As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Welcome to the World of Tomorrow!

2

Posts

  • RocketlexRocketlex Registered User
    edited October 2007
    What is that? A prototype Big Daddy?

    Rocketlex on
    While you were asleep, your windows told me all your secrets.
  • Waka LakaWaka Laka Riding the stuffed Unicorn If ya know what I mean.Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    That is HUUUGE!

    I don't see "ergonomic" or "comfortable" fitting in with the agenda there.

    Waka Laka on
  • HarakhtiHarakhti Registered User
    edited October 2007
    Rocketlex wrote: »
    What is that? A prototype Big Daddy?

    I dunno about anyone else but The Fury immediately popped into my head.

    Isn't OLED sets better then SEDs? Think they're also suppose to start coming out this year too.

    Harakhti on
  • KreutzKreutz Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Bamelin wrote: »
    vrhelmetimageshs4.jpg

    Why play games on a flatscreen when you can strap a fucking CRT to your head!

    Kreutz on
  • Lucky CynicLucky Cynic Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Holy shit! That thing is real!? I thought that was a really stupid meme photoshop tied with people who whine about VR. But it's really real?!

    You have to wonder how heavy that thing is, and how much it is killing your back....

    Lucky Cynic on
  • AbsoluteZeroAbsoluteZero The new film by Quentin Koopantino Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Harakhti wrote: »
    Rocketlex wrote: »
    What is that? A prototype Big Daddy?

    I dunno about anyone else but The Fury immediately popped into my head.

    Isn't OLED sets better then SEDs? Think they're also suppose to start coming out this year too.

    OLED? Holy hell that's gotta be mighty pricey. Tell us more about it!

    AbsoluteZero on
    cs6f034fsffl.jpg
  • AthenorAthenor Battle Hardened Optimist The Skies of HiigaraRegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    so.. any time futuristic topics come up, flying cars (or jetpacks) get mentioned.

    I, for one, dread that day. I mean, good god, aren't the accident rates for 2D movement high enough?

    Athenor on
    pTWAqPb.png
    Looking to get rid of some 2005-2010 era Star Wars vehicles/toys. If interested, please PM me.
    He/Him
  • AbsoluteZeroAbsoluteZero The new film by Quentin Koopantino Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Athenor wrote: »
    so.. any time futuristic topics come up, flying cars (or jetpacks) get mentioned.

    I, for one, dread that day. I mean, good god, aren't the accident rates for 2D movement high enough?

    This is one big reason I don't see flying cars happening any time soon. A fender-bender would be lethal at 3,000 ft.

    AbsoluteZero on
    cs6f034fsffl.jpg
  • RCagentRCagent Registered User
    edited October 2007
    Athenor wrote: »
    so.. any time futuristic topics come up, flying cars (or jetpacks) get mentioned.

    I, for one, dread that day. I mean, good god, aren't the accident rates for 2D movement high enough?

    This is one big reason I don't see flying cars happening any time soon. A fender-bender would be lethal at 3,000 ft.

    When I was young I had this idea that would be cooler than flying cars, something much more realistic. You know, cars that could travel in more directions then reverse and forward. A car that could strafe and rotate its side using wheels that are spheres.


    Then I, Robot came out and stole my fucking idea.

    Bastards.

    RCagent on
  • JCRooksJCRooks Registered User
    edited October 2007
    Athenor wrote: »
    so.. any time futuristic topics come up, flying cars (or jetpacks) get mentioned.

    I, for one, dread that day. I mean, good god, aren't the accident rates for 2D movement high enough?

    This is one big reason I don't see flying cars happening any time soon. A fender-bender would be lethal at 3,000 ft.

    While I agree that an accident is much more likely to be catastrophic, you DO have a lot more "space" to maneuver in. It's like flying ... you never hear about planes hitting each other, even though there are thousands of planes in the skies in any given moment. If coordinated correctly (read: controlled by computers, not error-prone humans), you'd rarely see "fender benders" with flying vehicles.

    Anyway, my big wish for the World of Tomorrow is for that Space Elevator to finally get built so I can fly me to the moon on my retirement money or something.

