Tracking Future Technology: nanotechnology, robotics, biotechnology, rfid

Intel Jumps the Curve

In the interest of open and honest disclosure, I am investor in Intel. One of the reasons I am a long-term investor is because I like how the company constantly and relentlessly engages the future—as this recent article entitled A glimpse at Intel’s futuristic gadgets suggests.

For anyone interested in where the future may be headed, I encourage you to read the article.

A few things caught my attention in the article. First, I was attracted by this quote from the company’s chief technology officer Justin Rattner, “We believe our mission is to take risks.” It is common for executives at many large companies to say such things but Intel puts its money where its mouth is. Consider, for example, the fact that the company is working on something called a “Dispute Finder.” It is essentially a smart software program that will call “bullshit” on an article or blog posting you may be reading if it contains erroneous (or even contradictory) information. Or, last year, the company announced it was working on a shape-shifting human-computer interface. The article also suggests it is aggressively investigating emerging opportunities in the field of robotics which, as I have written about numerous times, is a very promising field.

The second thing that caught my attention was mention of a poster displayed at the conference. It read, “Your kid’s kid’s kid won’t think what we’re doing is crazy at all.” Personally, I’d love to get my hands on a copy of that poster but, regardless, it is a perfect example of developing a future bias. Intel is not simply content to focus on incrementally improving its existing products, it is actively engaging the future in an attempt to “jump the curve.”

As an investor and a fan of the future, I wish them all the best.

Interested in reading about other corporations and organizations who are jumping the curve? Check out these past articles:

Google Jumps the Curve
The CIA Jumps the Curve
BMW Jumps the Curve
Mars Jumps the Curve
IBM Thinks Small
Lockheed Martin Jumps the Curve

Enjoy this post? Bookmark at the following sites.

                           

Email This Article To A Friend   View/Add Comments

The Future of Energy—A Sustainable Carbon Economy?

I have written about carbon capture technology before (here) but one of my favorite websites, Crave, is now reporting on the same technology. What I like about the article is that it refers to the technology as a “synthetic tree.” From this perspective, I believe it is easier for the average person to envision how truly beneficial the technology might be if it can deliver on its promise to capture—or pull out like a sponge if you will—a 1000 tons of CO2 every year. (A real tree needs 100 years to accomplish this same task.)

More broadly still, if innovative researchers at such places as Sandia’s National Lab and Georgia Tech can learn how to “reenergize” this carbon it is possible that carbon could become a “sustainable” fuel. In other words, our automobiles and coal plants will still spew out CO2 but we may soon be able to recycle and reuse it.

I know environmentalists and “Greens” might not warm to such an idea but the future often has a funny way of playing out. The vision of a “sustainable” carbon economy may not hold as much appeal as, say, a zero-carbon hydrogen economy but it has one large and distinct advantage—it won’t require people or large industries to change. And if there is one thing everyone needs to keep in mind when contemplating the future it is this: People don’t like to change unless it is absolutely necessary.

Related Posts

Georgia Tech Jumps the Curve

Goodbye Global Warming?

Enjoy this post? Bookmark at the following sites.

                           

Email This Article To A Friend   View/Add Comments

The Future of Gaming

I can still recall the joy I experienced when I first played my brother in the game of Pong back in the mid-1970’s. (We played on an old black-and-white TV console in our basement.) It would have been difficult for me to imagine back then that sometime in the distant future, Pong and its video-gaming successors would ultimately be a bigger industry than all of Hollywood. Yet that is exactly what occurred in 2005 when revenues from video gaming surpassed the revenues of all the Hollywood blockbusters—combined.

I would now like to introduce you to a new “mind-control” game which will be out this fall from Mattel. I invite you to watch the six-minute CNET video below, but don’t concentrate on how crude the game’s underlying technology is today, rather imagine how much more advanced it and other “mind-control” games will become in the future.

