Slashdot Mirror


Worst and Best Predictions on Technology

prostoalex writes "Dow Jones News asked several mahor scientists and technologists about their worst and best predictions of the future. The story, republished at Yahoo! Finance Singapore quotes Lester Thurow, Professor of management and economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Sloan School of Management; Nicholas Negroponte, Founder and director, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Media Lab; Glover Ferguson, Chief scientist, Accenture; Alan Nugent, Chief technology officer, Novell; Peter Cochrane, Director, ConceptLabs; Michael Earl, Dean, Templeton College, University of Oxford. There seems to be a common agreement on having overrated the ability of machines to talk back to users and vice versa."

187 comments

  1. Worst predictions: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It won't be big and professional like the GNU HURD"

    "640k ought to be enough for anybody"

    "3DFX is set to dominate the graphics industry for the next 5 years"

  2. predictions by harks · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm still disappointed and waiting for my nuclear powered vacuum cleaner.

  3. or do they mean... by BiOFH · · Score: 1

    ...over-rated the ability to make the technology work properly in the first place?

    --
    - I am made of meat.
  4. Overrated by Snaller · · Score: 2, Insightful

    People always overrate the future, its the one constant..

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    1. Re:Overrated by richie2000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      +1 Overrated

      --
      Money for nothing, pix for free
    2. Re:Overrated by GigsVT · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Why do you think style sheets make web pages unreadable? Do you even know what style sheets are?

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    3. Re:Overrated by samael · · Score: 2

      Actually, people overrate the changes in the near term and underrate them in the long term.

    4. Re:Overrated by irc.goatse.cx+troll · · Score: 0

      Actually, People overrate anything other than whats right infront of them.
      'Grass is always greener on the other side' applys to time as well.

      --
      Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
  5. Talkback by richie2000 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I predict we need more machines that talk back to authors when they find mahor spelling mistakes.

    --
    Money for nothing, pix for free
    1. Re:Talkback by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prediction: Cowboyneal's computer will be the first computer ever to wear out it's voice.

    2. Re:Talkback by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And your apostrophe key must be wearing out too?

    3. Re:Talkback by CrystalFalcon · · Score: 2

      MANY more machines. And this effect, the effect of being drowned in messages grammatical errors and/or spelling errors, should appropriately be called "Slashdotting".

    4. Re:Talkback by richie2000 · · Score: 2

      No, "Slashdotting" is the DDOS attack initiated by posting a "story" (an euphemism for "target request"). This should more appropriately be called "Slashdoting". ;-)

      --
      Money for nothing, pix for free
  6. When Anthony Michael Hall just won't do... by realgone · · Score: 4, Funny
    Today's favorite: Biotechnology advances will radically transform our world and our bodies.

    Mr. Thurow says higher IQs and more beautiful children will be among the benefits of biotech advances. "For the first time in history, people will be able to change themselves," he says.

    Will someone please make sure that Christopher Walken is in the balcony with a rifle at this guy's next public speech?
    1. Re:When Anthony Michael Hall just won't do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, yes. Because what we really need is more ugly, stupid children who make lame jokes about the assassination of people who say things they don't want to hear.

    2. Re:When Anthony Michael Hall just won't do... by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 1

      Sometimes, we are far too soft on people like you

    3. Re:When Anthony Michael Hall just won't do... by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 2

      Dude, that was a Dead Zone reference. Chill out!

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    4. Re:When Anthony Michael Hall just won't do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If higher IQ's will produce more Lester Thurows, the human race is due for extinction.

    5. Re:When Anthony Michael Hall just won't do... by grumpygrodyguy · · Score: 1

      Ya, but did you read his manifesto?

      Talk about an accurate description of the future jeez...Of course he could have written a book like George Orwell, instead of bombing people.

      --
      The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
  7. I want my flying car, dammit! by Dthoma · · Score: 0

    Oh, come on! How could you not see that coming? ;-)

    --

    Note to M1-ers: a curt but otherwise insightful message is not "Flamebait" or "Troll".