    JCRooks on
    Xbox LIVE, Steam, Twitter, etc. ...
    Gamertag: Rooks
    - Don't add me, I'm at/near the friend limit :)

    Steam: JC_Rooks

    Twitter: http://twitter.com/JiunweiC

    I work on this: http://www.xbox.com
  • LynxLynx Registered User
    edited October 2007
    We just need to skip the whole "flying car" idea and go straight to organic teleportation. That would completely solve all transportation problems. Forever.

    Lynx on
  • Waka LakaWaka Laka Riding the stuffed Unicorn If ya know what I mean.Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Lynx wrote: »
    We just need to skip the whole "flying car" idea and go straight to organic teleportation. That would completely solve all transportation problems. Forever.

    "Hey Doc... about that cat..."

    Waka Laka on
  • RCagentRCagent Registered User
    edited October 2007
    Waka Laka wrote: »
    Lynx wrote: »
    We just need to skip the whole "flying car" idea and go straight to organic teleportation. That would completely solve all transportation problems. Forever.

    "Hey Doc... about that cat..."

    Yeah, I'd rather take a clunky ass car than risk being mutated through a time span of 40 years through 6 alternate dimensions just because I wanted to take a shortcut on my way to pickup some star bucks coffee.

    RCagent on
  • BehemothBehemoth Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    RCagent wrote: »
    Waka Laka wrote: »
    Lynx wrote: »
    We just need to skip the whole "flying car" idea and go straight to organic teleportation. That would completely solve all transportation problems. Forever.

    "Hey Doc... about that cat..."

    Yeah, I'd rather take a clunky ass car than risk being mutated through a time span of 40 years through 6 alternate dimensions just because I wanted to take a shortcut on my way to pickup some star bucks coffee.

    If we had the ability to completely disassemble and then re-assemble a person's molecules, teleportation is one of the lamest things we could do. At that point we could almost anything, like turn air into gold or terraform Venus. Teleportation is a lot more impossible than flying cars!

    Behemoth on
    iQbUbQsZXyt8I.png
  • Goose!Goose! That's me, honey Show me the way home, honeyRegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    WiTricity causing cancer would probably be received in the same way cell phones causing cancer has been.


    i.e.--fuck it.

    Goose! on
  • FreddyDFreddyD Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    What's even more amazing is the tech that is now mundane. Cloning? Meh. Cars that drive themselves? Old news. Laser guns, robots, robots with laser guns, video phones, and all the other sci-fi staples wouldn't even make front page news anymore.

    FreddyD on
  • ZombiemamboZombiemambo Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    JCRooks wrote: »
    Athenor wrote: »
    so.. any time futuristic topics come up, flying cars (or jetpacks) get mentioned.

    I, for one, dread that day. I mean, good god, aren't the accident rates for 2D movement high enough?

    This is one big reason I don't see flying cars happening any time soon. A fender-bender would be lethal at 3,000 ft.

    While I agree that an accident is much more likely to be catastrophic, you DO have a lot more "space" to maneuver in. It's like flying ... you never hear about planes hitting each other, even though there are thousands of planes in the skies in any given moment. If coordinated correctly (read: controlled by computers, not error-prone humans), you'd rarely see "fender benders" with flying vehicles.

    Anyway, my big wish for the World of Tomorrow is for that Space Elevator to finally get built so I can fly me to the moon on my retirement money or something.

    You don't hear about planes hitting eachother because pilots have to fly for hundreds of hours before they get a license. I don't think the government has the time or money to train everyone to fly.

    Zombiemambo on
    JKKaAGp.png
  • FreddyDFreddyD Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    JCRooks wrote: »
    Athenor wrote: »
    so.. any time futuristic topics come up, flying cars (or jetpacks) get mentioned.

    I, for one, dread that day. I mean, good god, aren't the accident rates for 2D movement high enough?

    This is one big reason I don't see flying cars happening any time soon. A fender-bender would be lethal at 3,000 ft.

