Groups »
Forums »
Answers »

Featured Groups

  • Bare Conductive
  • Drawing and Art
  • Sustainability
  • 123D
  • Fenix Intl, Ready Set Off The Grid
  • Kollabora
  • 3D Printing

COMMUNITY : FORUMS : TECH


What technology did you expect would be available now that isn't?

What technology did you expect would be available now that isn't?

This is another question from the FM:Tech Battle Royale moderated by Ask a Ninja. Help me answer. Disclosure: The FM site is sponsored by Toshiba who is also an advertiser on Instructables.


sort by: active | newest | oldest
220
jessyratfink says: Sep 7, 2007. 9:02 PM
Where's my flying electric car, bitches? That's mostly what I want to know. But I'm still holding out for teleportation devices. :D
38
Goodhart in reply to jessyratfinkSep 8, 2007. 8:58 AM
You have a long wait for the teleportation device I am afraid. Check out "The Physics of Star Trek", by Lawrence M. Krauss, Stephen Hawking Krauss was Hawking's mentor and teacher. The conclusion in the book is that it would take all the known energy in the universe to break down one human being in order to transport them, and we are not even considering the transport energies. Oh well....
105
trebuchet03 says: Aug 21, 2007. 7:41 PM
The year 2000 came... But my flying car didn't. And I was sad.

  • Adaptive Cruise control -- but luckily, it's coming soon (it's currently in "luxury car" status)
  • I'm also waiting for the mouse to become obsolete, but replaced with another "silent" input device. I say this because a senior design option for me is a glove similar to what you may have seen in the movie "Minority Report"
  • Automatic Manual transmission - it's here, just no mass produced quite yet.
6
zachninme in reply to trebuchet03Aug 22, 2007. 7:01 PM
Yeah, so long story short:
Glove is already an option

