增强现实。这还没有真正流行起来，但从想法来看，我认为它是巨大的，从能够在地面上画虚拟箭头来帮助你找到目的地，到用有用的信息或审美幻想装饰你周围的一切。

想象一下，你的手机在房间的另一头响了起来，你看着它，上面会跳出一个信息泡泡，告诉你是谁打来的。那该有多酷?AR将给我们思考技术和与技术互动的方式带来巨大的变化。

鬼屋可能也会变得更加可怕。

我还想提到用于脑机接口的脑电图，但显然这是在20世纪70年代首次发明的。

自由软件基金会(成立于1985年)

即使你不是他们哲学的全心全意的支持者，他们一直在推动的理念，自由软件，开源已经对软件行业和一般内容产生了惊人的影响(例如维基百科)。

一些回答提到了量子计算机，好像它们还在遥远的未来，但我不敢苟同。

There were vague mentions of possibility of quantum computers in 1970s and 1980s (see timeline on Wikipedia), however the first "working" 3-qubit NMR quantum computer was built in 1998. The field is still in infancy, and almost all progress is still theoretical and confined to academia, but in 2007 company called D-Wave Systems presented a prototype of a working 16-qubit, and later during the year 28-qubit adiabatic quantum computer. Their effort is notable since they claim that their technology is commercially viable and scalable. As of 2010, they have 7 rigs, current generation of their chips has 128 qubits. They seem to have partnered with Google to find interesting problems to test their hardware on.

我推荐这段简短的24分钟视频和维基百科上关于D-Wave的文章作为快速概述，在这个由D-Wave创始人和首席财务官撰写的博客上有更多的资源。

用于人机交互的触摸屏和体感界面。

例如:

pda、iPhone或任天堂DS的触屏 运动感应，任天堂Wii控制器或(在较小程度上)Playstation 3的SixAxis控制器。

唯一的问题是…这些技术真的是80后吗?

这是一个消极的结果，作为一个“基础创新”很奇怪，但我认为适用，因为它开辟了新的研究领域，关闭了无用的领域。

分配共识的不可能性:2001年PODC影响力论文奖

We assumed that the main value of our impossibility result was to close off unproductive lines of research on trying to find fault-tolerant consensus algorithms. But much to our surprise, it opened up entirely new lines of research. There has been analysis of exactly what assumptions about the distributed system model are needed for the impossibility proof. Many related distributed problems to which the proof also applies have been found, together with seemingly similar problems which do have solutions. Eventually a long line of research developed in which primitives were classified based on their ability to implement wait-free fault-tolerant consensus.

回答“为什么新思想会消亡”和“如何应对”这两个问题?

I suspect a lot of the lack of progress is due to the massive influx of capital and entrenched wealth in the industry. Sounds counterintuitive, but I think it's become conventional wisdom that any new idea gets one shot; if it doesn't make it at the first try, it can't come back. It gets bought by someone with entrenched interests, or just FAILs, and the energy is gone. A couple examples are tablet computers, and integrated office software. The Newton and several others had real potential, but ended up (through competitive attrition and bad judgment) squandering their birthrights, killing whole categories. (I was especially fond of Ashton Tate's Framework; but I'm still stuck with Word and Excel).

怎么办呢?首先想到的是Wm。莎士比亚的建议:“让我们杀了所有的律师。”但恐怕他们现在装备太精良了。实际上，我认为最好的选择是找到某种开源计划。它们似乎比其他选择更好地保持可访问性和增量改进。但是这个行业已经变得足够大了，所以某种有机的合作机制是必要的。

I also think that there's a dynamic that says that the entrenched interests (especially platforms) require a substantial amount of change - churn - to justify continuing revenue streams; and this absorbs a lot of creative energy that could have been spent in better ways. Look how much time we spend treading water with the newest iteration from Microsoft or Sun or Linux or Firefox, making changes to systems that for the most part work fine already. It's not because they are evil, it's just built into the industry. There's no such thing as Stable Equilibrium; all the feedback mechanisms are positive, favoring change over stability. (Did you ever see a feature withdrawn, or a change retracted?)

关于SO的另一个讨论线索是臭鼬工厂综合症(参考:Geoffrey Moore):在大型组织中，真正的创新几乎总是(90%以上)出现在自发出现的未经授权的项目中，这些项目完全由个人或小团队的主动性推动(通常会受到正式的管理等级的反对)。所以:质疑权威，反抗体制。