    While I agree that an accident is much more likely to be catastrophic, you DO have a lot more "space" to maneuver in. It's like flying ... you never hear about planes hitting each other, even though there are thousands of planes in the skies in any given moment. If coordinated correctly (read: controlled by computers, not error-prone humans), you'd rarely see "fender benders" with flying vehicles.

    Anyway, my big wish for the World of Tomorrow is for that Space Elevator to finally get built so I can fly me to the moon on my retirement money or something.

    You don't hear about planes hitting eachother because pilots have to fly for hundreds of hours before they get a license. I don't think the government has the time or money to train everyone to fly.
    I'm pretty sure that the general public will be out of the loop at that point. You would just tell the machine where you want to go.

    FreddyD on
  • RocketlexRocketlex Registered User
    edited October 2007
    And eventually, the machines will tell you where you want to go.

    Rocketlex on
    While you were asleep, your windows told me all your secrets.
  • ZombiemamboZombiemambo Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    FreddyD wrote: »
    JCRooks wrote: »
    Athenor wrote: »
    so.. any time futuristic topics come up, flying cars (or jetpacks) get mentioned.

    I, for one, dread that day. I mean, good god, aren't the accident rates for 2D movement high enough?

    This is one big reason I don't see flying cars happening any time soon. A fender-bender would be lethal at 3,000 ft.

    While I agree that an accident is much more likely to be catastrophic, you DO have a lot more "space" to maneuver in. It's like flying ... you never hear about planes hitting each other, even though there are thousands of planes in the skies in any given moment. If coordinated correctly (read: controlled by computers, not error-prone humans), you'd rarely see "fender benders" with flying vehicles.

    Anyway, my big wish for the World of Tomorrow is for that Space Elevator to finally get built so I can fly me to the moon on my retirement money or something.

    You don't hear about planes hitting eachother because pilots have to fly for hundreds of hours before they get a license. I don't think the government has the time or money to train everyone to fly.
    I'm pretty sure that the general public will be out of the loop at that point. You would just tell the machine where you want to go.

    That's true, but there's got to be a way to manually override the computer in an emergency. Either way, I think the amount of deaths per year caused by vehicles would increase.

    Zombiemambo on
    JKKaAGp.png
  • SkabSkab Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Bamelin wrote: »
    vrhelmetimageshs4.jpg

    virtualrealityhelmetdo2.jpg

    Toshiba earned alot of geek rep in my eyes the day this thing was announced.
    :P



    That is some seriously funny shit right there.


    Best part? How in the article it states that this model is SMALLER than previous versions!

    Skab on
    steam_sig.png
  • freshmasterfreshfreshmasterfresh Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I just hope they figure out how to preserve functioning human heads in jars before Weird Al becomes too old for that to matter.

    pic00099.jpg
    Wrong Al but it's close enough to serve my point.

    freshmasterfresh on
    happysig.png
  • JCRooksJCRooks Registered User
    edited October 2007
    FreddyD wrote: »
    JCRooks wrote: »
    While I agree that an accident is much more likely to be catastrophic, you DO have a lot more "space" to maneuver in. It's like flying ... you never hear about planes hitting each other, even though there are thousands of planes in the skies in any given moment. If coordinated correctly (read: controlled by computers, not error-prone humans), you'd rarely see "fender benders" with flying vehicles.

    Anyway, my big wish for the World of Tomorrow is for that Space Elevator to finally get built so I can fly me to the moon on my retirement money or something.

    You don't hear about planes hitting eachother because pilots have to fly for hundreds of hours before they get a license. I don't think the government has the time or money to train everyone to fly.
    I'm pretty sure that the general public will be out of the loop at that point. You would just tell the machine where you want to go.

    That's true, but there's got to be a way to manually override the computer in an emergency. Either way, I think the amount of deaths per year caused by vehicles would increase.

    Regarding manual overrides, I'm not so sure about that. If something is too complicated for normal people, an override makes no sense (and could even be potentially dangerous). For example, there aren't "manual overrides" for lots of electronic equipment. If the cable box screws up, there's no override for me to tell the TV which exact frequency to tune to, or whatever. It just doesn't work. I'm sure someone can come up with a better analogy.

