How do you envision technology 50 years from now?

[Akkleptos]

This has been on my mind a lot, recently. If so many things that would have been deemed technologically impossible or just weren't imagined just 50 years ago exist today, such as mobile phones, very powerful computers in the household, CAT scans, etc... what can we expect to have in 50 years, when it comes to consumer electronics (to narrow it down)?

I'm thinking, as examples:

Computers: The majority of people in developed countries will probably have small, extremely powerful portable computers that can be worn, or laptops with flexible keybords and flexible OLED -or equivalent- screens, that connect wirelessly with the internet via a super broadband services provided through a very advanced, omnipresent mobile network (which will be used for this purpose, as mobile phones per se -used only for talking- will have disappeared). These computers will have huge memories, but they will be probably only used as system RAM, to handle the requirements of the OS, opening files and multitasking, since the files themselves -Terabytes of them per user- will be stored online and will be available quickly almost anywhere thanks to the extreme bandwidth the mobile service would provide.

Home entertainment: Televisions and computers will be integrated by now. I'd expect to see some sort of working and relatively efficient high-definition 3D TV (laser holograms?) where you select what you want to see (TiVO+++?). There will be Virtual Reality devices for entertainment (or probably applications to that effect for your computer) and some might connect to the brain itself in order to directly stimulate areas of the brain so that the experience is completely indistinguishable from reality. Video games will probably go this way.

Transportation: We might... just might finally get our flying cars (automated AI now... where's the fun in that?)

Etc...

What are your thoughts?

[Kuroneko]

I'm not a computer engineer (or any other sort of engineer), so I'm not in a good position to speculate on future computer developments; however, it still seems to me that it's almost impossible to predict computer capabilities past around 20nm or a bit smaller, as that necessitates some sort of fundamental breakthrough. I expect, though I'd be happy to be wrong, that this will be rather slow in coming, both because of technological difficulties in implementing something new and sheer economic momentum behind the current CMOS process. Instead, the current trend of making computers more parallel will probably continue without appreciable gains in density until that breakthrough.

These [worn] computers will have huge memories, but they will be probably only used as system RAM, to handle the requirements of the OS, opening files and multitasking, since the files themselves -Terabytes of them per user- will be stored online and will be available quickly almost anywhere thanks to the extreme bandwidth the mobile service would provide.

A follow-up question might be: assuming such capabilities, what kind of tasks would require them that the typical conssumer would be interested in? Truly holographic 3D movies might be one, representing the next sudden jump in resource consumption from MP3/MPEG/etc., but is there anything else?

We might... just might finally get our flying cars ...

If you're thinking of Back to the Future, well... there's being optimistic and there's hoping for loopholes in the laws of physics.

(automated AI now... where's the fun in that?)

For transportation? Even if you do like to drive yourself, automatic collision prevention coordinated with other cars on the road would be very useful.

[Ariphaos]

In Solar Storms I go over a couple of currently overlooked near-term emerging technologies - primarily, fabbers and algaculture.

These two techs are potentially worldchanging, on a similar and highly complimentary scope to computers and the Internet. As the Internet has driven down the scarcity of information, so will fabbing drive down the scarcity of manufactured goods. Fabbers may get some notice over the next decade as they become more versatile and sophisticated on the low end, but I imagine they are going to be hobbyist toys at least until the 2020's. By 2060, though, they will be commonplace.

Algaculture is the application of solar power for biological ends - including the production of biodiesel en mass. Here you have an interesting situation - too much CO2 in the air, a desperate need for water - desalinization - but where to put the brine?

Addressing similar needs to the above would be machines and organic mixes specializing in the synthesis and recycling of materials. A computer, a synther, a cycler, a fabber, a set of algaculture planes and all you need is water, dirt and sunlight, and Earth becomes a limited-scarcity society.

Computers will become ubiquitous but I think more interesting is the possibility of a globally long-range wireless network emerging, possibly getting its groundwork with the wireless-y specification.

As humans, we are going to have no choice but to better ourselves. Star Trek is retarded - genetic engineering is not only a possibility, it is inevitable if we wish to survive as a species, because sooner or later some nut is going to do something stupid. One of the very first vectors is probably going to be directly eliminating the possibility of entire swaths of diseases. I imagine we will start seeing the first such treatments within twenty years, though they will be limited in scope.