    1. Re:I want my flying car, dammit! by scott1853 · · Score: 1

      I want the first one off the line. Moller just needs to wait another 20 years so I can save up enough money for one.

    2. Re:I want my flying car, dammit! by Em+Emalb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No doubt. Seems like every 6 months some website trots out "the experts" and sets them loose on the next big thing.

      Well, here's my prediction:

      Computers won't change much in the next 10 years. Oh, they may change shape, or form, but they will still do the same thing:

      connect us to people and information

      Side note, yeah, we are supposed to have all these cool tech advances, and we can't even get cheap broadband access in urban areas. Please. Get the stuff we have currently working well, then we will worry about the flying cars

      --
      Sent from your iPad.
  8. What? by Rhinobird · · Score: 1

    What!? No flying cars?

    --
    If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
    1. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is the year 2000, but I where are the flying cars? I was promised flying cars. I don't see any flying cars. Why? Why? Why? Because billions of people all over the world can work together over hte web 24 hours a day seven days a week. You don't need flying cars, but you will need a different kind of software.

  9. The worst thing is that it's all boring nowadays by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Nothing really imaginative on the horizon.

    CPUs, for example - who cares anymore? 95% of us couldn't care less about upgrading, and the chances are that the last upgrade was just for the sake of it, not because we really needed a faster processor. Not like 10 years ago, when it was, 'Wow! The Pentium is going to be a big leap forward'.

    Memory - so cheap, who cares anymore? Even 5 years ago, I was thinking, 'Wow! I've finally managed to afford 128 megs of RAM!!!' Most other people had 32 or less. Now, who cares? I could afford a gig of RAM, but what's the point?

    Hard disks - mine is about 20% full, and has been for months. No need to upgrade.

    Monitors - the few people who actually need a screen bigger than 17 inches can now afford them. LCD monitors are no longer a novelty.

    Mice - optical mice are no longer a novelty

    Bandwidth - OK, so ADSL is still 'exciting', but for how long? In two years, anybody who wants it will have it.

    Optical storage - recordable DVD is here. CD-R is rediculously cheap. Who needs more storage than that?

    OK, that's hardware, what about software?

    Linux kernel - it's excellent. However, the excitement of a few years ago is dwinding. Don't get me wrong, Linux is excellent, but now that we've got a really good free *nix, the fun of developing a really good free *nix isn't there.

    GNU/Hurd - maybe oneday this will become interesting :-)

    Windows - I hate Windows, but at least the launch of 95 was interesting. The lack of initial enthusiasm for 98 was interesting. After that, it got boring. Now, it's just more and more waffle about DRM. It's *boring*.

    The only things I can see on the horizon that might be interesting are:

    * IPV6
    * Linux on non-i386 platforms.

  10. what are mahor scientists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    and how is it pronounced? ma whore? may hor?


    Slashdot, where semi-literacy is prized above all

  11. The problem with making accurate predictions... by CommandNotFound · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...is those pesky users and their fickle minds. For instance, who would have thought that most people actually don't *want* video phones or flying cars or talking computers? Or at least, they don't want them enough to drive the technical development of these things, since standard phones, autos, and Windows seem to do the job well enough.

    In other words, just because a technology looks like it's the "right" way to progress next, doesn't mean the market will allow it to move along.

    I think we'll see this with Web Services (noted in the artcle as the current Next Big Thing). At it's core it's simply a formalization of how CGI developers have been working for years, yet most people and developers still prefer to use a generic web browser to diseminate most information, vs. using a custom client and a web service. Why? Because developers don't want to support another client program, and users don't want to download another one when they can just enter www.weather.com/my-zip-code to get the current weather forecast. I don't think it's been the lack of a formal parameter/return value standard that has held this idea back.

