In 50 Years...

  • Thread starter rollazn
  • 80 comments
  • 1,514 views
Ha ha ...

Does anyone think we will have colonized the Moon yet? Or have a public use of "Space"? Will we have landed people on Mars? Perhaps a Mars base? What about contact from intelligent extra terrestrial life?

What nations will still exist?

Oh, just thought of this. Will we colonize the ocean? Like in that TV show about the big ship / submarine that just toured the ocean. Very much like Star Trek in the sea or something.
 
But Wal-Mart thinks everyone should have cheap crap because they have a higher profit margine on that.

Wal-Mart sells what they think people will buy. If people buy it (as opposed to going to smaller businesses) then the people choose to have cheap crap because they have more money in their pockets in the short run.

Does anyone think we will have colonized the Moon yet? Or have a public use of "Space"? Will we have landed people on Mars? Perhaps a Mars base? What about contact from intelligent extra terrestrial life?

Most of that will happen if we can get nanotubes going.

What nations will still exist?

Pretty much all of them. Look at the last 50 years.

Will we colonize the ocean?

Why would you want to?
 
milefile
So you could leave the seat up and sex would be boring?
Classic! Great stuff! 👍
LoudMusic
Of course! We all do. But Wal-Mart thinks everyone should have cheap crap because they have a higher profit margine on that. And they're sure not going to tell the consumers.
Actually, you are dead wrong. There is not a higher profit margin on Wal-Mart's cheap crap. Margins are actually razor thin. Wal-Mart makes its money on volume or DSR, or 'Day Sales Received'. In other words, your grandparents may sell that $400 Calphalon set and make $40, but it's been sitting in the store for a month before it gets sold. Whereas Wal-Mart sells a $40 T-fal set and makes $2... but they sell 10 sets a week. So in a month they make $80 on that particular item.

They are two different business models. Your grandparents use the 'boutique' model. Wal-mart uses the 'throughput' model. One is not inherently better than the other; they are just different.
 
No (at least not yet, but I personally think it'll never be). Forming pure hydrogen takes electricity, and that electricity has to be produced somehow (fossil fuels to the, *ahem*, rescue!).

Most cars nowadays need electricity to work. Whether it be teh starter motor or engine management. A hydrogen engine woudl work much the same, starter motor then uses the electricity from the generators to power the hydrogen/water splitting (sorry don't knwo the technical name..Electrolosys?). Perhaps you wouldneed a stronger gernerator and a larger battery.

I'd be interested in seeing diesel hybrids. Any takers?

The would be very slow...
 
danoff
Pretty much all of them. Look at the last 50 years.

The last fifty years? Yeah, look at those. And with a few more years back reveals even more. We've destroyed entire nations, cultures, governments ... created quite a few too. Remember East and West Germany? Remember Jews in Europe? Remember when Japan had an army? Or the USSR?

We're not talking little changes here. This is big ****. Who do you think is next in line to get too big for their britches?

Why would you want to?

It's 3/4 of the Earth's surface area ... and when you go under the surface it's ... nearly limitless? There is more food in the ocean than on the surface. But most importantly, to get away from you!
 
Because if you were to construct a supercar, not only would it lack low speed acceleration due to its electric motor, but it would suffer at max speed aswell.

Admittadley diesel can be made alot faster using turbos and superchargers. But that decreases the fuel economy and needs more oil. Defeatnig the point of it being envioronmentally friendly.
 
We should all get a Mr. Fusion, like from the Delorean in Back to the Future..you start getting low, you grab a crumplen can and some dried leaves on the side of the road
 
ExigeExcel
Because if you were to construct a supercar, not only would it lack low speed acceleration due to its electric motor, but it would suffer at max speed aswell.

Admittadley diesel can be made alot faster using turbos and superchargers. But that decreases the fuel economy and needs more oil. Defeatnig the point of it being envioronmentally friendly.