It does bring to mind a bit of irony though - by the time we build a single machine of reasonable size (ie, costs less than raising a human) that is more powerful than the unaugmented human brain, the bar is likely to have already been raised.

There is already a 3D projector of sorts that uses ionization to make spots of blue light. This technique could be used to make 3D projections within a closed chamber using 3-color light, or blue and green light in an open-air chamber. I'm not sure if reds will be very easy to create in an oxygen-nitrogen atmosphere.

----

As for transportation, I imagine it will look a lot like it does now. Roads may last longer, cars faster, more intelligent and more durable, primarily fueled by biodiesel. 50 years from now some extremely large vehicles may be refitted for fusion designs - an aircraft carrier that simply draws its fuel from the ocean comes to mind.

[Stark]

I love it. 'Fabbers are awesome, no I won't tell you what they are or how they work, but they'll be commonplace by 2060 because I say so'.

[Ariphaos]

I'm not a computer engineer (or any other sort of engineer), so I'm not in a good position to speculate on future computer developments; however, it still seems to me that it's almost impossible to predict computer capabilities past around 20nm or a bit smaller, as that necessitates some sort of fundamental breakthrough. I expect, though I'd be happy to be wrong, that this will be rather slow in coming, both because of technological difficulties in implementing something new and sheer economic momentum behind the current CMOS process. Instead, the current trend of making computers more parallel will probably continue without appreciable gains in density until that breakthrough.

The ~20nm limitation comes in part from the use of Silicon in a planar arrangement, not that switching to carbon and getting creative with lithography will get very far, quantum tunneling is supposed to take over below ~16nm.

Then again, I heard that tunneling would take over at ~90nm, so I'm not particularly sure who to trust, here.

There are plenty of ways to cheat, though. Probably the most drastic is the recent demonstration of an actual molecular gate, which means moving away from the concept of transistors as the fundamental design unit entirely.

A follow-up question might be: assuming such capabilities, what kind of tasks would require them that the typical conssumer would be interested in? Truly holographic 3D movies might be one, representing the next sudden jump in resource consumption from MP3/MPEG/etc., but is there anything else?

In regards to my fabbing comment above, using computers to optimize the physical structures a person would intend to produce comes to mind. This would be a bit hobbyist, but it applies to just about every hobby rather than the comparatively limited set of information purveyors that currently exist.

More commonly though, people may be forced at least somewhat to be capable of preemptive inoculation against the occasional lunatic, tailoring the needed drug or antidote for their own biology. Or wipe out the possibility of being infected by gram negative bacteria, viruses, or be burdened by prions ever again.

[Ariphaos]

I love it. 'Fabbers are awesome, no I won't tell you what they are or how they work, but they'll be commonplace by 2060 because I say so'.

Sorry, I rather figured that it would be patently obvious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_fabricator

Three-dimensional printer, microfabricator, replicator, whatever.

Get your own : )

[weemadando]

I love it. 'Fabbers are awesome, no I won't tell you what they are or how they work, but they'll be commonplace by 2060 because I say so'.

Sorry, I rather figured that it would be patently obvious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_fabricator

Three-dimensional printer, microfabricator, replicator, whatever.

Get your own : )

Yeah, it still doesn't fucking help if the requisite base materials are scarce. A Digital Fabricator won't turn my turds into Rolexes. It can just turn my turds into Rolex shaped turds.

[Akkleptos]

A follow-up question might be: assuming such capabilities, what kind of tasks would require them that the typical conssumer would be interested in? Truly holographic 3D movies might be one, representing the next sudden jump in resource consumption from MP3/MPEG/etc., but is there anything else?

I don't know, but seeing how there's an apparent tendency to use up whatever Moore's Law and Kryder's Law throw at the consumers... 3D CAD modelling, maybe? VR applications and games? Entire databases (libraries, music, films) stored on a single users account? Even now, does anybody have the time to actually listen to all of the songs on one's 8 or 16 Gb mp3 player? I was thinking consumers would like to have huge media libraries for that "just in case I might want to hear a particular song". Same with other data. Say, you're a Med student, you would like to have a library's worth of Medicine tomes in storage, just because "you never know"...

If you're thinking of Back to the Future, well... there's being optimistic and there's hoping for loopholes in the laws of physics.

So, no flying cars yet, even in 2059? But they said we'd have them by 2000! The liars!