    Don't get me wrong, I think Web Services are a nice tool, but unfortunately I see it as a problem looking for a solution. For most end-users it will mostly be a poor substitute for a URL (wait until your co-worker comes in to show you his spiffy new .Net web services demo! It will show you the current news and weather! OVER THE INTERNET! Oh, just install this 300MB library+runtime first. Ok, now install my 30MB client app. Oh, yeah, that didn't refresh properly, did it? Exit out and restart. Dang. [this is better than a browser how?]), and for most in-house developers it will be just another call to use instead of dlopen() to open shared routine. And until the Net becomes totally ubiquitous and telecom-reliable, I don't see many shrink-wrap developers linking in lots of remote Web Services on the fly, when most of that functionality can be placed locally during the install.

    1. Re:The problem with making accurate predictions... by mattmunz · · Score: 1

      just install this 300MB library+runtime first

      I didn't have to install anything unusual to use the following web services demos.

      Also, web services are a back-end b2b communication platform first and foremost. Like any other back-end protocol, the front-end can be whatever you want -- http, http + applet, Flash, thin client, thick client, C, C++, C#, C&%^$&*?, whatever.

      I check my mail using both a thick client, and a web browser. Both work fine and have their uses.

      Sounds like your real beef is with .Net. Don't forget, .Net != web services. There are many of us developing web services with no intent to use .Net in any way.

    2. Re:The problem with making accurate predictions... by manyoso · · Score: 2

      Exactly! I think the interesting prediction is how long this hype over web services will go on before everyone realizes it's a bust.

      For me the best prediction in the article was this: "The Internet will ultimately be more about information than transactions."

      I think the IT sectors current fling with web services is just another dot.bomb waiting to happen.

    3. Re:The problem with making accurate predictions... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "For instance, who would have thought that most people actually don't *want* video phones or flying cars or talking computers?"

      I bet that people actually *want* "video" phones which can take pictures and can play video clips. Those will become pretty popular in a couple of years.

      However, people don't want to send picture of their face to the caller at 3fps.

    4. Re:The problem with making accurate predictions... by Planesdragon · · Score: 2

      For instance, who would have thought that most people actually don't *want* video phones or flying cars or talking computers? Or at least, they don't want them enough to drive the technical development of these things, since standard phones, autos, and Windows seem to do the job well enough.

      I think that all three are more of a case of poor technology than lack of desire.

      I would love a working video phone where I could use my TV as the screen; but I don't have that, and neither have I ever seen it.

      I would love a flying car--a VTOL, efficient, computer-controlled flying vehicle that is no larger than a current large automobile. But I'm not going to get it, because no one can figure out how to make the darn things float when powered down.

      I would love, love, love it if my PC really could hold an intelligent conversation; but the voice-command programs are no better than a keyboard (natural language Command line would be a better place to start) and the voice-recognition programs require too much time to train (and still get words wrong) and voice-speaking programs just sound bad.

    5. Re:The problem with making accurate predictions... by CommandNotFound · · Score: 1

      Sounds like your real beef is with .Net. Don't forget, .Net != web services. There are many of us developing web services with no intent to use .Net in any way.

      I wasn't picking on .Net alone; I'm referring more to its target audience; those who have never coded plain old HTTP GET/POST calls to see just how easy it is to pass a set of parameters to a remote function (www.myurl.com/services/currentTemperature) and get return data back, whether it be XML, HTML, formatted ASCII, or raw binary. These people have been convinced that you *need* a huge runtime library and VM to accomplish web services, when you could do it with a couple of perl scripts or C code.

    6. Re:The problem with making accurate predictions... by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 2
      I would love a flying car--a VTOL, efficient, computer-controlled flying vehicle that is no larger than a current large automobile. But I'm not going to get it, because no one can figure out how to make the darn things float when powered down.

      Flying cars isn't quite the market that they're aiming for but Cartercopters look to have that problem sewn up- they don't float down; but they are designed to survive complete loss of power without any major issues, and can land in any small clearing.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    7. Re:The problem with making accurate predictions... by grumpygrodyguy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In other words, just because a technology looks like it's the "right" way to progress next, doesn't mean the market will allow it to move along

      This should be engraved on the proverbial tombstone of the dot-com era.