My prediction is that just as Pong’s crude technology predicted the future success of video games; Mattel’s mind-control technology offers a similar glimpse into the future of next generation of gaming.

Related Posts

Pong and the President’s Brain

Enjoy this post? Bookmark at the following sites.

                           

Email This Article To A Friend   View/Add Comments

Adopt a New Mind-Set

One of my favorite columnists, Janet Rae-Dupree, had an insightful article in her column a while back in theNew York Times. In it, she explained the difference between people with a “fixed mind-set” and those with a “growth mind-set.”

The difference can be summed up in how a person views the issue of talent. People with a “fixed mind-set” view talent as innate. Those with a “growth” perspective see talent as something that can grow over time.

What I found interesting was this paragraph:

”People who believe in the power of talent tend not to fulfill their potential because they’re so concerned with looking smart and not making mistakes. But people who believe that talent can be developed are the ones who really push, stretch, confront their own mistakes and learn from them.”

In a sense, the former are less likely to unlearn; while the latter have a more open perspective and are receptive to the idea that yesterday’s knowledge or dogma is no longer sufficient to address the new challenges of today.

The distinction is especially critical in hiring decisions. If you want to position your organization to compete successfully in today’s ever-changing and ever-accelerating world, you would do well to look not necessarily for the most talented but instead for those who are willing to unlearn and grow.

Enjoy this post? Bookmark at the following sites.

                           

Email This Article To A Friend   View/Add Comments

Study Carneades

”I have what I call an iron prescription that helps me keep sane when I naturally drift toward preferring one ideology over another and that is: I say that I’m not entitled to have an opinion on this subject unless I can state the argument against my position better than the people who support it. I think only when I’ve reached that state am I qualified to speak.”

The above quote is from Charlie Munger, Warren Buffett’s right-hand man for more than 40 years, and it offers wonderful advice for anyone wishing to stay open to the importance of—as well as the need for—unlearning.

Munger’s practice of arguing opposite sides of an issue is a practice that dates back thousands of years. As Nassim Taleb recounts in his wonderful book, Fooled by Randomness, in 155 B.C. the Greek philosopher, Carneades, traveled to Rome to argue against a fine which had been levied upon the Athenians.

With unmatched eloquence, Carneades sang the praises of Roman justice and convincingly swayed his audience to the merits of his position. Alas, that was not the point he was trying to make. The very next day Carneades dissected his previous arguments and proceeded to persuasively convince the same audience that the opposite was true.

So where did Carneades really stand on the issue? We don’t know. But that doesn’t matter because what he wanted to advocate was a doctrine of ‘uncertainty of knowledge.” Carneades, you see, was a “radical skeptic” and believed that all knowledge is impossible to know, except for the knowledge that all knowledge is impossible. Or, as Taleb writes, “[h]e stood all his life against arrogant dogma and belief in one sole truth.”

Carneades, though, recognized he lived in the real world and realized such a philosophy would not be readily accepted—or easily tolerated—by a society in need of rules and structure. He, therefore, advocated the idea that “probabilities of truth” could be established, and that these probabilities of truth might reasonably guide society.

The philosophy calls to mind a quote from F. Scott Fitzgerald who once said: “The test of a first rate mind is the ability to hold two diametrically opposed ideas at the same time and still function.”

The ability to deal with ambiguity is not, however, a luxury reserved only for ancient philosophers and poets. In 1988, a study by the American Management Association found that the leadership characteristic most essential for steering organizations through troubled and complex times was “the ability to deal with ambiguity.”

One strategy for preparing for such ambiguity is, like Carneades, to know the opposing side of an argument was well as the supporting arguments. In this way, whenever new—and perhaps contradictory information—becomes available, the holder of the opinion (or position) can assimilate that information into their decision-making process. This, in turn, might make it easier to reverse a position in spite of having voiced support for it in the past. Why might this be so? Because the previous work in understanding the opposite view will have tilled and loosened the soil in which unlearning may take place.

