What's your favorite technology that you expect to happen but isn't being sold yet?

I like bendy screens, you can have a tablet that folds down to the size of a cell phone. Also, pen touch tech is bringing the idea of the truly paperless office closer. Lastly, I'm excited about color reflective tablet screens, which means you could have a tablet that reflects light like a magazine, so you could read in bright sunlight and reflectivity of screens would tend to be less of a problem.

[QUOTE=jasong;444635]What's your favorite technology that you expect to happen but isn't being sold yet?

I like bendy screens, you can have a tablet that folds down to the size of a cell phone. Also, pen touch tech is bringing the idea of the truly paperless office closer. Lastly, I'm excited about color reflective tablet screens, which means you could have a tablet that reflects light like a magazine, so you could read in bright sunlight and reflectivity of screens would tend to be less of a problem.[/QUOTE]Hehe, so much focus upon communication toys. Perhaps someone feels somewhat lonely? :razz:

I'd like to see the elimination of light bulbs and replaced with all building surfaces able to emit light. No shadows, no dark spots, no bright spots, no blind spots.

I would be a huge fan of reflective screens.

[QUOTE=jasong;444635]What's your favorite technology that you expect to happen but isn't being sold yet?[/QUOTE]Programmable chemical replicators.

You chuck stuff into an input hopper then the machine rearranges the atoms of that stuff into other stuff as specified by a program.

[QUOTE=xilman;444672]Programmable chemical replicators.

You chuck stuff into an input hopper then the machine rearranges the atoms of that stuff into other stuff as specified by a program.[/QUOTE]

Ah, but it's much more efficient to reduce the input stuff into its
subatomic stuff and then put that stuff together to produce
the desired output stuff. As specified by a program.

[QUOTE=davar55;444695]Ah, but it's much more efficient to reduce the input stuff into its
subatomic stuff and then put that stuff together to produce
the desired output stuff.[/QUOTE]How do you conclude that it is more efficient? More efficient in what manner? More energy efficient? More time efficient? More cost efficient? More <something-else(s)> efficient?

[QUOTE=retina;444696]How do you conclude that it is more efficient? More efficient in what manner? More energy efficient? More time efficient? More cost efficient? More <something-else(s)> efficient?[/QUOTE]

Software efficient !

[QUOTE=davar55;444701]Software efficient ![/QUOTE]I am willing to accept it would be more flexible and perhaps also less wasteful depending upon the implementation, but I'd need to see your working to show how it is more "software efficient" (whatever that means).

[QUOTE=xilman;444672]Programmable chemical replicators.

You chuck stuff into an input hopper then the machine rearranges the atoms of that stuff into other stuff as specified by a program.[/QUOTE]

3D printers? :smile:

I'm sure that davar55 can argue his case for himself, but my preliminary analysis gives an ambiguous result. I argue from considerations of entropy or, equivalently, Kalmogorov complexity.

The chemical proposal (my original) has additional complication in that the input elements need to be selected and possibly sorted. The nuclear proposal does not, as all nucleons and electrons are identical, so it wins on this count. The output process appears to favour the chemical device in that isotopic composition is neglected entirely and depends only on the composition of the input. The nuclear device either has to contain tables of isotopes and their natural compositions or it produces output which is monoisotopic in each element, in which case only one table entry per element needs be provided.

Despite some clear advantages of the nuclear approach --- production of specific isotopes from any input material --- my guess is that the chemical device would be much easier to manufacture. The guess is based, not least, on the observation that quite a few primitive but programmable devices are already in production. They are called chemistry labs, chemical engineering plants and, of course, biological systems like GM yeasts and algae.

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse;444716]3D printers? :smile:[/QUOTE]Yup. That was the starting point for my proposal. It's also why I specified chemical replication. Printers at the moment can rearrange the bulk material into diffferent shapes but can't (AFAIK) rearrange the atomic arrangement in any significant way --- other than those examples given in my response to davar55.