Weiss and I are thread hijackers :P Sorry everyone!
105
trebuchet03 in reply to zachninmeAug 22, 2007. 7:54 PM
That's pretty cool.... As it is a senior design option, and they want novel solutions - I'm curious of what they'll come up with :p
6
zachninme in reply to trebuchet03Sep 7, 2007. 4:59 PM
I've made a incredibly simplified thing in under 10 lines of python, it basically takes a webcam image, blurs it (to eliminate defects), then just finds the brightest pixel, and moves the pointer to that x/y set on the screen. It works... okay, its just to see if it could be done. I used an IR mask and a remote control (it flickered on and off too fast for the camera, so it just looks solid)
4
acer73 in reply to trebuchet03Aug 22, 2007. 3:45 PM
What would the advantages over a automatic manual transmission be over a Automatic transmission.
105
trebuchet03 in reply to acer73Aug 22, 2007. 3:52 PM
No slip during acceleration. Automatic transmission (for the most part) are viscously coupled in their Torque Converter. This part allows you to come to a stop, in gear, and not stall. At the same time, it allows the transmission to slip relative to the engine output. Compared to a manual transmission, the only slip you have is a little bit when launching from a dead stop. During acceleration, the transmission is locked (clutch disk to flywheel) to the engine. On top of everything, a hydraulically controlled gear system is much more complex than a linkage :p Sure, the complexity will increase to allow automatic shifting, but something tells me it won't be as complex as a modern day automatic transmission valve body :p
4
acer73 in reply to trebuchet03Aug 22, 2007. 5:44 PM
thank you for the information.
38
Goodhart in reply to acer73Sep 7, 2007. 7:49 PM
Some of the original VW bugs had a manual "shift" that had an "automatic clutch" (the switch was under the manual shift lever, and just touching it engaged it....no more resting your hand on the gear shift knob LOL). But I guess this is not what you mean ;-)
3
NachoMahma in reply to GoodhartSep 7, 2007. 8:45 PM
. I had a friend in HS that had a VW with the auto clutch. We used to mess with him by surreptitiously moving the shift lever with a knee when he wasn't expecting it. Not something to do under hard acceleration. :)
38
Goodhart in reply to NachoMahmaSep 7, 2007. 9:02 PM
For sure :-) I had learned on a normal "standard" shift, and so I tended to rest my hand on the gearshift knob. In those "autos" it didn't take much to engage the switch and disengage the clutch. I never got totally at ease with them either. Thankfully I never owned one....
4
acer73 in reply to GoodhartSep 7, 2007. 11:14 PM
My dad taught me on a standard so when i drove my moms car an automatic i kept resting my hand on the emergency brake, it scared the crap out of her and thought I was going to do something crazy.
38
Goodhart in reply to acer73Sep 8, 2007. 9:01 AM
I drove a few of the auto-manuals & they would engage the clutch every time you put you hand on the shift knob: not good for the ole clutch, for sure. Lots of vereeeeeeeeeeeem dee dee dee while highway driving =*LOL*=|
41
Weissensteinburg in reply to trebuchet03Aug 22, 2007. 11:59 AM
If you've got a couple thousand bucks to spare, you could make the glove thing. Buy a wacom cintiq, and adapt the stylus onto a glove.
6
zachninme in reply to WeissensteinburgAug 22, 2007. 4:55 PM
The glove thing? I'm assuming you mean the minority report thing? I think the best way to emulate that would be to wear a glove with various color's on the tips, then a webcam to capture it. I've seen similar things done with a tactile something-or-other.
4
acer73 in reply to zachninmeAug 22, 2007. 8:05 PM
This is what I mean. See how yours doesn't have that large of a viewing area and its distorted because of the angle of the camera. Mine has a camera next to the projector, thus leting it view a shadow your finger makes when it comes close to the screen. Since its at a better angle, it views a much larger screen giving it a better resolution and better accuracy 10 fold. Then since it has a camera like yours positioned over head it can view colors and can assist in tracking more then one finger with its color. Please ignore my crappy handwriting, the lines on the screen are there only to help with area and the diagonal ones are for the projector and webcam viewing.
scan0001.jpg
6
zachninme in reply to acer73Aug 23, 2007. 9:45 AM
But I'm not touching the screen! I'd be like 3 feet away!
41
Weissensteinburg in reply to zachninmeAug 22, 2007. 4:59 PM
What would be wrong with the stylus (or whatever the plural of stylus is)? Another option we already have is a large white board, with a projector hooked to the computer projecting onto the white board. The board is also hooked to the computer, and is sensitive to a stylus' touch.
6
zachninme in reply to WeissensteinburgAug 22, 2007. 5:14 PM
Whats wrong with my idea? Its independent of the display, and its cheaper.
41
Weissensteinburg in reply to zachninmeAug 22, 2007. 5:16 PM
What's wrong with mine?
6
zachninme in reply to WeissensteinburgAug 22, 2007. 5:25 PM
The pricetag. You can get a great webcam for this for $30, and get a $10 sheet of acrylic to use as a screen. I don't know how much those whiteboards are, but they're more than $40.
41
Weissensteinburg in reply to zachninmeAug 22, 2007. 5:29 PM
and cover the screen with the acrylic? That would produce a lot of glare.
6
zachninme in reply to WeissensteinburgAug 22, 2007. 5:41 PM
Wait, what? I'm assuming that you'd project an image. To create the image, I'd use TurkeyTek's method, paper behind acrylic.
41
Weissensteinburg in reply to zachninmeAug 22, 2007. 5:53 PM
Your hands would get in the way of the image.
6
zachninme in reply to WeissensteinburgAug 22, 2007. 6:02 PM
No, you project from behind. Thats why you use paper -- it can let the light through. The Acrylic is clear, and is just there for stability.
41
Weissensteinburg in reply to zachninmeAug 22, 2007. 6:04 PM
So you get to see everything backwards? ..where does the camera go?
4
acer73 in reply to WeissensteinburgAug 22, 2007. 6:08 PM
You can use a simple program to reverse the images no problem, The camera could be put on top of the projector. Alignment could be easily solved by projecting a grid and you touching a few points, a shadow would be created which the web cam could pick up and compare to the image being projected.
6
zachninme in reply to acer73Aug 22, 2007. 6:12 PM
Yeah, most projectors have that feature built in. Wait, what? its like this: <|`.......3 < is the projector, projection onto the | screen. The camera (`) is mounted uptop, looking at your multicolored glove, 3.
4
acer73 in reply to zachninmeAug 22, 2007. 6:21 PM
Yes i just jumped into your conversation, this is what i was thinking same key as yours <'......|'....3 If you use the webcam next to the projector it could have a better view and see the shadows much better, the camera ontop of the screen could view the fingers as they touch the screen.
6
zachninme in reply to acer73Aug 22, 2007. 6:37 PM
But... you don't *touch* the screen... theres no shadowing...
4
acer73 in reply to zachninmeAug 22, 2007. 7:44 PM
Okay, if you only positioned the web cam directly over head ti would be difficult for the web cam to find the postion of your finger.

yours with a "" as your finger, notice how there isn't that much board for it to view

