Spotting vaporware: three follies of would-be technologists « Locklin on science

When I was a little boy in the 70s and 80s,  I was pretty sure by the 21st century I’d drive around in a hovercraft, and take space vacations on the moons of Saturn. My idea of a future user interface for a computer was not the 1970s emacs interface that the cleverest people still use to develop software today, I’d just talk to the thing, Hal-9000 style. I suppose my disappointments with modern technological “advances” are the boyish me complaining I didn’t get my  hovercraft and talking artificial brain. What boggles me is the gaping credulity that intelligent people treat alleged developing future technologies now.

A vast industry of professional bullshit artists has risen up to promote and regulate technologies which will never actually exist. These nincompoops and poseurs are funded by your tax dollars; they fly all over the world  attempting to look important by promising to deliver the future. All they actually deliver is wind and public waste.

Scott Locklin points out that new technology doesn't work on a 20-year plan, it builds on small incremental improvements. So when someone says they need billions of dollars and 20-years they are probably full of shit. Unfortunately the three things he singles out are Nanotechnology, Fusion Technology and Quantum Computers. All things that I found incredibly fascinating and cool. Too bad he is probably right that, while theoretically feasible, we aren't going to see any of them flourish anytime soon.

Filed under  //   link   science   technology   thoughts  

Commercials with actual science

This is from a somewhat recent Stockmann-commercial, they are referencing an actual scientific study along with claimed health benefits. Would love to see more companies do that instead of just the generic "more vitamins and anti-oxidants" stuff. 

Filed under  //   science  

Link: Science-Based Medicine » An Influenza Recap: The End of the Second Wave

We are nearing the end of the second wave of the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, and are now a few months out from the release of the vaccine directed against it.  Two topics have dominated the conversation: the safety of the 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccine, and the actual severity of the 2009 H1N1 infection.  Considering the amount of attention SBM has paid the pandemic and its surrounding issues, and in light of a couple of studies just released, it seems time for an update.

Excellent, if not a bit too technical and dry, recap of what is known and what has happened with H1N1 and the vaccine (US-centric). Bottom line is that the vaccine has worked very will with little side-effects and especially if you are in the high-risk group you should get vaccinated before a possible third wave (usual in flu-epidemics).

Filed under  //   link   science  
Filed under  //   science  

About

Long time chemical engineering student back to get his degree. General IT specialist and people person.

TwitterFlickr