Timeline for How would you bring wealth back to the past?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
39 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 7, 2018 at 3:46 | comment | added | Green | @WhatRoughBeast were I a capitalist, and someone showed up with working tech that was 30 years advanced and said, I'll sell this to you. I would buy it. Even if I can't replicate it entirely, the ideas I get from it would allow me stomp my competition into the dust. The opportunity is too large and too obvious to pass up. Even if it take 30 years to figure it out, there's a ton of experimentation that I don't have to do anymore because I have a working example. | |
| Jun 7, 2018 at 3:01 | comment | added | EvilSnack | In the early '70s, when a pocket calculator that only does basic arithmetic cost over $100 (in '70s dollars), my father build a calculator (he was an engineer). The day after he brought it to work, it was gone from his office. His boss had it. He went to his boss on the third day to get it back, and found that his boss' boss had it. Dad's gone, but Mom still has the calculator and it still works. | |
| Jun 7, 2018 at 1:44 | comment | added | WhatRoughBeast | @Green - Sure, but now you've just essentially claimed that IBM or DEC will be so blinded by greed that they will pay millions for a technology they cannot reproduce. Y'know, like savages with shiny beads. It's unlikely they'd buy a pig in a poke, and in '68 they have some idea of the requirements for semiconductor processing. So saying, "It's IBM's or DEC's problem" is pretty much handwaving. | |
| Jun 6, 2018 at 23:31 | comment | added | Green | @WhatRoughBeast you may remember the Three Books series of questions. I learned very quickly that trying to jump start development is essentially impossible. There's too much that can't be conveyed in books. | |
| Jun 6, 2018 at 23:24 | comment | added | Green | @WhatRoughBeast Getting 35 years of semiconductor advancement isn't possible, you're absolutely right. But, it's also not my problem. It's IBMs or DECs problem. As long as they pay me, I don't care if those calculators turn into expensive paperweights or inspiration. The point of the question isn't how to bring jumpstart semiconductors, but to make enough money to retire in 1969. IBM has the money, I have shiny things they may want. It's a transaction, nothing more. | |
| Jun 6, 2018 at 22:13 | comment | added | WhatRoughBeast | This is a fundamentally flawed answer. Attempting to leapfrog 35 years of headlong development is guranteed to end badly. You don't know enough about the semiconductor fab process to duplicate it, and 1968 was just the start of the IC revolution. You don't know how to make the tools (LSI masks and steppers) and the size limits are at least an order of magnitude too small to be duplicated. And software development is useless when the only access to the compiled code in firmware. What you have in a TI-84 is a wonderful white elephant which can serve as long-term inspiration - nothing more. | |
| Jun 6, 2018 at 14:40 | comment | added | Dan W | @Green your best bet would be to bring back something that's less advanced and won't get too many questions. Perhaps a good bit of audio kit, to sell to audiophiles. They'd be willing to pay, but much less likely to ask the right questions. Or even bring back something that's available but just very expensive. | |
| Jun 6, 2018 at 14:38 | comment | added | Dan W | @Green You could potentially claim they were Russian made that you'd smuggled out, and that you were just the courier. That might (or might not!) end the questions, but might alter history. | |
| Jun 6, 2018 at 14:36 | comment | added | Dan W | @Green I think anyone who recognised the value of the devices and was willing to pay for them would be far more interested in the answers than the devices. Any organisation who would buy them bulk would probably have the capability to find you. You could bring back something simpler, and shift it in large quantities to shopkeepers via a middleman, but your profit would be a lot lower. Might work though. | |
| Jun 6, 2018 at 14:32 | comment | added | Green | @DanW then be a good operator and don't answer those questions and don't get caught by the Feds. | |
| Jun 6, 2018 at 14:30 | comment | added | Dan W | This would cause far too many questions to be asked! | |
| Jun 6, 2018 at 10:42 | comment | added | fgysin | +1 Because I'm Swiss. :) | |
| Jun 6, 2018 at 2:51 | comment | added | Perkins | @BlackVegetable Unless they're phenomenally large acid bombs that probably still won't solve the living in a dark hole for the rest of your life part of the problem... Or the regular beatings... It would preserve the original timeline though, so yay! There won't be any reason for your future self not to try this plan... | |
| Jun 6, 2018 at 2:02 | comment | added | BlackVegetable | @Perkins that sounds like a problem solved with... more acid bombs? ;) | |
| Jun 5, 2018 at 14:07 | history | edited | Green | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 213 characters in body
|
| Jun 4, 2018 at 23:09 | comment | added | Perkins | They may not be able to analyze the calculators sufficiently to replicate them, but even having just a few of them to use for engineering work would be a massive advantage. A TI-86 is roughly 8x faster than the computer used to calculate the trajectories for the Apollo program, and is portable. Of course somebody is going to rat you out for peddling obviously-stolen, classified hardware and the Feds are going to grab both you and your devices and beat you with a rubber hose until you tell them how to disable the acid and then keep you in a dark hole until you die. So not the best plan. | |
| Jun 4, 2018 at 22:21 | comment | added | Green | @Keltari what you say is true. I'm not expecting that IBM would have the capacity to immediately use the tech encapsulated in a Ti-84. But, knowing that it works and having multiple examples to play with would be a keen motivation to develop all the tools, techniques and tech to find out how the calculator works. It's just a starting place. There's no way to convey all the tech required to make a Ti-84, so just get them started on the path. | |
| Jun 4, 2018 at 21:16 | comment | added | Keltari | +1. While I agree in principal, there are some major obstacles. Pretty much all of the hardware is integrated circuits. They wont have the technology to understand, deconstruct, or even replicate the parts. Secondly, all the engineers involved in the project are going to have some major questions on its origins. Essentially, you are handing them futuristic alien technology, which can cause disastrous complications. | |
| Jun 4, 2018 at 15:31 | comment | added | Azor Ahai -him- | Where does one get an ID that is appropriate for 1968? | |
| Jun 4, 2018 at 15:13 | history | edited | Green | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Jun 4, 2018 at 13:20 | comment | added | Green | @EngineerToast I was careful to make it acid bombs instead of pyrotechnics. The acid will destroy the mechanism just as easily as a pyrotechic but with more control of collateral damage. I hope :) | |
| Jun 4, 2018 at 13:02 | comment | added | Engineer Toast | I like the part where you hide bombs in safety deposit boxes. You should probably not tell the bank about that part. | |
| Jun 4, 2018 at 12:53 | history | edited | Green | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added the sales process.