/_\

Mine has two views a back one and a direct over like yours. The back one will use the shadow your finger produces from making contact with the acrylic, since it has a larger view it will be much more accuret. I previousy failed to mention that there would need be be a light facing the part your viewing so the back webcam would register a shadow. The webcam directly over head would be used to register color and would help with registering 2 or more fingers touching.
_
| . | /__\
|| direct overhead
back
4
acer73 in reply to acer73Aug 22, 2007. 7:48 PM
what the hell happend to my post let me redo the pictures It keeps removing some characters, i'll just post a picture Need to scan
6
zachninme in reply to acer73Aug 23, 2007. 1:28 PM
I want to yell :P

You never actually touch the screen, at all! You don't get close to it!
41
Weissensteinburg in reply to zachninmeAug 22, 2007. 6:15 PM
You know what I just realized? Our ideas were pretty much exactly the same..mine's probably just a bit more accurate...and costly
6
zachninme in reply to WeissensteinburgAug 22, 2007. 6:44 PM
Okay, heres the Pros/cons: Me: Pros: >No touching -- the main difference between the MR interface and Multitouch tables, hardware wise >Multiple, separate inputs. >Cheap >Scalable >If you didn't mind size, you could use the monitor you're using right now! It'd just be... small... Cons: >Must operate in a "blank" room, or at least a bland one, in order for the color sensing to work correctly. >Questionable accuracy (We can't put a number, until we try) You: Pros: >Accurate >Could work anywhere Cons: >More expensive >Unscalable Feel free to add more. For the record, your idea is basically a large Wacom multi touch display... Mines a Multi-point non-contact interactive display.
6
zachninme in reply to zachninmeAug 22, 2007. 6:51 PM
Hmm! Looks like theres already the 1-point alternative!

I doubt theres a multi-point already made and set up, just because nothing supports multitouch yet!
(Except linux & MPX)
6
zachninme in reply to zachninmeAug 22, 2007. 6:58 PM
Also very good, probably better.
41
Weissensteinburg in reply to zachninmeAug 24, 2007. 12:44 PM
For the record, (though we both know) neither of those links provide an easy to use package. How exactly isn't my idea scalable? Your's takes up way more space, and is more fragile. It would be easy to block the view of the camera, as well.
6
zachninme in reply to WeissensteinburgAug 24, 2007. 1:18 PM
By "scalable", I mean you can make it bigger. I chose a projector because this would be stupid on a 7" screen :P Yours can't go 500" easily, while mine could. However, I'm planning on playing with it with my normal computer monitor after I finish the create instructable, to see if I can do anything beyond interesting.
41
Weissensteinburg in reply to zachninmeAug 24, 2007. 1:27 PM
cintiq is 24"...the white board is a few feet. Most people use 6x9 wacom tablets.
6
zachninme in reply to WeissensteinburgAug 24, 2007. 2:25 PM
Yeah, exactly. A 24" will do, but using a glove on a 6x9 could get... difficult :P But you can't go any bigger than 24", thats your cap.
41
Weissensteinburg in reply to zachninmeAug 24, 2007. 2:29 PM
Only your index finger would have the stylus. because that's what people instinctively use when manipulating something like that...they would put their finger on whatever, and drag, making a 6x9 be fine. ..the white board that I mentioned is bigger, and to be honest, anything bigger than a white board would be a pain to walk from end to end.
6
zachninme in reply to WeissensteinburgAug 24, 2007. 2:32 PM
But, I thought the point of using a glove was to have multiple points? And thats why you needed to use the cintiq, because it could handle that?
41
Weissensteinburg in reply to zachninmeAug 24, 2007. 2:34 PM
*confused* Multiple pointers? Or each finger to work?
6
zachninme in reply to WeissensteinburgAug 24, 2007. 4:01 PM
But, you need multi-touch in order to get a Minority Report interface, or at least multiple input. Otherwise its just a large touchscreen.

