Technology progress is actually pretty slow

[BirdDad]

I remember 10 years ago reading in PC Mag that FeRAM would replace DRAM
same issue holographic tape storage was supposed to become the next big storage breakthrough happening soon
same issue bacteria used as data storage
also my semicondutor teacher was convinced that flash disks would totally replace hard drives in 5 years(this also was around 10 years ago)
Arthur C. Clark remarked how computer science has progressed at a far lesser rate than what he predicted in 2001 SO
why does it take so long for tech to become available and what happens to it?

 

[Wallydraigle]

Originally posted by: BirdDad
I remember 10 years ago reading in PC Mag that FeRAM would replace DRAM
same issue holographic tape storage was supposed to become the next big storage breakthrough happening soon
same issue bacteria used as data storage
also my semicondutor teacher was convinced that flash disks would totally replace hard drives in 5 years(this also was around 10 years ago)
Arthur C. Clark remarked how computer science has progressed at a far lesser rate than what he predicted in 2001 SO
why does it take so long for tech to become available and what happens to it?

Money.

 

[sciencewhiz]

Technology progress never comes where predicted. For example, in the 50's people expected flying cars, but never envisioned the PC.

 

[mugs]

Why would any kind of tape storage be the "next big storage breakthrough"?

 

[TheLonelyPhoenix]

We're three years overdue for HAL9000.... WTF?!

 

[crazeinc]

Technology has grown at an exponential rate. 100 years ago we were still trying to figure out how to fly and 60 years later we were rocketing to the moon.

 

[Gurck]

PC innovation is slower than it could be because the need for advancement isn't as pressing as it once was... not enough to win the necessary interest and R&D money, at any rate. And really, we've never had it as good as we do now. Systems have been able to do more & more while their cost has gone down. And as for flying cars... you see how bad the average driver who has 2 dimensions to work with is, would you really trust many of them with 3? The thought truly scares me :Q

 

[BirdDad]

and nearly nothing has changed with regard to spaceflight
it is still in the hands of NASA,private ventures might be about to take off(although I have big doubts about this) and we still have no bases on other worlds and no nuclear porpelled space craft

 

[EyeMWing]

The big problem with IBM's DNA-encoded storage is that you could potentially create anthrax or other various nasties with a text file.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You have a lot of things against more rapid development.

First is the perception that pure research is a waste of public funding. It is not.

Basic research needs to be better funded. Most of it gives just a better understanding of how the world works and is not (yet at least) directly useful. That it is of no benefit is shortsighted.

Another is economic. Business who have spent billions in infrastructure are not going to toss it away before they at least get their money back. It's like buying a "better" car every year. True, it's better, but most people would go broke, as would companies who invest huge amounts of money only to throw it away before they can break even on the old technology. Intel isn't going to throw away the equivalent of a fab a month to get market share when all the demand in the world wouldnt pay for it.

Then we have govt. intervention. Suppose that someone has designed an innovative energy source that would replace oil, and in short order. Ashcroft and Co. can seize that technology and bury it "for the public interest". I wonder how many times that has been done?

Also with progress comes a degree of responsibility. If I develop a saw that is laser powered, hand held, runs on flashlight batteries and can cut a stack of wood three feet thick, it would be regulated out of existence. Why? Suppose I turn it on a crowd at a football game, or shopping mall?
People are just too stupid to have dangerous things in their posession. Think guns are bad? Nothing to what could wind up in the hands of others.

 

[dawks]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
You have a lot of things against more rapid development.

First is the perception that pure research is a waste of public funding. It is not.

Basic research needs to be better funded. Most of it gives just a better understanding of how the world works and is not (yet at least) directly useful. That it is of no benefit is shortsighted.

Another is economic. Business who have spent billions in infrastructure are not going to toss it away before they at least get their money back. It's like buying a "better" car every year. True, it's better, but most people would go broke, as would companies who invest huge amounts of money only to throw it away before they can break even on the old technology. Intel isn't going to throw away the equivalent of a fab a month to get market share when all the demand in the world wouldnt pay for it.

Then we have govt. intervention. Suppose that someone has designed an innovative energy source that would replace oil, and in short order. Ashcroft and Co. can seize that technology and bury it "for the public interest". I wonder how many times that has been done?

Also with progress comes a degree of responsibility. If I develop a saw that is laser powered, hand held, runs on flashlight batteries and can cut a stack of wood three feet thick, it would be regulated out of existence. Why? Suppose I turn it on a crowd at a football game, or shopping mall?
People are just too stupid to have dangerous things in their posession. Think guns are bad? Nothing to what could wind up in the hands of others.

You even have to consider frivilous patents and patent law suits. Like that company suing Microsoft for $500 million or whatever becuase they claim to own the patent on internet streaming technology. That company has never developed a single product (or so i've been told).

And SCO taking on anyone who uses Linux because they filed some patents on some tech they bought.

Stuff like this often discourages some companies from pushing out new and different stuff. It wastes time and money (in the court and in settlements) that could otherwise go to R&D.