    They're already working on automation that controls ground-based vehicles. You can gain a lot of extra efficiency (meaning less traffic and fewer accidents) if you can have an algorithm/computer determining where all the cars on the road go, how fast they are, etc. On one hand, having a manual override makes sense, in case something goes wrong. On the other hand, it also opens the door for abusers (say a drunkard or someone suicidal) to override the system and cause an an even greater chance of destruction.

    Instead of overrides, you'd have to built plenty of safeguards into the whole system. So if system A fails, it falls to system B to safely pilot the car/flying-vehicle to an emergency area. Of course if that system fails, then you're probably just fucked. (Or maybe in that case, then yeah it would turn the controls over to you ... good luck figuring out to fly though)

    JCRooks on
    Xbox LIVE, Steam, Twitter, etc. ...
    Gamertag: Rooks
    - Don't add me, I'm at/near the friend limit :)

    Steam: JC_Rooks

    Twitter: http://twitter.com/JiunweiC

    I work on this: http://www.xbox.com
  • ZombiemamboZombiemambo Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I wouldn't ride inside of a vehicle I had no control over, would you?

    Zombiemambo on
    JKKaAGp.png
  • SophismataSophismata Registered User
    edited October 2007
    I wouldn't ride inside of a vehicle I had no control over, would you?

    I like roller-coasters. Do you? ;p

    Sophismata on
    If the PSP2 actually has a touch screen, I will personally go to Sony HQ and beat the stupid out of every single person there.
    Urian wrote: »
    This is unbelievable, but I would cut both of my wrists if MGS4 ever goes multiplatform. Sony will implode if that happens.
  • JCRooksJCRooks Registered User
    edited October 2007
    I wouldn't ride inside of a vehicle I had no control over, would you?

    Why, I fly in airplanes all the time, don't you?

    Seriously, if everyone in the plane vanished, including the pilot, I'd be screwed. Just because I've played Flight Sim a few times, certainly doesn't give me any qualifications to fly a plane. I'd be much more likely to hope that the auto-pilot is still working and is capable of landing the plane.

    JCRooks on
    Xbox LIVE, Steam, Twitter, etc. ...
    Gamertag: Rooks
    - Don't add me, I'm at/near the friend limit :)

    Steam: JC_Rooks

    Twitter: http://twitter.com/JiunweiC

    I work on this: http://www.xbox.com
  • SzechuanSzechuan Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I wouldn't ride inside of a vehicle I had no control over, would you?

    Ever taken public transportation? Flown? Cruised?

    edit: beated. :(

    Szechuan on
  • ronzoronzo Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I wouldn't ride inside of a vehicle no one had control over, would you?

    fixed

    ronzo on
  • BehemothBehemoth Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    JCRooks wrote: »
    FreddyD wrote: »
    JCRooks wrote: »
    While I agree that an accident is much more likely to be catastrophic, you DO have a lot more "space" to maneuver in. It's like flying ... you never hear about planes hitting each other, even though there are thousands of planes in the skies in any given moment. If coordinated correctly (read: controlled by computers, not error-prone humans), you'd rarely see "fender benders" with flying vehicles.

    Anyway, my big wish for the World of Tomorrow is for that Space Elevator to finally get built so I can fly me to the moon on my retirement money or something.

    You don't hear about planes hitting eachother because pilots have to fly for hundreds of hours before they get a license. I don't think the government has the time or money to train everyone to fly.
    I'm pretty sure that the general public will be out of the loop at that point. You would just tell the machine where you want to go.

    That's true, but there's got to be a way to manually override the computer in an emergency. Either way, I think the amount of deaths per year caused by vehicles would increase.

    Regarding manual overrides, I'm not so sure about that. If something is too complicated for normal people, an override makes no sense (and could even be potentially dangerous). For example, there aren't "manual overrides" for lots of electronic equipment. If the cable box screws up, there's no override for me to tell the TV which exact frequency to tune to, or whatever. It just doesn't work. I'm sure someone can come up with a better analogy.