Non-contact is actually closer to Minority Report, but I *guess* you could touch the screen, its just not as cool.
41
Weissensteinburg in reply to zachninmeAug 24, 2007. 4:23 PM
They touched the screen in it..didn't they?
6
zachninme in reply to WeissensteinburgAug 24, 2007. 4:36 PM
No, they didn't. Thats why he wore those glove things, I guess But he didn't touch the screen.
41
Weissensteinburg in reply to zachninmeAug 24, 2007. 4:38 PM
are you sureeeeee?
6
zachninme in reply to WeissensteinburgAug 24, 2007. 5:23 PM
Yeeesss...
41
Weissensteinburg in reply to acer73Aug 22, 2007. 6:10 PM
He's talking about different colors for each finger.
6
zachninme in reply to WeissensteinburgAug 22, 2007. 6:13 PM
Maybe only for 4 fingers or something, the thumb and index. Besides demos, no one uses those other 6, its to awkward.
4
acer73 in reply to WeissensteinburgAug 22, 2007. 6:11 PM
well then the way im thinking would not be possible.
17
LasVegas in reply to trebuchet03Aug 22, 2007. 11:31 AM
Automatic Manual transmission

Isn't that what the original MOPAR transmissions were? Basically a standard transmission that used hydraulics, rather than gears.
8
ll.13 in reply to trebuchet03Aug 22, 2007. 1:09 AM
Yes, flying cars.

and what I want to know is why has there only been one moon landing?? if we could do it back in the 70's or so, why not even more of a chance now in the 21st century?
69
Tool Using Animal in reply to ll.13Aug 22, 2007. 2:33 AM
There were six moon landings, but i know what you mean. ;-)
8
ll.13 in reply to Tool Using AnimalAug 22, 2007. 9:52 AM
Yes, I meant Moon landing that transfer human beings, (not monkeys)
17
LasVegas in reply to ll.13Aug 22, 2007. 11:29 AM
Yes. Men have landed on the moon 6 times. Monkeys, none.
8
ll.13 in reply to LasVegasAug 22, 2007. 1:30 PM
Oh, I didn't know there were six, but one note is that the only landing with the hype was the first, and the six landings were from 1969 to 1972 (wikiped.), only three years and since then none, I must admit I am rather doubtful about men-on-the-moon. (:

(and I meant dogs, not monkeys (; )
17
LasVegas in reply to ll.13Aug 22, 2007. 1:51 PM
No dogs on the moon either. The first live space flight used a russian dog. US experimented with monkeys, but not to the moon. There were most definitely landings on the moon. As to why we haven't gone back in a while... There just wasn't anything there worth going back for. Unfortunately, probes to Mars didn't really show a compulsive reason to visit there in the near future either... Of course, the space explored by the probe was only a few square feet. Perhaps the area probed was the equivalent of a few feet of the Sahara desert and there really is something to go back for.
6
zachninme in reply to trebuchet03Aug 21, 2007. 7:49 PM
Automatic Manual transmission -- oxymorona galore! :P

Yeah, I have a feeling that the mouse will be hard to kill.
However, I bet as TFT touchscreens become cheaper and cheaper, hopefully the mouse will become "less used", but it will still be a standard.
It will probably take cheap multitouch (Under $10-$30?) to be in use on standard monitors. TurkeyTek, and several others have done it in the $30 mark, (If you don't count the costs of the display itself), but that technique can't be applyed to an LCD too easily.
105
trebuchet03 in reply to zachninmeAug 21, 2007. 7:58 PM
Automatic Manual transmission -- oxymorona galore! :P

Think about it though -- the efficiency of a standard shift for those that don't want to deal with a clutch pedal :D I mean, if it's good enough for Ferrari and Opel etc.....

Multi touch is a good idea - but that then puts a constraint on your screen. I'm thinking of a robust method that doesn't require interaction with a physical object (necessarily - that's actually an intriguing idea though - an input device that changes based on an object you posses).
6
zachninme in reply to trebuchet03Aug 21, 2007. 8:03 PM
Well, at least with my desk, multi touch would give me more space than my mouse, I have to pick it up and shift it to get from one end to another. and don't get me started about dragging windows from one virtual desktop to another 3 desktops away... lets just say I've gotten good at it :P

Hmm... what about the mind? They've stuck things in peoples brains before. And I remember that there was some game you could control by using your mind, you stuck your finger in this thing... I forget what its called. It was like a video game "system" for your computer, I think it only had 8 or so games...