      --
      The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
  12. Talking to computers by stewby18 · · Score: 5, Funny
    Worst prediction: People would be talking to computers.

    What's he talking about? I talk to computers all the time, especially Windows machines. "What the hell do you mean the zip drive can't be found?! It's right there!"

    1. Re:Talking to computers by Alien54 · · Score: 2
      The problem with people talking to computers is that it is not Star Trek.

      I can remember when the first mac came out with the first voice recognition technology of any kind. at least one couple were heart broken that it wasn't "like Star Trek".

      In other words a computer that you could speak to, that would answer your questions, tell you what it needed or what you needed, do all of the calculations, and also have the infinite patience that a machine would have in dealing with a human.

      being able to say things correctly is important too.

      I'm sorry George. The bank says that you do not have enough money in your bank account for that purchase

      is much better than

      stupid, you do not have the money

      --
      "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
    2. Re:Talking to computers by SiliconEntity · · Score: 2

      Seems to me that computer speech recognition has gone mainstream in the last year or so. I'm talking about telephone services to confirm reservations or get information for airlines, rail travel etc. Almost all of these now work by voice around here. You say your flight number or departure city and the system retrieves the information.

      They work pretty well in my experience, recognizing even long numbers. Probably helps that they are looking for matches in an internal database.

      So I'd say this is one prediction which is finally starting to come true.

    3. Re:Talking to computers by zrodney · · Score: 1

      no it isn't. the predictions were implying that
      the keyboard and monitor on computers will be an
      archaic memory like paper tape or punch cards.
      Some even predicted this would happen before the
      year 2000.

      it didn't happen, it won't happen. it's much faster
      to type than to talk for technical things where
      accuracy is important.

      but, anybody can be a 'Futurist', the trick is to
      make up something outlandish with a grain of possibility.

    4. Re:Talking to computers by leviramsey · · Score: 2

      But Scotty used a Mac...

      "Computer.... computer...."

      "Oh, a keyboard, how quaint."

    5. Re:Talking to computers by pyrrho · · Score: 1

      Ok now, it's good to plagerize Eddie Izzard... but don't forget to mention him!

      Go Eddie!!!

      "What's that behind your back...?" "uhhh, just the falklands--- need the falklands... for, eh, strategic sheep purposes."

      --

      -pyrrho

  13. Predictions.... by I_am_Rambi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Worst prediction: People would be talking to computers....Mr. Negroponte would welcome a breakthrough. "I've been wrong for a long time," he says. Isn't there a program called something like ViaVoice? Doesn't Office XP come with Voice Reconigtion? Doesn't Mac OS 9 (I believe) have voice passwords? Don't people use it? I don't think this is a worst prediction. Yes, the reconigtion program isn't that great, but it is getting better and better. Where has this guy been living (and what computer has he been using) to say that he is wrong?

    O, and btw, don't we all talk to computers even if we don't have voice reconigtion? "Come on, you can do it", "Stupid Windows", "Good job", "You stupid dimwit" are just some examples. This would be concidered talking to a computer. In light of that, talking to computers is done everyday almost by every person.

    1. Re:Predictions.... by aiabx · · Score: 1

      Voice recognition is not sufficiently stable right now to make it easier to use than the old fashioned keyboard. It makes a novel toy, or a useful workaround for people who can't use a keyboard, but it really isn't ready for prime time.
      -aiabx

      --
      Just this guy, you know?
    2. Re:Predictions.... by AvitarX · · Score: 2, Informative

      Voice will never be more effective then a good keyboard. A good typist using a bad (QWERTY) keyboard gets 60+ WPM, try talking that fast and keeping your thoughts together, or even accuratly reading that fast. Even A modest typer can type better then speak. Imagine an office with everyon talking to their computers.

      Even in star treck there was very little actual voice command, they had keyboard things all over the place. I would say most voice interaction was information lookups to the point that google will be able to do in 15 years. But for real commands and interface it will be non voice.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    3. Re:Predictions.... by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 2

      ...Even A modest typer can type better then speak. Imagine an office with everyon talking to their computers.