    They're already working on automation that controls ground-based vehicles. You can gain a lot of extra efficiency (meaning less traffic and fewer accidents) if you can have an algorithm/computer determining where all the cars on the road go, how fast they are, etc. On one hand, having a manual override makes sense, in case something goes wrong. On the other hand, it also opens the door for abusers (say a drunkard or someone suicidal) to override the system and cause an an even greater chance of destruction.

    Instead of overrides, you'd have to built plenty of safeguards into the whole system. So if system A fails, it falls to system B to safely pilot the car/flying-vehicle to an emergency area. Of course if that system fails, then you're probably just fucked. (Or maybe in that case, then yeah it would turn the controls over to you ... good luck figuring out to fly though)

    They have actually already invented a system for personal airtraffic control. I can't seem to find the article I read about it in (Time magazine or something) but I'm pretty sure it involved synthetic vision somehow.

    Behemoth on
    iQbUbQsZXyt8I.png
  • AthenorAthenor Battle Hardened Optimist The Skies of HiigaraRegistered User regular
    edited October 2007
    JCRooks wrote: »
    Athenor wrote: »
    so.. any time futuristic topics come up, flying cars (or jetpacks) get mentioned.

    I, for one, dread that day. I mean, good god, aren't the accident rates for 2D movement high enough?

    This is one big reason I don't see flying cars happening any time soon. A fender-bender would be lethal at 3,000 ft.

    While I agree that an accident is much more likely to be catastrophic, you DO have a lot more "space" to maneuver in. It's like flying ... you never hear about planes hitting each other, even though there are thousands of planes in the skies in any given moment. If coordinated correctly (read: controlled by computers, not error-prone humans), you'd rarely see "fender benders" with flying vehicles.

    Anyway, my big wish for the World of Tomorrow is for that Space Elevator to finally get built so I can fly me to the moon on my retirement money or something.

    You don't hear about planes hitting eachother because pilots have to fly for hundreds of hours before they get a license. I don't think the government has the time or money to train everyone to fly.

    Also, Congress is apparently demanding that NASA turn over the results of a survey they did that shows near-misses in US airspace are a fucking TON more common than the FAA admits.

    Athenor on
    pTWAqPb.png
    Looking to get rid of some 2005-2010 era Star Wars vehicles/toys. If interested, please PM me.
    He/Him
  • ZombiemamboZombiemambo Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    ronzo wrote: »
    I wouldn't ride inside of a vehicle no one had control over, would you?

    fixed

    Yeah, I thought people might be above semantics but...who am I kidding. This is the internet.

    Zombiemambo on
    JKKaAGp.png
  • JCRooksJCRooks Registered User
    edited October 2007
    ronzo wrote: »
    I wouldn't ride inside of a vehicle no one had control over, would you?

    fixed

    Yeah, I thought people might be above semantics but...who am I kidding. This is the internet.

    If you want to get into semantics, then what does "control" mean? Mechanical/physical control? For example, the steering of many vehicles is still done through things like wheels, gears, yokes, etc. Does it make you feel "safer" that you can control a vehicle through such a means, even if you might not actually know how to actually safely pilot it?

    In the far future, we may get to the point where vehicles (spacecraft and the like) don't have mechanical means of controlling them. They'd all be computer based, where we have to trust it to take us where to go. You could argue that some spacecraft may already do this now.

    Heck, I've read about prototypes of cars that are computer driven. Or instead of wheels, use "gamepads" and other non-conventional steering devices. They're completely dependent on technology, so yeah if the computer system goes down, you might be hosed. But I would argue, that's definitely the direction of the World of Tomorrow. Not trusting those vehicles would make us look like Luddites to our children, the same way that we laugh at old people that don't understand the Internet or similar technology today.

    So, to answer your original question ... yes, I would ride inside a vehicle no person had control over, if it were the hands of a capable and tested computer system. Then again, I'm biased because I'm also a software engineer by trade. ;)

    JCRooks on
    Xbox LIVE, Steam, Twitter, etc. ...
    Gamertag: Rooks
    - Don't add me, I'm at/near the friend limit :)

    Steam: JC_Rooks

    Twitter: http://twitter.com/JiunweiC

    I work on this: http://www.xbox.com
  • SzechuanSzechuan Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    ronzo wrote: »
    I wouldn't ride inside of a vehicle no one had control over, would you?

    fixed

    Yeah, I thought people might be above semantics but...who am I kidding. This is the internet.

