a rigorous review process. But that process needs a bit of fine tuning to include the possibility of the unknown person stumbling upon something profound. All this probably will not be the end of such scares, but at least it's a start; an attempt. It's better than what we currently have; a heavily eroded limitation upon corporations called "truth in advertising". Slander and libel laws are weak because they assume there must be a victim, and that victim must lose something in the process. One cannot hold another accountable for publishing opinion as if it were a fact. There were no personal accountability for either 'Farenheight 911' or 'Farenhype 911'. Both were forms of propaganda and both contained serious misrepresentations of facts. Yet, both were used as propaganda tools upon the American people; and we lapped them both up as affirmations of our own polarized opinions. Such disregard for the facts, simplistic viewpoints, and a highly polarized issue are hallmark effects of propaganda campaigns. But ignorant people still fall into it like mindless puppets.

Currently, those who have not studied propaganda are sitting ducks for those who have. We must accept the fact that not everyone studies ethics to become a more ethical person. Some of us studied ethics in order to find the unfair advantage. The holy grail of a capitalistic society is to attain and maintain the unfair competetive advantage. And those who seek out the unfair advantage pay very well to obtain it.
The underdog cries out for justice while the one on top seeks to maintain the status quo; and thus their position. Studies in the social condition and experiments in alleviating the weaknesses inherent in our society may prove just as rewarding as any new fuel, or mode of transportation, or medical discovery.
We'll spend billions on space exploration, but when it comes to protecting us from those who would do us harm to further their own agendas..., well, that's just politics. We simply have little interest in it.

So what would this have to do with visions of the future? Everything.

[Sempiternity]

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -- Albert Einstein

As futurist Alvin Toffler comments, "this Information Society is more than just technology. It includes social, cultural, institutional, moral, and political dislocations during our transition from a brute force industry society to a brain force economy."

Without moral values and general unanimous conscience, mankind is bound to fail as a race. I do think that the future of humanity's progress must be tempered with concepts and values that pertain to orderly conscience in order for man to continue to thrive (or more so) in times to come. It's similar to the nuclear age and how nobody was ready to take on the responsibility of nuclear warfare and its effects.

With the lack of such a globalized understanding of various scientific ideas and technologies, propaganda offers to be the guiding light in giving answers to the uncertainties that permeate the world.

[jdlech]

... propaganda offers to be the guiding light in giving answers to the uncertainties that permeate the world.I certainly hope you're not suggesting propaganda is good. Conditioning to it causes mindlessness. But you are right and that's what's so insidious about it. And I have to admit, I'm railing against something well accepted; as evidenced by it's ubiquitousness. Advertising agencies, PR companies, spin doctors, consulting firms, law offices, independent organizations, government agencies; everyone is getting in on the act.
Propaganda motivates people to both good and evil, which indicates it's not inherently good or evil. However, the motivation behind the decision to use it is inherently immoral and unethical. It's the difference between the logical arguments of Aristotle and Socrates and the argumentive tricks of the Sophists. The philosophers was interested in discerning truth regardless of what that truth is or from where it comes. The sophists' only interest was in winning the argument.

I just deleted about 6 paragraphs on propaganda. It would have hijacked the thread. Sorry.

[Sempiternity]

Oh, the last statement was a consideration of what propaganda might mean to the general public which has a "lack of such a globalized understanding of various scientific ideas and technologies." In that, forms of propaganda pose to bring different answers to different things, such as concerning the government, health, and morality.

It's understandable how propaganda can motivate good and evil. It can help to spark people's interest in various issues and perhaps persuade them to look further into the issue. It can also help to update people on what is generally happening in the world they live in. Conversely, people might take it for granted and simply accept the disseminated information as correct in representing the issue, making a personal decision based on the information which may or may not consist of misunderstandings or improper conclusions.

Ultimately, the information distributed through television, radio, internet, rumor, and other information mediums commonly are tuned towards persuading people to accept various things as "truths." For example, I once heard someone describe the majority of the major television-broadcasted news organizations as being geared towards Democratically-related issues, while Republican-related issues are usually largely disproportionate in priority, or misrepresented alltogether. This statement concerning the news organizations may or may not be true itself. Propaganda is everywhere, unfortunately, and I doubt there will ever be an end to it.