Rand Simberg has already covered an Army of Davids here. Consider that some of the last vestiges of the old media that author Glenn Reynolds eulogizes. Simberg got a pre-print, I didn’t. There will soon be scant difference between the press and the public making the question of who to receive a pre-print something to be settled in shades of gray by Slash Dot ratings and auctions. That will make it easier for a media outsider like me to compete on a level playing field with more traditional media that gets their books early.

Reynolds’s book stands at the precipice of the future and treating different subjects seeks to penetrate the “fog of war” obscuring what will happen shortly. In places, Reynolds is foresighted and confident, especially in areas far along the path to individual control. In others, he seems flummoxed to explain what lies right around the corner despite having a well developed theory in another context.

In this extended review, I will take many of Reynolds’s claims and incomplete predictions and fill them out and complete them.

Continue reading Mass Exodus of Davids →

That’s what fusion has always been called. The old joke is that it’s the energy source of the future, and it always will be. Back in the seventies, we used to talk about the fusion constant–forty years–as the time it would take until fusion became commercially viable. That glorious day continues to recede off into the future. Now we learn that a leading researcher in the field threw in the towel shortly before he died.

I’m not as pessimistic, but I can see how someone could get discouraged after devoting one’s life to the goal and seeing so little progress. I think that we probably will still need better materials, but I wouldn’t give up hope yet. On the other hand, I wouldn’t bet on it, either–we need to be working on a number of fronts (including space power).

[Update a few minutes later]

I’d still like to hold out hope for fusion propulsion, even if it won’t be practical for electric power generation. How much harder/easier is that problem? It’s one that hasn’t gotten as much effort, but it’s not clear whether or not if you get one, you get the other.

This is cool.

Some of the Enigma messages were never broken. Now, you can contribute some CPU cycles to attempting to crack the last ones.

Actually, I think I know one of them. I’ll bet it’s “DON’T FORGET TO DRINK YOUR OVALTINE.”

It may be in sight.

During National Engineers Week, Robert Samuelson writes that the so-called science and engineering gap is phony.

I don’t mind most of this information being publicly available, but I sure don’t want anyone to see the contents of my clipboard. I’m sticking with Firefox.

[Via Geekpress]

It’s that week (that few pay attention to) to celebrate the people who do much more to improve our lives than most people realize.

Nanotube capacitors.

Using nanotube structures, the LEES invention promises a significant increase on the storage capacity of existing commercial ultracapacitors by storing electrical fields at an atomic level. The new LEES ultracapacitors could replace the conventional battery in everything from the smallest MP3 players through to electric automobiles and beyond, yielding batteries with a lifetime equivalent to the product they power and recharging times inside a minute. Most significantly, they promise a much smaller and lighter

I’d sure feel bad if I crashed it, though. I wonder if they have a scale T-38 to train with?

I read Glenn’s new book on the plane back from California on Friday night (it was a red eye, but I have trouble sleeping on planes unless I’m very, very tired).

There won’t be a lot new here to anyone (like, for instance, me) who has been reading the TCS columns on which much of this is based, over the past few years. The basic theme flows throughout–how new technologies are empowering individuals, disempowering the large companies and bureaucracies that have been viewed as the future for the past couple centuries, disintermediating goods and services, and making cottage industries more economically viable.

Examples presented (among many others) are blogs taking down big media (Ra^thergate is cited), musicians marketing and selling music without big record-company contracts, passengers fighting back on September 11th and the “American Dunkirk“–the spontaneous evacuation of lower Manhattan using private vessels to ferry people across the rivers. He also talks about upcoming revolutions in technology, such as life (and in fact, youth) extension.

Even if you are familiar with much of this through reading Instapundit, it remains worthwhile to pull it all together in one place. Interestingly, the one part of the book in which the theme seems to be subsumed, at least to me, was the section on space (already reviewed by Jesse Londin). It starts off very promising, with the chapter titled “Space: It’s Not Just For Governments Any More.” And he does discuss the need for tourism and private activities, and prizes. But his obvious interest in the general topic of the future of space pulls him astray from the general message of the book, as he wanders off into terraforming, space elevators, etc. While these are interesting topics (at least to me, and many readers of this web site), it’s not clear how they relate to empowerment of individuals through advancing technology. They’re certainly unlikely to be achieved through a grass-roots, disintermediation approach–it will take a Goliath of some kind to construct them, one suspects. Perhaps the point is that they’re technologies which, once developed, whether by Davids or Goliath, in themselves might ultimately empower individuals to become space colonists.

If that was the point, I suppose that it’s a useful one, but we’re a long way from either of those kinds of capabilities (though space elevators are probably more feasible in the next few decades than terraforming Mars). I would have liked to see more discussion of the near term, and how we can do more with existing technologies, as space-enthusiast Davids, to slay (or at least get the attention of) the Goliath that is the federal space policy establishment (and yes, the problem is much bigger than NASA).

There’s also one technical error (in my opinion). In the section on Orion, he claims that chemical rockets don’t scale up well, whereas Orion does. I suspect that this guy would be surprised to learn that large chemical rockets are harder to build (though they’re certainly harder to raise the money to build). In fact, I’ll shock many long-time readers by saying that heavy-lift vehicles do make sense, with this caveat–they must have a large market (the failure of ability to imagine one on the part of investors, whether government or private, was Sea Dragon’s downfall). Larger vehicles have less proportion of their weight as “overhead” (e.g., avionics, controllers, valves and plumbing, etc).

That quibble noted, though, I do highly recommend the book. It is indeed thought provoking (and I’m sure that my thoughts would have been far more provoked had I not already been thinking about these things for the entire young millennium). Those who are unfamiliar with these topics will find some interesting linkages between seemingly disparate trends, and much to ponder about the future directions of those trends. For only seventeen bucks plus shipping, as a valuable glimpse of the future, it’s a bargain. But it could be an even better deal–Amazon should bundle it with a slingshot.