Enjoy this post? Bookmark at the following sites.

                           

Email This Article To A Friend   View/Add Comments

The Future of Reading

Reading. Most of us do it every day and it is so ingrained from such an early age that it is difficult to imagine that there is another way of doing it. Yet, there is.

Last summer, I had the opportunity to sit down with Adam Gordon, the vice president of marketing for Live Ink, to discuss his company’s revolutionary new technology—Live Ink.

Before explaining the technology, however, have you ever wondered why we read the way we do? That is, why do we read words in block text—such as you are doing at this very moment.

I am no historical scholar but I suspect the answer goes back thousands of years and it is partly dependent on writers need to make efficient use of limited resources. First, stone tablets; then papyrus and, ultimately, pulp-based paper.

In much the same way that the QWERTY keyboard has become the de facto way we write on computers —even though it has been demonstrated that there are more efficient and faster methods of typing -- the same can be said for how we read. But instead of dealing with one hundred years of established tradition—as in the case of QWERTY keyboard—printed text in block form has been around since Johannes Gutenberg printed off his first bible.

In the near future, however, the resistance to this long-held paradigm will begin to fade. I am not suggesting that printed block text will fade away overnight, but a convergence of technologies has now created an environment in which a different method of how we access the written word has been created.

Before I go any further let me first invite you to view a visual demonstration of Live Ink’s technology here. In its simpliest form, Live Ink displays text in shorter lines; breaks the text into grammatically meaningful segments; and then indents the text to cue the brain to key phrases within a given sentence.

What immediately appealed to me about Live Ink’s technology was the notion that written text as it was historically formatted was not optimized for the human mind. In other words, while it is true that we can read long line-by-line text that does not imply that it is necessarily the best way for the human eye to operate or for the human mind to comprehend written information.

Until recently there wasn’t much that could be done about this shortcoming. To make books compact and conserve limited resources, it helped to cram as many words onto a page as possible. Today, however, as ever more people access digital information on the Web; from their cellphones; Kindle-like electronic books; and, soon, other flexible electronic media, it will make sense to display information not as “we have always done it,” but rather in a manner that is easiest, fastest and allows us to retain the most information.

Company executives don’t make any claims that their technology improves the rate at which people read; they have, however, documented how their technology dramatically increases reading comprehension rates and eases strain on the eye.

I cannot often say with a strong conviction that I have seen the future; but, in the case of Live Ink, I truly believe I have seen the future of reading. Within a year or so, I fully expect my website—and thousands of others—to begin placing a widget on their site that will allow readers to access written information in a new, faster and more efficient manner.

(For the record, I am in no way involved with or have a financial interest in Live Ink.)

Related Posts by Jack Uldrich:

Paper Industry Needs to Turn a New Page

Enjoy this post? Bookmark at the following sites.

                           

Email This Article To A Friend   View/Add Comments

To Understand the Future It Helps to Have a Brain

Last year, I had a posted suggesting that you didn’t need to be a brain surgeon to see where the future was headed in terms of robotic surgery. I still stand by this statement, but as this news story explains it will still be essential to have a brain.

I have written before about the amazing amount of progress being made in the field of brain-machine interface technology -- or the ability to control external devices by thought alone. But, as the article explains, the technology is probably far more advanced than most people generally recognize. And while it is cool that monkeys can now mentally guide robotics to feed themselves, and ALS victims can continue to communicate with loved ones by using their mind to control a keyboard, I think it is vital that everyone in business today ”jump the curve” and try to understand where this technology might be headed.

(If you wish you can go “bananas” and watch this 55-second video clip of the monkey using its brain to control the robotic arm to feed itself bananas by clicking here.)

For example, what are the implications if people can control simple robotic devices by thought alone? One possibility is that elderly people who wish to remain in their homes (instead of moving into assisted-living facilities) might be able to maintain their independence longer by merely “thinking” a robot to clear away their dishes or clean the bathroon.

