Inventions now draw on inventions of the past - how to be sure than any invention of the last few decades doesn't inherit some science-fiction base from its predecessors?
apart from, you know, being 20,000 leagues under the sea, which is 1.1112e+8 metres accoridng to google. and submarines so deep in the ocean that they are actually deep in the space on the other side... or maybe it's just ISS?
"The title refers to the distance traveled while under the sea and not to a depth, as 20,000 leagues is over six times the diameter, and nearly twice the circumference of the Earth.[2] The greatest depth mentioned in the book is four leagues. The book uses metric leagues, which are four kilometres each"
Of course, if we're being pedantic about details, that still puts the depth the Nautilus reached at over a kilometre into the earth's crust below even the deepest part of the known ocean...
Clarke published his ideas about that in an engineering journal while he was a radar engineer, so it's not actually an example of science fiction becoming fact.
Flip phones were designed from the communicators in the original series of Star Trek.
If you're interested in the more theoretical side of the Beeb's article then I'd recommend Michio Kaku's book "Physics of the Impossible"[1] (he also did a TV series on this topic but that wasn't nearly as good in my opinion)
I think that's a little unfair. The guy is a respected professional physicist after all. But you often only read about him or see him on TV when he's doing his "fluff" piece - but that's more a problem the with how the media loves to dumb things down than it is with Michio Kaku's credibility.
Regarding the book: it basically takes past scientific breakthroughs to show how tech has evolved, then couples that with current bleeding edge experiments and hypotheses to theorise how sci-fi concepts could/might be solved. It follows a nice balance between factual and entertainment which makes it a refreshing read compared to the dryness of many other books by respected scientific authors.
> The story of a 14-year-old girl who won a landmark legal battle to be preserved cryogenically has many people wondering how such technology actually works - for many of us, it seems like something straight out of science fiction.
> This case has attracted a lot of Press attention, and as ever, not all of it is terribly accurate reporting. Most of the headlines have been along the theme of “girl wins right to be frozen after death”
> > 32.All this case is about is providing a means by which the uncertainty about what can happen during JS’s lifetime and after her death can be resolved so far as possible. JS cannot expect automatic acceptance of her wishes, but she is entitled to know whether or not they can be acted upon by those who will be responsible for her estate after her death. It would be unacceptable in principle for the law to withhold its answer until after she had died. Also, as a matter of practicality, argument about the preservation issue cannot be delayed until after death as the process has to be started immediately if it is to happen at all.
> It is also important to know that whilst JS was a pivotal part of the case and the way it was resolved, the actual legal structure here is a dispute between her parents. When I was hearing the case reported on the radio and TV this morning, without having read the judgment, it made no sense to talk of the child winning this ‘right’ because of course someone has to pay for the cryogenic freezing. This was a dispute between the mother who was supporting JS’s wishes, and the father who was not.
Sorry but this is total bunk. Moving an object the size of a grain of rice with sound waves is not a tractor beam. And I can go on and on. If I want this sort of crap, I'll check my Facebook feed.
I wonder what the decisions look like in the editorial room. Is there some staff member sneaking this in to appear like they're doing work and there's not that much oversight? Do they say we need filler? Something that will get impressions? The Features & Analysis sidebar includes the following compelling titles:
- 100 Women 2016: Big names, astonishing untold stories: Find out who is on the list
- Extremist in the family: He bought his mum a diamond necklace — then fled to join IS
- Clock watching: The global business that starts every day at 9.06am precisely
- Boudoir in the Holy Land: Why Orthodox Jewish women are embracing glamour shoots (replete with shot of the back of a topless woman)
- Parental alienation: 'I was manipulated by my father'
- Tata crisis: How do you sack a boss who won't go?
and three more. I have a hard time distinguishing between the Features and Analysis pieces…
To their credit, none of the articles start with "This", is obviously a listicle, or promises a "weird tip".
Worse, the level of technical description in sci-fi, even in 'hard' sci-fi, is terribly low. You really can't say a submarine 'powered by the sun' is the same as predicting electric subs and neither do you get credit for such things unless you really delve into the justifications for such a 'prediction' and explain a fair degree on how it would all work. Or that the communicators in star trek have anything to do with smartphones and other low-effort comparisons.
Double worse, ignoring the cherry-picking sci-fi tends to do a very poor job predicting anything. Its almost as if sci-fi is written to be dramatic and follow the rules of storytelling instead of some weird futurist exercise. I doubt Philip K Dick gave two shits about how realistic or futuristic his settings were. He was too focused on the characters and the story.