[Lord of the Abyss]

Yeah, it still doesn't fucking help if the requisite base materials are scarce. A Digital Fabricator won't turn my turds into Rolexes. It can just turn my turds into Rolex shaped turds.

But the vast majority of products don't require rare materials. And if they do, it's in small amounts.

[Serafina]

Well, there are a couple of potential world-changing technologys:

-Quantum computing: While still far away form being practical, this would completly revolutionize computers. Not only would this remove the size limit, but they would be far better at "complex solutions".

-Nuclear fusion: While not a free energy device, its the next best thing. If we have reliable, economic, cheap nuclear fusion in 50 years, energy is going to be a lot cheaper.

-Genetic engineering: I predict an advent of widespread genetic enhancments. No fancy stuff like completly rewritten DNA or superhumans, but widespread avaibility or certain improvements. People today are often using certain drugs (like anti-depressiva, ritalin and other stuff) to boost their abilitys. While the risks of "gene-doping" are totally unknown today, once they are lowered beyond a certain treshold, they are going to meet widespread results.
Other than that, i think that we may see great leaps in the treatment of certain diseases, but also cloning of bodyparts.

-alternate food sources: Espacially the change of fishing. Today, fishing is an indescriminate plundering. Lots of regions anf fish species experience severe problems - they are overfished.
The introduction and development of improved fishfarms and the harves of various other nutritients could improve the gain from our oceans by a great margin.
With those new food sources (algae), there may come a need to fabricate them into something more delicious. If efficient, industry-scale processes for nutritient extraction are discovered, those may be fabricated into all sorts of food.
Accordingly, a change in meat production may occur - there is a lot of room for improvement. While vat-grown meat is yet totally inefficient, we may see futher attemps with this technology (i do not think it will replace common farming).

-Electric cars & various other fuels: While not a totally new technology, it is possibly the most important. Fuel is getting to be more and more expensive, and the advent of efficient rechargable batterys should replace normal fuel driven cars. Cheap models wil rely on batteries only, while more expensive versions will improve their reach with hydrogen motors.

-Wifi: Wireless local area networks are getting more and more widespread. I think there will be systems similar to cell phones: You are going to pay a monthly fee, and you have wifi access in every city region. Additionally, smaller devices for internet acces are goint to become more and more widespread, and incorporate cell-phone, office software and a web browser. This will propably happen within the next ten years, i do not suspect great changes afterwards.

[hongi]

Transportation: We might... just might finally get our flying cars (automated AI now... where's the fun in that?)

What are the benefits of flying cars?

[Singular Intellect]

Transportation: We might... just might finally get our flying cars (automated AI now... where's the fun in that?)

What are the benefits of flying cars?

Faster transport for one; straight lines to any destination and potentially vastly faster travel speeds. Reduction in collisons and congestion, since most vehicles will no longer be limited to a two dimensional plane and set routes. Actual accidents will no longer impede traffic, even if they were to maintain altitude. Road conditions will no longer be a factor in driving conditions; additionally, the massive infrastructure to maintain roads would no longer be needed if flying cars actually became practical.

Those are just a few advantages off the top of my head, although there's going to be some new (and probably serious) disadvantages as well.

[Broomstick]

Transportation: We might... just might finally get our flying cars (automated AI now... where's the fun in that?)

What are the benefits of flying cars?

More direct travel. No need (or less need) for roads with their costs and maintenance.

We actually DO have "flying cars". They're called "airplanes" and "helicopters". Getting a pilot's license is within the means of most human beings, provided they are motivated to do the necessary work to obtain one (and live in a country where civilians are permitted to fly). Two and four seat airplanes can be obtained for the price of a fancy SUV. Desire for cars that fly like George Jetson's is basically a wish to violate the laws of physics.

[Solauren]

Faster transport for one; straight lines to any destination and potentially vastly faster travel speeds.

Yes, because I want my next door neighbour flying over my house at 4 in the morning on his way to work. Vehicle skylanes would be as regulated, if not more so, then paved road-ways.

Reduction in collisons and congestion, since most vehicles will no longer be limited to a two dimensional plane and set routes.

See above. If traffic is limited to a fixed route or set of routes, congestion is unavoidable. It will not be as sevre, but it will still happen.

Actual accidents will no longer impede traffic, even if they were to maintain altitude.