    It's all love. <3

    I haven't heard anything about Congress doing that. Link?

    Szechuan on
  • JCRooksJCRooks Registered User
    edited October 2007
    Szechuan wrote: »
    I haven't heard anything about Congress doing that. Link?

    I'm assuming you're talking about this article: NASA Won't Disclose Air Safety Survey

    JCRooks on
    Xbox LIVE, Steam, Twitter, etc. ...
    Gamertag: Rooks
    - Don't add me, I'm at/near the friend limit :)

    Steam: JC_Rooks

    Twitter: http://twitter.com/JiunweiC

    I work on this: http://www.xbox.com
  • AxenAxen My avatar is Excalibur. Yes, the sword.Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Yeah as far as flying cars go, well I don't know about you guys, but I've run out of gas on the road more than once.

    Axen on
    A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
  • Rhesus PositiveRhesus Positive GNU Terry Pratchett Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    WiTricity causing cancer would probably be received in the same way cell phones causing cancer has been.


    i.e.--fuck it.

    The article about wireless energy talks about using fields that are almost entirely magnetic, rather than electro-magnetic. Apparently that's better with regards to cancer and whatnot.

    Rhesus Positive on
    [Muffled sounds of gorilla violence]
  • AlethiometerAlethiometer Registered User
    edited October 2007
    Wireless electricity transmission has been around since Tesla. I remember reading about a couple of cases in physics class where farmers leaving coils of wire underneath high voltage power lines would come back to find they had inadvertently made little electric animal traps. The problem has always been that the actual rate of transmission follows the inverse square law- i.e. the power at the source will quickly drop off over distance. I'm wondering if they got around that, or if this wireless power system would eat like 10 times the normal electricity of a household appliance.

    Edit: That wireless power article is all breathless pseudo-science. Here is the wikipedia article on electromagnetic induction, which is what they're actually using. All that BS about resonance and tails is... well... it's BS.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_electricity#History

    The areas on modern uses and efficiency are particularly interesting.

    Alethiometer on
  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    I always thought, at least in terms of DNA or Quantum computing, that we would have to completely rewrite our notions of computer processing and language. By this, I mean no longer being binary, yes/no operations, but instead, yes/no/maybe/onlyifthishappens multiple pathway operations.

    DoctorArch on
    Switch Friend Code: SW-6732-9515-9697
  • PatboyXPatboyX Registered User regular
    edited October 2007
    Wireless electricity transmission has been around since Tesla. I remember reading about a couple of cases in physics class where farmers leaving coils of wire underneath high voltage power lines would come back to find they had inadvertently made little electric animal traps. The problem has always been that the actual rate of transmission follows the inverse square law- i.e. the power at the source will quickly drop off over distance. I'm wondering if they got around that, or if this wireless power system would eat like 10 times the normal electricity of a household appliance.

    Edit: That wireless power article is all breathless pseudo-science. Here is the wikipedia article on electromagnetic induction, which is what they're actually using. All that BS about resonance and tails is... well... it's BS.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_electricity#History

    The areas on modern uses and efficiency are particularly interesting.

    This is exactly what I had heard when this most recent story was on NPR. People who had worked on similar projects over the last 30 years called in (if it wasn't NPR, I would have been more skeptical) and they discussed how lighting a lightbulb from across the room is pretty much the wall as far as this was concerned. They could do it but at great energy output and in a way that was not considered safe or useful for military or civilian implementation.

    PatboyX on
    "lenny bruce is not afraid..."
    brush1rt1.jpg
  • ZephyrZephyr Registered User
    edited October 2007
    Axen wrote: »
    Yeah as far as flying cars go, well I don't know about you guys, but I've run out of gas on the road more than once.

    We won't be using gasoline as fuel when we have flying cars.

    Zephyr on
    16kakxt.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.