Who said it had to be a super car? I think they just want a diesel hybrid because diesel is cheaper and hybrid is even more cheaper. And why would it lack low speed acceleration? Take a standard diesel, slap in an electric motor, tada!

No one said "make a weak underpowered diesel engine and put a weak electric motor with it".

An example of the other end of the spectrum http://www.gmemd.com/en/home/ I bet you didn't know that those "diesel train engines" were actually electric generators powering huge f`ing electric motors.
 
The last fifty years? Yeah, look at those. And with a few more years back reveals even more. We've destroyed entire nations, cultures, governments ... created quite a few too. Remember East and West Germany? Remember Jews in Europe? Remember when Japan had an army? Or the USSR?

We're not talking little changes here. This is big ****. Who do you think is next in line to get too big for their britches?

The number of nations that have crumbled is tiny compared the the number that have remained. I stand by my answer, that pretty much all of them will be here in the next 50 years.

Next in line to die is probably China but I'll bet they last longer than 50 years.

It's 3/4 of the Earth's surface area ... and when you go under the surface it's ... nearly limitless?

...and?

There is more food in the ocean than on the surface. But most importantly, to get away from you!

We don't have to live there to get the resources, that's what boats and drilling platforms are for. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to engineer structures for this 3/4 of the Earth's surface? We've still got to much land to make it worth it. It would have to be more difficult to get resources from the ocean to make it worth it for us to actually live there.
 
ExigeExcel
Because if you were to construct a supercar, not only would it lack low speed acceleration due to its electric motor, but it would suffer at max speed aswell.
Actually, that's not true. A 200 hp electric motor makes 200 hp whether it's turning 10 rpm to 10,000. That's the big advantage of electric motors. Unfortunately, a 200 hp electric motor requires a lot of juice to run and store.

Also, electrolysis to generate hydrogen is a very inefficient process. I doubt the hydrogen you make can even sustain the electrolysis itself, let alone powering a vehicle besides.
Admittadley diesel can be made alot faster using turbos and superchargers. But that decreases the fuel economy and needs more oil. Defeatnig the point of it being envioronmentally friendly.
Not to mention that diesel exhaust, even in modern diesels, is about 10x as bad for the environment as modern gasoline exhaust.
 
Also, electrolysis to generate hydrogen is a very inefficient process. I doubt the hydrogen you make can even sustain the electrolysis itself, let alone powering a vehicle besides.
I have seen a few working examples of cars running off water (converting to Hydrogen) on TV before. But as always it is always the 'it'll save the planet' view instead of the 'it isn't efficient' view.

Not to mention that diesel exhaust, even in modern diesels, is about 10x as bad for the environment as modern gasoline exhaust.
I was going to mention that but I have heard of alot of improvements in the cleanliness of diesel engines.

So in the future does everyone thing that hybrids and eventually complete electric engines are the future?
 
danoff
The number of nations that have crumbled is tiny compared the the number that have remained. I stand by my answer, that pretty much all of them will be here in the next 50 years.

Next in line to die is probably China but I'll bet they last longer than 50 years.

...and?

We don't have to live there to get the resources, that's what boats and drilling platforms are for. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to engineer structures for this 3/4 of the Earth's surface? We've still got to much land to make it worth it. It would have to be more difficult to get resources from the ocean to make it worth it for us to actually live there.

How about we look at it this way. The past 50 years of technological advancements have gotten us where? So the next 50 years of technological advancements should be able to do what?

I think "conquering" the oceans isn't that big of a deal.

And if you think China falling isn't a big deal, you are seriously delusional. They make up 5/6 of the Earth's population. That's a lot of people without a leader.
 
ExigeExcel
I have seen a few working examples of cars running off water (converting to Hydrogen) on TV before. But as always it is always the 'it'll save the planet' view instead of the 'it isn't efficient' view.


I was going to mention that but I have heard of alot of improvements in the cleanliness of diesel engines.