I have also written about the exponential advances in self-driving robotic cars. While, at first, people will undoubtedly be reluctant to turn over the control of the steering wheel to a robot, is it possible that their unease might be alleviated if they knew they could take over control of the car simply by “thinking” about it?

To many people such ideas sound impossible, but if you understand where brain-machine interface and robotic technologies are in terms of their progress today and further understand the exponential advances these technologies are experiencing, I think you’ll see that your brain will be able to do a lot more than it is currently doing. At a minimum, I’d encourage you to just “think” about it.

Related Posts

Pong and the Future of the President’s Brain

Enjoy this post? Bookmark at the following sites.

                           

Email This Article To A Friend   View/Add Comments

A Final Lesson in Unlearning

”We simply do not know what the future holds.”—Peter Bernstein

Peter Bernstein, a best-selling author and risk management pioneer, passed away earlier this month. On Saturday, the Wall Street Journal ran a nice remembrance. I especially liked the final paragraph which read:

“Asked in 2004 to name the most important lesson he had to unlearn, he said: “That I knew what the future held, that you can figure this thing out. I’ve become increasingly humble about it over time and comfortable with that. You have to understand that being wrong is part of the [investing] process.”

It is a wonderful reminder of both the importance of unlearning—and the need to maintain some intellectual humility.

Related Posts

Insuring the Future
Unlearning the Future
An Unlearning Tutorial

Enjoy this post? Bookmark at the following sites.

                           

Email This Article To A Friend   View/Add Comments

The Future of Clothes is Small

A while back, I discussed how nano-fabrics would be big business, I still stand-by that assessment and, in fact, I am even more confident after reading this article which discusses how researchers at the U.S. Army Natick Soldier Research Development and Engineering Center are exploring how to employ nanotechnology to make multifunctional uniforms.

The advances that the center is investigating go well beyond what companies such as Nano-Tex are doing to make pants and shirts stain-resistant. Specifically, the Army is interested in incorporating batteries and sensors directly into soldier’s uniforms. Today, it has been estimated that the average soldier carries about 30-pounds of batteries into battle, and these batteries do everything from power night-vision googles, laser-range finders, advanced radios and networked computers. Obviously, it is important that these devices don’t run out of juice during the heat of the battle.

By directly incorporating nanomaterials into polymers and fabrics, the Army is hoping to either capture the photons from the sun to help keep the batteries powered longer or, alternatively, use the thermal heat generated from a soldier’s body to augment a battery’s longeveity.

The technology is still a ways off, but the Natick facility is reportedly close to testing some of these technologies out in the field. I would encourage executives in the clothing, textile and retail industries to keep abreast of these advances because in the near future I see people powering their iPods, laptops, cellphones and other electronic devices not just from the batteries in those devices but from the batteries in their clothing. It might sound odd today, but if you ”jump the curve” I think you’ll agree that it is almost destine to happen—just think after going for a long run with your Nike+iPod system that your device will come back with even more power than when you left!

Enjoy this post? Bookmark at the following sites.

                           

Email This Article To A Friend   View/Add Comments

The Next Innovation: AI, Nanotechnology, Robotics

The following 4-minute CNBC interview with Peter Diamandis, founder of the X Prize, lends further credence to the idea that the private sector and good old American ingenuity will lead to the next breakthrough innovation in artificial intelligence, robotics, nanotechnology and genomics. (I have also posted a few related articles on the topic of innovation below the video.) For people who fear that innovation in America is either a “laggard” (as BusinessWeek recently suggested) or dead, I would only offer the immortal words of Mark Twain who, when he was asked to comment on his death, replied “The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.” The same is true of innovation in America. If anything the best is still yet to come.

Related Posts

Want to Spur Innovation? Award a Prize.
Set Discontinuous Goals

Enjoy this post? Bookmark at the following sites.

                           

Email This Article To A Friend   View/Add Comments