|
| Jun 4, 2018 at 12:48 | history | edited | Green | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added the sales process.
|
| Jun 4, 2018 at 12:41 | history | edited | Green | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 3315 characters in body
|
| Jun 4, 2018 at 12:10 | comment | added | Raditz_35 | @RutherRendommeleigh Sorry but you are no longer doing a little research if your journey begins by getting in touch with enthusiasts. And I still give you 0.1% of people that would manage to do all of that. Btw, I'm not sure you're getting this part of my argument: I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm just saying it can't be done by most people without someone telling them exactly what to do. If the OP knew how to do that, he would've figured it out himself. A good answer needs to adress how to solve such issues | |
| Jun 4, 2018 at 11:56 | comment | added | Ruther Rendommeleigh | I'd also argue that an accurate price tag isn't required, nor is getting paid what it's actually worth. On a corporation's scale, paying someone a couple million for a big competitive advantage is peanuts. I'd even recommend getting an older calculator (or other piece of tech) that's not quite as far ahead, they'll still pay a (for an individual) nifty sum just to avoid the competition getting the deal instead. | |
| Jun 4, 2018 at 11:54 | comment | added | Ruther Rendommeleigh | @Raditz_35 Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, but the tech isn't that obscure. Universities and museums still have many of the systems, sometimes in operational condition. People who worked with (and on) them are still alive. I'd start by getting in touch with some enthusiasts. It'll be some work, but not any harder than getting into most other hobbies. | |
| Jun 4, 2018 at 11:37 | comment | added | Raditz_35 | @RutherRendommeleigh Sorry but that makes no sense. How are you going to easily research any of this? You need a solid education and/or a lot of experience and the right kind of personality to do what it takes to really make money this way | |
| Jun 4, 2018 at 11:28 | comment | added | Ruther Rendommeleigh | @Raditz_35 I'd assume anyone enterprising enough to obtain and decide to actually use a time machine (even if it was literally dumped in your lap, using it to your benefit instead of giving it up is a significant choice) would probably think of doing a little research about the target time period. 50 years is not a big leap, there's plenty of reliable info. I'd be more worried about having a good cover story. | |
| Jun 4, 2018 at 10:11 | comment | added | Raditz_35 | Sorry but 99.9% of people wouldn't be able to make any significant money with that, even if we assume that there is a lot of potential. You need to be an expert in 60ies computer technology, negotiating and so on to really make the most of it. Unless the companies are run by insane people, they are not going to pay you more than they absolutely have to, and they have experts in pressuring you into accepting some deal favourable to them. Even placing a realistic price tag on that technology is a task most people wouldn't be able to do and judging by your answer, you are one of them (as am I) | |
| Jun 4, 2018 at 9:15 | comment | added | Oleg Lobachev | I'd like to add that to physically study the chip, you need to grind it down in very fine layers. This worked well around 8088, but decreasing process sizes make it harder and harder. (Russians did it IRL.) Now, depending on the process size in your calculator chip, it might be outright useless to grind it down, and you'd also need like hundreds of them. Non-invasive inspections are of less use. Now, for a calculator to change history, you need to land before first feasible computers, like 1940s or earlier. | |
| Jun 4, 2018 at 7:15 | comment | added | xDaizu | Do you want Terminators? Because this is how you get terminators. | |
| Jun 4, 2018 at 5:15 | comment | added | Johnny | Even if you don't care about altering the course of history, selling pieces of "magical" technology seems like it may attract a lot of unwanted attention. | |
| Jun 4, 2018 at 4:45 | comment | added | Green | @StephenG we know because the improvements represented in one of these calculators is far more innovation than a single individual can accomplish. It's too polished to have been just invented. | |
| Jun 4, 2018 at 4:38 | comment | added | StephenG - Help Ukraine | @mweiss Time to invoke that most useful of Star Trek quotes ; How do we know he didn't invent the thing ? | |
| Jun 4, 2018 at 3:57 | comment | added | Green | @mweiss Exactly....though there is a long discussion to be had about how much bringing anything back in time will alter the history. There's lots of questions on WB about that. | |
| Jun 4, 2018 at 3:19 | comment | added | mweiss | I probably should have specified in the problem "without drastically changing the course of history". :) | |
| Jun 4, 2018 at 3:16 | history | answered | Green | CC BY-SA 4.0 |