The fatality rate will also increase by a considerable margin per accident. What, you don't think getting into an accident at say, 400 feet, and then falling back to the ground wouldn't be fatal? Which are you, a Star Wars Changeling, or a Jedi padawan?

Road conditions will no longer be a factor in driving conditions

Bullshit. Road conditions are generally caused by flying conditions. You don't think the weather conditions that affect traffic now won't be worse for flying vehicles? If you think driving in a 30 mph wind, or a rainstorm, isn't hard, imagine doing it without the ground, land markers, or a fixed, maintained route.

Additionally, the massive infrastructure to maintain roads would no longer be needed if flying cars actually became practical.

HAHAHAHAHAH. First, unless everyone has flying vechiles, roads will still be needed. I can't see a massive switch to 18 'engine' transport trucks in the immediate future of this technology.

Second, now either need really tall 'skylane' signs from the ground, or some way to keep millions of regulator signs airborne. That's going to cost alot of material, or fuel.

Third, you'll need an enforcement infrastructure. That will cost money.

Those are just a few advantages off the top of my head, although there's going to be some new (and probably serious) disadvantages as well.

Your advantages are negated by reality.

Do you know why we don't have flying cars?

#1 - Difficulty in getting a car airborne. The power requirements currently exceed the weight of your average vehicle, let alone a fully loaded vehicle.

#2 - Safety. If you think current drivers are bad, imagine them with 3-D movement. Now imagine them drunk.

#3 - Simple economics; Do you know how much it takes to maintain a helicopter, let alone fly it? Even those little 'bubble copters' you see occasionally? More then most people can afford. That's why ownership of them is limited to large corporations, private individuals with massive resources, or government institutions/organizations.

Sorry, without some massive, massive technological break throughs, flying car's arn't happening in the near future.

[Darth Wong]

We'll never have flying cars, in the sense of a vehicle that is as ubiquitous as a car but has the capability of flight. At least not unless the human race itself is massively upgraded.

Think about it: look around you when you drive on the highway. How many of these fucking inconsiderate, stupid, reckless, careless, and oblivious people do you want to actually have flight capabilities?

[Lagmonster]

The only way I would want to see flight made a more common part of everyday commuting would be in the form of organized mass transit. Say, cheap and accessible (to the public) professional heli-bus companies providing scheduled runs to and from the suburbs. But even with the wishful benefits of reducing traffic congestion and commuting time, it would take a significant cost or safety improvement to make it worth doing.

[lazerus]

I love it. 'Fabbers are awesome, no I won't tell you what they are or how they work, but they'll be commonplace by 2060 because I say so'.

Sorry, I rather figured that it would be patently obvious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_fabricator

Three-dimensional printer, microfabricator, replicator, whatever.

Get your own : )

Hey! Fab@Home! I'm working on that research time right now. And yeah, 2020 sounds reasonable for a "Useful gadget" date -- were hoping to have a fully functional prototype within 5 years and were collaborating with a few teams from other universities to pool our technology. We can do some very impressive stuff with it right now, the issue is reliability. In cutting the cost from $20,000 to <$500 we lost some fine control in the extruder. But we can extrude multiple materials and sequence, which is so far a unique ability.

[Broomstick]

Computers: The majority of people in developed countries will probably have small, extremely powerful portable computers that can be worn, or laptops with flexible keybords and flexible OLED -or equivalent- screens, that connect wirelessly with the internet via a super broadband services provided through a very advanced, omnipresent mobile network

I can see this happening, with some caveats.

(which will be used for this purpose, as mobile phones per se -used only for talking- will have disappeared).

Hee hee hee - except for some of us old farts. My sister recently tried to send me a text message "What do you mean, you're phone doesn't have texting?!?" Well, it doesn't. My phone doesn't connect to the internet at all. It's because I didn't want to pay for the service (being a bit poor at present) so my phone is just... a phone.

These computers will have huge memories, but they will be probably only used as system RAM, to handle the requirements of the OS, opening files and multitasking, since the files themselves -Terabytes of them per user- will be stored online and will be available quickly almost anywhere thanks to the extreme bandwidth the mobile service would provide.