Almost all spacecraft had external viewers that displayed on internal screens to keep the hull strong and continuous.
Now we have airplane companies thinking they invented the concept and were first (Airbus)
The best compendium of science fiction inventions is Technovelgy - Where Science Meets Fiction: http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/ctnlistPubDate.asp. There are hundreds of inventions listed there, many that have come true and some that haven't.
34 comments
[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 73.4 ms ] threadInventions now draw on inventions of the past - how to be sure than any invention of the last few decades doesn't inherit some science-fiction base from its predecessors?
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27069716
"The title refers to the distance traveled while under the sea and not to a depth, as 20,000 leagues is over six times the diameter, and nearly twice the circumference of the Earth.[2] The greatest depth mentioned in the book is four leagues. The book uses metric leagues, which are four kilometres each"
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty_Thousand_Leagues_Under_...)
If you're interested in the more theoretical side of the Beeb's article then I'd recommend Michio Kaku's book "Physics of the Impossible"[1] (he also did a TV series on this topic but that wasn't nearly as good in my opinion)
[1] https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/cka/Physics-Impossible-Scientific...
Take everything kaku writes with a grain of salt.
He frequently borders dangerously on charlatan.
Regarding the book: it basically takes past scientific breakthroughs to show how tech has evolved, then couples that with current bleeding edge experiments and hypotheses to theorise how sci-fi concepts could/might be solved. It follows a nice balance between factual and entertainment which makes it a refreshing read compared to the dryness of many other books by respected scientific authors.
For fuck's sake BBC.
https://suesspiciousminds.com/2016/11/18/cryogenics-and-the-...
> This case has attracted a lot of Press attention, and as ever, not all of it is terribly accurate reporting. Most of the headlines have been along the theme of “girl wins right to be frozen after death”
> > 32.All this case is about is providing a means by which the uncertainty about what can happen during JS’s lifetime and after her death can be resolved so far as possible. JS cannot expect automatic acceptance of her wishes, but she is entitled to know whether or not they can be acted upon by those who will be responsible for her estate after her death. It would be unacceptable in principle for the law to withhold its answer until after she had died. Also, as a matter of practicality, argument about the preservation issue cannot be delayed until after death as the process has to be started immediately if it is to happen at all.
> It is also important to know that whilst JS was a pivotal part of the case and the way it was resolved, the actual legal structure here is a dispute between her parents. When I was hearing the case reported on the radio and TV this morning, without having read the judgment, it made no sense to talk of the child winning this ‘right’ because of course someone has to pay for the cryogenic freezing. This was a dispute between the mother who was supporting JS’s wishes, and the father who was not.
etc.
- 100 Women 2016: Big names, astonishing untold stories: Find out who is on the list
- Extremist in the family: He bought his mum a diamond necklace — then fled to join IS
- Clock watching: The global business that starts every day at 9.06am precisely
- Boudoir in the Holy Land: Why Orthodox Jewish women are embracing glamour shoots (replete with shot of the back of a topless woman)
- Parental alienation: 'I was manipulated by my father'
- Tata crisis: How do you sack a boss who won't go?
and three more. I have a hard time distinguishing between the Features and Analysis pieces…
To their credit, none of the articles start with "This", is obviously a listicle, or promises a "weird tip".
That's actually an annual award/list thing from the BBC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Women_(BBC)
Double worse, ignoring the cherry-picking sci-fi tends to do a very poor job predicting anything. Its almost as if sci-fi is written to be dramatic and follow the rules of storytelling instead of some weird futurist exercise. I doubt Philip K Dick gave two shits about how realistic or futuristic his settings were. He was too focused on the characters and the story.
* Personal computers
* Cell phones
* GPS
* Video phone calls
* Carrying around your entire music collection in your pocket
* Self-driving cars
* Google
* Speech recognition
* Computers playing world-class chess and go
* Cure for cancer (getting closer...)
* Cure for AIDS (close?)
* Cure for colds, flu, and other viruses (unknown)
* Limb and organ regeneration
* Human genome hacking
* Offline memory (in the direct physical sense)
* Implant VR
* Cheap abundant energy (some movement, some way to go)
* Metamaterials and reality hacking
* Teleportation
* Hard general AI
* SETI confirmation
* FTL
I personally think anti-lock brakes on motorcycles are pretty cool.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2tKc8_7jB4