      Even in star treck there was very little actual voice command...


      Yeah, but imagine how much smarter everyone will sound.

      --
      The Internet is generally stupid
    4. Re:Predictions.... by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      At least I didn't call it star track :)

      and while your correcting my punctuation and spelling do it correctly. "Star Trek" (quotes and all).

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    5. Re:Predictions.... by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 2

      No, you're not an idiot. I wasn't correcting your spelling, I was just pointing out typos. I probably have more typos and spelling errors then most.

      That's the main reason why I want to see voice reconignition software. The input will be slower, but at least it'll look good.

      --
      The Internet is generally stupid
    6. Re:Predictions.... by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      IAAI is my sig actually :)

      If the speach reconignition software is truly so good you do not nead to proof read it for comma placement (or do you say comma?) then I really nead to look into it, but until it is that god (so good you know it has what you want, no proof reading) it is not a problem. Both those typos would have been caught by the spell check.

      Actually treck with a c was a mispelling, not a typo.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    7. Re:Predictions.... by Razzak · · Score: 1

      Ehhh. Who uses voice recognition anyways? About the same amount of people who use Videophones. Voice recognition is:

      Buggy
      Slower
      A sure sign you should attend the next Star Trek convention

      Every time there's a new voice recognition feature for my mac I love to go and try it out. Then, after using it for about 10 seconds I feel like a total freaking idiot and turn it off.

    8. Re:Predictions.... by spectrum- · · Score: 1

      One thing people forget with voice recognition is that even if the software is accurate 100% - voice recognition would still be useless in some scenarios:

      - A noisy factory (where nothing is easily heard)
      - An office (where everybody talking would be very distracting to others)
      - using passwords or anything private/confidential information.
      - where several inputs are required simultaneously (games, simulators etc)

  14. 30-year rule by mmoncur · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Most futurists follow the same "30-year rule" that science fiction writers follow: If you want to predict a sweeping change that will revolutionize everything, place it about 30 years in the future. If you doubt this, just look at virtually every mainstream sci-fi flick that takes place in the future. This might have started with George Orwell's "1984", first published in 1954.

    I think people tend to come up with 30 years because (a) it sounds far away enough for anything to happen, and (b) it's soon enough that they might be alive to see it.

    [obPrediction: by 2032, Slashdot will have its own TV show]

    --

    It's Slashdot's evil twin... SlashNOT
    1. Re:30-year rule by ColdGrits · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nice theory.

      Shame it is flawed.

      "1984" was published in 1949, not 1954.

      Oh, and Orwell set it in 1984 because he wanted to pick a time reasonably in the future, and as he was writing it in 1948, he just swapped the last two year digits round, thought it sounded like as good a future date as any, and used it.

      No "30 year rule".

      Nothing to see here.

      Move along.

      --
      People should not be afraid of their governments - Governments should be afraid of their people.
    2. Re:30-year rule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong, by 2006 the DMCA will have made places like Slashdot illegal (because criticizing software in public or supplying a forum for that purpose will be handled as a capital offense), and Taco, Roblimo and Cowboy Neal will be in jail serving life sentences in a Nevada stalag as repeat offenders.

    3. Re:30-year rule by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

      Oh, and Orwell set it in 1984 because he wanted to pick a time reasonably in the future, and as he was writing it in 1948, he just swapped the last two year digits round, thought it sounded like as good a future date as any, and used it.

      Actually, the title and year it was written has more significance than that, but if you've read it and decided to accept that it just 'sounded as good as any', I don't think I want to try to explain it.

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
    4. Re:30-year rule by ColdGrits · · Score: 1

      Don't want to, or can't?

      Hey, if you have information which helps lead to a better understanding of the issue, then please do share. I, for one, would love to read your explanation.

      OTOH, if you are just trolling to make it sound like you know more than you do, then please do shut up.