Look, I hate to rain on the parade, but there are a few problems with this. First, bandwidth can be exceeded. We see this every time there's a major catastrophe - the mobile networks either fill up or crash or both. Granted, as time goes by these networks will have greater capacity, but I question if it will be sufficient to guarantee service at all times. If not, then people will want on-board data so they really can access it at all times. There is also the issue of privacy and hacking. The best firewall is simply NOT connecting to a network. I believe there will continue to be a need and desire for local storage of data for all of the above reasons.

I've been hearing for 20 years we'll be storing all our shit on-line, but while that is an option for many items today it is neither a mandate nor always a preferred way to do things.

Home entertainment: Televisions and computers will be integrated by now. I'd expect to see some sort of working and relatively efficient high-definition 3D TV (laser holograms?) where you select what you want to see (TiVO+++?). There will be Virtual Reality devices for entertainment (or probably applications to that effect for your computer) and some might connect to the brain itself in order to directly stimulate areas of the brain so that the experience is completely indistinguishable from reality. Video games will probably go this way.

3D TV is a popular want, but how realistic is it that we will get this?

Transportation: We might... just might finally get our flying cars (automated AI now... where's the fun in that?)

Get a pilot's license and you can have it now. Without AI. Hell, in the US you can fly things that don't even have instruments.

[Marcus Aurelius]

We'll never have flying cars, in the sense of a vehicle that is as ubiquitous as a car but has the capability of flight. At least not unless the human race itself is massively upgraded.

Think about it: look around you when you drive on the highway. How many of these fucking inconsiderate, stupid, reckless, careless, and oblivious people do you want to actually have flight capabilities?

Well, I suppose you could make the flying cars AI piloted by default and only had manual controls as a backup. Such an AI networked to central traffic control AI computers is quite feasible.

The problem of energy requirements is much more serious. There is nothing that can compare with the energy density of oil derived fuel and flying cars would require massive amounts of fuel compared to ground traffic. Ethanol isn't too bad, but making sufficient quantities of ethanol even from cellulose or algae is very much a non-trivial task, since the efficiency of photosynthesis is very low. Fossil fuels have the advantage of storing millions of years worth of photosynthetic products. Current battery technologies are of course non-starters for flying vehicles due to weight. So until we have portable microfusion with some efficient and lightweight way to transform the heat to electricity or some kind of massive breakthrough in battery technology, flying cars will never become everyday items.

As luxury items for the rich some kind of flying cars may become available quite soon (i.e. within the next 10 years), though, but they will essentially be just combination of current automobile and helicopter or autogyro technologies and they will probably be quite inefficient compared to dedicated cars or helicopters.

[Broomstick]

Transportation: We might... just might finally get our flying cars (automated AI now... where's the fun in that?)

What are the benefits of flying cars?

Faster transport for one; straight lines to any destination and potentially vastly faster travel speeds.

Potentially vaster slower, too - I have had passengers laugh when they realize the cars below us are going faster than the Cessna/Citabria/Ikarus/ultralight we're in.

Reduction in collisons and congestion, since most vehicles will no longer be limited to a two dimensional plane and set routes.

Aw, geez - man, you have not thought this out. You see, on the ground you have nicely marked lanes and signs and stuff keeping people in set routes. In the air you have.... um.... well, you don't really have anything. Free-for-all situations with human controlled objects in three dimensions frequently doesn't work well, what with our lack of 360 degree vision and so forth. That's why even the smallest po-dunk airstrip has a preferred way to approach it, at set altitudes. It cuts down on the carnage. Currently, the main way the flying objects are kept separated is by the human pilots keeping track of this stuff in their heads - and 3D visualization is a far from universal skill among humans, even with training. Modern flight software can help with this, but if the software crashes/locks up/whatever you're back to wetware and bare brains.

Airplanes do not fly willy-nilly - the more you have in the sky the more controlled and precise the flying routes must be. They'll be limited to a three dimensional sphere and set routes (or at least a long list of formal rules), instead of a 2D plane and set routes. At that, this obstacle is probably one of the easier to overcome.

Actual accidents will no longer impede traffic, even if they were to maintain altitude.

No, a lot of accidents will simply smash down onto whatever is below them - farm fields, houses, people....

Road conditions will no longer be a factor in driving conditions; additionally, the massive infrastructure to maintain roads would no longer be needed if flying cars actually became practical.

As pointed out, you'll still need some roads.

As while road conditions will be much less a factor weather will become hugely more significant. Weather that a car can get through easily can kill small aircraft.