So in the future does everyone thing that hybrids and eventually complete electric engines are the future?

Well electicity is currently the most portable form of power. We've gotten really good at conserving its power and transfering it into different forms of energy. Much more so than fossil fuels. Generating that electricity is the hard part.

I still think that "electric fueling stations" make a lot of sense. The way batteries are going, they can be charged quickly, last a long time, and deliver a huge power output. Or possibly something in the garage that the car simply parks on and is charged.

All electric would be difficult, but I think cars will be more like EMD train engines where motion is created soley with the electric motors and a generator charges batteries at its most efficient setting.
 
I think "conquering" the oceans isn't that big of a deal.


Building structures at those depths is a difficult task. But you're right, conquering the oceans isn't a big deal. We've already done it.

And if you think China falling isn't a big deal, you are seriously delusional.

I never said it wasn't a big deal, just that they were probably next.
 
plasma not lcds

Plasma still has its flaws but its possible they could work them out in the next couple of years. It is still considered a new technology. Considering that they do break if faced down I think due to its system and grid I think they'll work that out. If that does happen LCD does also have its issues as well as pixels can damage ...as far as how easy I dont know but it can definitely happen even in small clusters. I think they'll eventually think of something new perhaps something sort of the CRT type quality providing vibrant images that they do now on the Flat Wegas but in the weight of a plasma or even lighter. How? I have no idea hehe. HDTV will be the standard or something beyond HDTV is a possiblity.

On the subject of Nanotechnology it is pretty interesting. I've only done a little reading on it so far and havent gotten into the Nanotubes yet and am interested in learning about them. I think it might be a possibility that we might be able to reconstruct damaged tissues at an alarming rate with nanocells used for rebuilding. I was watching on tv how they were hoping for brains that have been removed from dead people to be awaken into the future using nano technology. It also caught my interest that they would rebuild the cells frozen or something to that nature. I caught it in the tail end of the program but its pretty interesting.

I think most of the nations that are around now will still exist in 50 years from now. Yet of course its hard to predict if something will happen to force revolutions..wars..apocylptic events and such including nuclear warfar which could occur possibly. I think AI will exist into a higher existance than it is today or in the next couple of years. Keyboards might no longer exist as perhaps sensors would be used for our hands infront of weightless monitors(?) providing crt like quality in a most portalbe small slim form.

Exploration in space would be definitely interesting as danoff said about a planet in another solar system capable of sustaining life. Where we're at currently in technology I wouldnt be suprised in 50 years that we would be able to colonize mars with perhaps even small stations..for scientific research housing people within to conduct their work. AS far as the time it takes for people to get to another planet in another solar system..I think we could probably send them in a suspended animation state in tubes upon ships where they could not age/or could(?) heh and have them awaken by NASA or a self program installed within the computer on board. Sort of like Aliens. But to tell you the truth...for that to happen im not absolutely sure I could see it in 50 years for some reason..perhaps 100 or 150 but not so soon. Why? Hell if I know heh.
 
I think humans will be close to immortality, travel times to Australia from England will be an hour or so. Colonizing mars might take longer than 50 years, (imagine having to create a vast atmosphere).Space travel will be aimed at fully covering the Solar system and moving out to nearby galaxies. Domestic appliances will be controlled by our brains aswell as cars. The harnessing of large storms (hurricanes etc) will be thought of if not taking place. Clonning if allowed will be a common medical practice, even just to grow limbs or organs. HIV will be a thing of the past, but I'm sure there will be a similar disease going around. Most of all I hope us humans will be advanced enough to let bygones be bygones and forget about the concept of war. I know for a fact we will be a more productive race of people if we're not wasting time and money in researching and creating military weapons.
 
milefile
This is interesting. It would be tantamount to global telepathy. Very cool. I hope you're right.

Seems like it's already in use in an experimental state. Saw a lame guy on the news that was operating his computer with a cerebral implant.
 
Back