Its old, has "Mind" in the name, and has a purple box :P Thats all I can remember if you try to look into it ;-)
6
zachninme in reply to zachninmeAug 21, 2007. 8:05 PM
Oh, I also remember seeing something on engadget awhile back, it was some brain-scalp-thing that you wore on your head and you could control games and such. It seems that that could do more than the finger, but I don't know how far they've gotten with it. At the time I saw it, they were playing Pong. (The most advanced finger program I saw was a paint program, but I haven't played, so for all I know, it could be the least advanced.)
155
canida in reply to zachninmeAug 21, 2007. 8:27 PM
There was a demo at one of our Show & Tell nights- I think we played asteroids.
105
trebuchet03 in reply to trebuchet03Aug 21, 2007. 7:44 PM
Doh! It looks like canida beat me :p But I do agree with westfw on Nuclear power plants in the states. It's also unfortunate that Scaled Composites (Virgin Galactic) had an industrial accident when a rocket (or something of the sort) exploded and killed a few people :/ I really hope that doesn't put a stop to public spaceflight in my lifetime...
143
ewilhelm (author) says: Sep 7, 2007. 10:18 AM
This question is now live. Here's my answer: Flying cars – haven’t these been 20 years away for the past 100? We’re certainly not lacking the technology as the Oshkosh Experimental Aircraft Show demonstrates. So what’s holding us back? Is it litigation, regulation, or lack of consumer demand? Fear of flying?
3
NachoMahma in reply to ewilhelmSep 7, 2007. 4:51 PM
. My guess is regulation and cost. Aircraft have to have much more safety equipment and pass more rigorous tests than cars. . Personally, I think flying cars are a bad idea - drunks and idiots are hard enough to deal with on a plane (geometrical type, not the flying type), just think how hard it would be in 3D.
165
Kiteman says: Aug 30, 2007. 9:14 AM
Jet packs.

Stable Mars base, with growing colony.

Private asteroid mining / colonising.

We should, by now, have sent off at least two Generation missions.

Internal nanites working on constant maintenance of me.

Energetically self-sufficient communities and buildings.

Collaborative AIs that "follow" you (in worn devices or hopping via comms networks).
9
chooseausername says: Aug 30, 2007. 8:49 AM
What technology did you expect would be available now that isn't?