Some time back I went over some reasons why flying cars are a bad idea, here's some paraphrasing:

1) For short distances, flying is terribly inefficient - but then, so are many SUV's, so maybe that's not an insurmountable obstacle.

2) In order for this to work, people have to follow the rules. Aviation is NOT forgiving of error! You can drive carelessly and get away with it - flying carelessly is much more likely to result in disaster. Should people who habitually speed, tailgate, violate stop signs and red lights, and otherwise behave in a reckless manner on the road be allowed to fly? Here in the US, when I went to apply for my civilian pilot license I was required to sign a piece of paper allowing the FAA access to my driving record - obviously, if I can't be trusted with a car, I can't be trusted with an airplane. Mostly they're looking for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, but if they find a pattern of misbehavior they can hold it against you. Yes, I have known pilots who lost their flying privileges due to a bad on-the-road driving record.

3) If you engineer limitations on the machines, you can encounter other problems. After 9/11, someone seriously suggested a device mounted on all airplanes such that if you entered a no-fly zone without permission it would shut the engine(s) down. Yeah, that was a bad idea. But stuff like that crops up all the time when discussing flying cars. "Oh, let's limit them to 4,000 feet" OK - how are we going to do that? "Let's tie the altimeter into a computer, the computer into the controls, and it won't let them go above 4,000 MSL" OK... but you won't sell any of these in Denver. Also, what if you're crusing at 3500 feet and find yourself on a collision course, and the best way to go is up but you can't because of the limiter? What about hot, humid days - that atmospheric effect causes the same pressure drop as an increase in altitude - there are days here around Chicago where that would effectively limit these things to no more than 2500 feet above the ground. It would halve the amount of vertical space you could put these things in, resulting in much greater traffic densities and you're back to traffic jams - except everyone is going even faster than on the freeway.

[Broomstick]

Faster transport for one; straight lines to any destination and potentially vastly faster travel speeds.

Yes, because I want my next door neighbour flying over my house at 4 in the morning on his way to work. Vehicle skylanes would be as regulated, if not more so, then paved road-ways.

In a sense, they already are that heavily regulated. The regulations are somewhat different than those applying to ground vehicles because flight is a different mode of travel in a different environment, but it IS regulated and that will not change.

By the way - flying my airplane over a neighbor's house at 4 am loud enough to disturb said neighbor can result in a $10k fine here in the US. They don't usually impose that amount, but such rules would, no doubt, apply to flying cars since they apply to ANY flying vehicle in this country. Other nations have comparable rules and punishments.

Reduction in collisons and congestion, since most vehicles will no longer be limited to a two dimensional plane and set routes.

See above. If traffic is limited to a fixed route or set of routes, congestion is unavoidable. It will not be as sevre, but it will still happen.

Disagree - I think air traffic in some locations at some times is already as bad as freeway traffic jams. When O'Hare is landing airplanes every 90 seconds (or more often) on multiple runways it looks like a freakin' whirlpool of hardware funneling into the place, as just one example. Give everyone a flying car and you'll have the same problem, but with less trained pilots. This would not be a good thing.

Road conditions will no longer be a factor in driving conditions

Bullshit. Road conditions are generally caused by flying conditions. You don't think the weather conditions that affect traffic now won't be worse for flying vehicles? If you think driving in a 30 mph wind, or a rainstorm, isn't hard, imagine doing it without the ground, land markers, or a fixed, maintained route.

Flying in a 30 mph wind? I've done it. My asshole puckered so hard I thought I'd need to have the seat cushion surgically removed. But be fair - he was talking about ROAD conditions, not WEATHER conditions. Unless you're talking about runways, potholes will no longer be a worry. On the other hand, potholes, water, ice, etc. on runways IS a problem. And harder to handle in an airplane than in a car. Helicoptors can ignore quite a bit of that sort of thing (though not all) but they are hugely more expensive to build and maintain, and require different training. They also have a higher fatality rate even among trained pilots.

Third, you'll need an enforcement infrastructure. That will cost money.

It's called "radar" - largely installed already. And "tickets" for flying violations are typically an order of magnitude (or two) more than automobile tickets.

#1 - Difficulty in getting a car airborne. The power requirements currently exceed the weight of your average vehicle, let alone a fully loaded vehicle.

I think you expressed this poorly, and in any case, we have aircraft far heavier than any road vehicle. You can have heavy aircraft, but they will, of necessity, look very different from heavy ground transports.

#2 - Safety. If you think current drivers are bad, imagine them with 3-D movement. Now imagine them drunk.

To me, this is one of the biggest arguments against them

[Broomstick]

Well, I suppose you could make the flying cars AI piloted by default and only had manual controls as a backup.

Problem is, manual flight is an unnatural act achievable only by training and practice. An emergency in the air requires well trained and well practiced skills to safely deal with it, and how many people are going to practice for such things? We have a hard enough time getting highly motivated pilots to do that now, your average roadrager or trailer trash good ol' boy is even less likely to do this.

Such an AI networked to central traffic control AI computers is quite feasible.

Oh really? We have AI's of that capability right now? I think not. No telling when they'll be developed, either - I've heard predictions of AI being just around the corner for 25 years now. Color me skeptical until we actually have one.

The problem of energy requirements is much more serious. There is nothing that can compare with the energy density of oil derived fuel and flying cars would require massive amounts of fuel compared to ground traffic.

I dispute that. The Cessna 150's I used to fly got gas mileage (in level flight) comparable to my pick up truck. And that's 1950's technology. Diesel engines for same consume only about 2/3 the fuel volume for the same performance, and can run on biodiesel. Modern small aircraft utilizing carbon composites and other 21st Century materials and technology (including fuel management - also in those diesels I mentioned), can, in level flight, get about 36 mpg which statement I base upon having actually flown such aircraft and monitored the fuel burn myself. Granted, those are two-seat aircraft, four seaters do require more fuel but not massively more. Aircraft are a LOT more efficient today than they were even 30 years ago.

Current battery technologies are of course non-starters for flying vehicles due to weight.

Agreed. Likewise, solar power is not suitable, either, nor is human power or rubber band power. While aircraft utilizing all of the above have flown they can't be described as practical. (I'm not sure if a solar or battery powered aircraft has ever flown a human being, there have been human powered and rubber band powered ones that did) The one steam-powered airplane that actually flew was probably more practical than either batteries or solar is right now, and the steamplane was launched back in the 1930's.

As luxury items for the rich some kind of flying cars may become available quite soon (i.e. within the next 10 years), though, but they will essentially be just combination of current automobile and helicopter or autogyro technologies and they will probably be quite inefficient compared to dedicated cars or helicopters.

And that's an important point. Cars and aircraft (of any sort) have very different requirements, and so far no one has come up with a vehicle that is good at being both a ground AND an air vehicle.

[Sky Captain]

If we define flying car as a vehicle that is about the size of an ordinary road car, has approximately the same range, utility and payload capacity and can take off and land vertically from your backyard then it won`t happen unless some genius invents something equivalent to sci-fi anti gravity drive and compact energy source to power that drive.

There are some prototype vehicles with foldable wings that can fly and also drive on a normal road, but neither they are good planes nor good cars.

Besides if flying cars become common somewhere in the future and still are piloted by humans then I`d build a thick concrete dome over my house

[General Zod]

3D TV is a popular want, but how realistic is it that we will get this?

There's been any number of attempts like this one but 3d projection displays like in Minority Report are still a good ways off. We don't even have a decent saturation of HDTV yet, so I expect at least another 20-30 years before we see viable 3d technology.

[Surlethe]

Well, there are a couple of potential world-changing technologys:

-Quantum computing: While still far away form being practical, this would completly revolutionize computers. Not only would this remove the size limit, but they would be far better at "complex solutions".

Not going to happen in the foreseeable future - at least not with QCA. The problem with using quantum mechanics to do things is that they're susceptible to temperatures greater than absolute zero: you get theoretical perfection at 0 K and then by 4 K, any stray charge anywhere screws up the entire damn machine. Any breakthrough in quantum computing is going to require a shift in how we think about computing in general; at this point, quantum computers are theoretically unstable, let alone cost-effective to build and run.

-Nuclear fusion: While not a free energy device, its the next best thing. If we have reliable, economic, cheap nuclear fusion in 50 years, energy is going to be a lot cheaper.

This runs into problems, too. I don't think people realize just how technically formidable building a fusion reactor is; while it could be done if we decided to simply sink money into it, a la Manhattan Project, right now governments simply aren't willing to expend the amount of capital to get the ball rolling. That, and it's certainly not guaranteed that any existing plant design would be economically viable.