Self-regenerating teeth !
12
VIRON says: Aug 23, 2007. 1:22 PM
THE CURE FOR AGEING!!! I'll get to it someday after doomsday I guess...
Imhotep.jpg
3
NachoMahma in reply to VIRONAug 24, 2007. 6:47 PM
. I'm sure it will be discovered about three months after I'm dead (or too old for it to do any good).
7
Bran says: Aug 21, 2007. 5:24 PM
Now, I know that mp3 players are smaller than phonographs, CD players, and other "retro" music players, but it seems to me they should be extremely small. Like, as small as a quarter small. And 8GB? C'mon, 32GB should be standard nowadays.
6
zachninme in reply to BranAug 21, 2007. 6:08 PM
Well, the extremely small ones you're talking about are flash ones, and I'd say that you'd be able to get your 32GB one in 3 years, considering the rate of growth on flash memory. (They have 8GB Micro SD cards)
7
Bran in reply to zachninmeAug 22, 2007. 3:43 AM
Yeah, I'm sure it will come soon, just not as soon as it should.
6
zachninme in reply to BranAug 22, 2007. 7:21 AM
Hmm
Once those come out, you will have a 32GB MP3 player. (Theres already numerous SD-based players)
7
Bran in reply to zachninmeAug 22, 2007. 3:13 PM
Awesome, I would of though SanDisk would of brought it out first, though.
7
Bran in reply to BranAug 21, 2007. 5:28 PM
Oh, and force fields would be so awesome. If only, if only....
173
fungus amungus says: Aug 22, 2007. 1:56 PM
Better audio at cheap prices. Now I have to pay more for a player that has poorer audio quality. The convenience rocks, but where's my hi-def audio?
6
zachninme in reply to fungus amungusAug 22, 2007. 2:19 PM
I hear that a Playstation (the first one) actually had great sound and that audiophiles use them because they're the best deal for the quality.
173
fungus amungus in reply to zachninmeAug 22, 2007. 2:22 PM
Yeah, I heard that, too. When I have time to setup a real stereo again I might look into it.
9
crestind says: Aug 22, 2007. 10:10 AM
Lunar colonies, Mars terraforming projects, and ... PopSci promised LED lightbulbs would be on sale by now!!
4
whatsisface in reply to crestindAug 22, 2007. 1:59 PM
LED lightbulbs are on sale. They tested them on mythbusters.
9
crestind in reply to whatsisfaceAug 22, 2007. 2:09 PM
What store??
4
whatsisface in reply to crestindAug 22, 2007. 2:22 PM
Google is your friend.
6
zachninme in reply to crestindAug 22, 2007. 2:13 PM
Its probably easier to buy online...
Shopzilla! (You gotta say it to some tune, like Duh-da-da!)
4
whatsisface says: Aug 22, 2007. 11:49 AM
I'd expect nanotechnology to be a tad more advanced than it is at the moment. For example, super thin wires in computers, tiny robots making tiny robots, shrinking people down to micro size (Even though you'd have to shrink the oxygen atom at the same time I think). And off course, the flying car. That said, hasn't the Moller Skycar been put into production recently?
9
Loosewire; SOE Operative says: Aug 22, 2007. 8:09 AM
Road legal 1 man hover craft.
9
Loosewire; SOE Operative says: Aug 22, 2007. 8:07 AM
Wireless earphones that recieve the music information from an mp3 transmitter - although if there where 2 or more in range of each other it could cause interference, but the transmitter could have a wavelength selector.
12
VIRON says: Aug 21, 2007. 11:49 PM
A lot of things once were that are now not, which at least SEEM more advanced. It's like we're over the hill of advanced technology. Examples: Men on the moon. Airplanes that went faster than sound. (Concordes.) Cooler toys at Disney than plastic Mickeys and Lionkings, such as their Cartoon Movie Camera of the 1970's. Other DIY animation toys. 3D toys, like view master. 3D cameras. 3D movies. Cooler souvenirs at science museums than plastic dinosaurs, such as prisms and lenticular lenses and holograms and futuristic stuff in general. VRML websites ... and also demoscene quality Virtual Reality. VOIP (internet phone) used to be totally free. Those old Durable Tape Recorders... many different kinds. Creative Computing Magazine's 1980's kind of Open Source. Example:typing in the videogame or app of the month. Computers that come ready to program yourself. Talking toys that don't need batteries (wind up or pull string). Light pens. Although PDA's are a very similar idea. Chemistry sets. Machine Shop classes. Erector sets. Candy stores...hmmm... how is everyone getting fat without them??? Electronics and parts stores other than just Radio Shack. A lot of awesome stuff from a 1980 Edmund Scientific Catalog. I often remember a lot of cool stuff that I can't even find on ebay. For a missing "future" idea, besides space travel, I nominate Dick Tracy's 2-way-TV Watch. (It's a video CB, Not a cell phone)
29
westfw in reply to VIRONAug 22, 2007. 12:24 AM
I think it was Agatha Christy who said "I never dreamed I'd be rich enough to own a motor car, or too poor to afford servants." Edmund's catalog is still neat, and I can buy many times the number of parts from digikey than I could get at Lafyette Radio Electronics... And light pens sucked; the mouse did away with them for VERY good reasons. To some extent, I wonder if things like Instructables and Make Magazine are intentionally pushing at some of those societally imposed limits, to see if the time has come for them to move a bit.
gyromild says: Aug 21, 2007. 8:03 PM
Maybe not a flying Delorean..I just want my Mattel Hoverboard
3
NachoMahma says: Aug 21, 2007. 7:10 PM
. Space travel (at least to Mars by now) and safe, abundant nuclear power. And my friend Billy says Holodecks.
155
canida says: Aug 21, 2007. 6:39 PM
Where's my flying car?!? And my regular hopper flight to the self-sustaining lunar colony. I want that, too.
43
Brennn10 says: Aug 21, 2007. 6:36 PM
All cars not using a Fossil Fuel.
29
westfw says: Aug 21, 2007. 6:21 PM
Nuclear power in general. I would have thought the need for energy would have overcome fear long ago (I guess it has in some other countries.) State approved recreation drugs to placate the masses. (I don't WANT it, but I'm a bit surprised it hasn't happened.) More and Better space flight. (Come on, it's been 35+ years since we landed on the moon, and no lunar colonies, no "public" space stations, not much of anything.)
41
Weissensteinburg says: Aug 21, 2007. 6:14 PM
I'm too young to really know, but i'd say most things..i'll explain: 2000 was the mile stone for most things to be done way back when. It was the "fantasy year" that everyone could assure things by.."Oh, we'll definitely have been to Mars by Y2K" etc.
6
zachninme says: Aug 21, 2007. 6:07 PM
Not being around a long long time, and being a complete realist, but I'd say better media.

I don't know if you'd call it technology, per-se, but I'm 90% sure its technology by the textbook definition...
69
Tool Using Animal says: Aug 21, 2007. 5:13 PM
Fusion power electric cars (mass produced) cheap spaceflight
Pro

Get More Out of Instructables

Already have an Account?

close

PDF Downloads
As a Pro member, you will gain access to download any Instructable in the PDF format. You also have the ability to customize your PDF download.

Upgrade to Pro today!