      --
      People should not be afraid of their governments - Governments should be afraid of their people.
    5. Re:30-year rule by Chuq · · Score: 2, Informative

      Maybe you've watched too much Back to the Future? (1955 - 1985 - 2015).

      Zemeckis and Gale said they chose 1955 in the first one because its the typical generation gap - a typical age at which married couples have children. They wanted to choose a time where Marty's parents would be teenagers. They were mid-40's in 1985 (47 to be exact), so 1955 was a nice round number, and would put them at 17 in the past.

      Similar reason when they went to 2015 - they wanted Marty and Marty Jr to be the same age (as Michael J Fox played both of them).

      --
      - Chuq
    6. Re:30-year rule by dillon_rinker · · Score: 2

      I believe it was a joke....if you've read the book and take the explanation for the title (or anything else) at face value then what's the point of trying to explain anything different to you?

    7. Re:30-year rule by dillon_rinker · · Score: 2

      Shame it is flawed.

      Someopne points out that most sweeping-social-change sci-fi is set about 30 years in the future. You point out that when 1984 was written, it was set about 30 years in the future. Conclusion: the "30-year" rule is wrong.

      ?????

    8. Re:30-year rule by ColdGrits · · Score: 1

      Do calm down.

      He said it was set 30 years after it was written, and stated it was published in 1954.

      When in actual fact, it was written in 1948 and published in 1949 - neither of those dates are 1954, do you agree?

      Therefore, 1984 is NOT set "30 years" after writing / publication - if it were, then we would all be talking about 1978 or 1979.

      So either we shoudl talk about a "36-year rule", or if you want to round it to nice easy to use multiples of 10, the "40 year rul".

      Or we just accept that the so-called "30 year rule" is, in fact, just a myth.

      BTW, your "?" key seems to be a bit sticky.

      --
      People should not be afraid of their governments - Governments should be afraid of their people.
    9. Re:30-year rule by ColdGrits · · Score: 1

      Tut tut. such uncalled-for agression.

      I wonder why?

      Anyway. You claim to have a different explanation for the choice of title - please do share it with us. You never know, you might convince people if you present enough of your theory and supportive evidence. 's what discussion is about.

      --
      People should not be afraid of their governments - Governments should be afraid of their people.
    10. Re:30-year rule by Ella+the+Cat · · Score: 1

      [obPrediction: by 2032, Slashdot will have its own TV show]

      Ken MacLeod's Cosmonaut Keep has a throwaway line about not being able to get the news on either CNN or Slashdot.

    11. Re:30-year rule by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

      Consider the names of various government departments in the book. Most of them are named pretty much as the opposite of what they do. There are a lot of other instances in the book where things are twisted in this way, and, in general, it leads to the title. If it had been written in 1949 instead of 1948 it would've been 1994. Normally, I would go into more detail, but I haven't read the book since 1991, and am pretty sure my copy of the book is still in a box that has yet to be unpacked.

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
    12. Re:30-year rule by ColdGrits · · Score: 2

      Thanks for the info. That's actually rather fuller and, being placed better in context, a more accurate explanation than I managed to (fail) to give! I'll try to be a bit more accurate on the subject if it ever crops up again.

      However, it does, I would suggest, support the point I was stumbling over making, namely that 1984 wasn't set in 1984 for any mythical "30 year rule".

      --
      People should not be afraid of their governments - Governments should be afraid of their people.
    13. Re:30-year rule by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

      However, it does, I would suggest, support the point I was stumbling over making, namely that 1984 wasn't set in 1984 for any mythical "30 year rule".

      Well, I would guess that if the given date hadn't been sufficiently far in the future (ie an xx year rule of some type), he may have compromised with something like 30 years in the future. However, since it wasn't 1944 or 1945, he was ok with using the title that fit his story. That being said, the title did not hurt the story even though I first read it over 5 years after that year had passed. Space 1999, on the other hand, doesn't hold up as well ;)

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
    14. Re:30-year rule by armb · · Score: 2

      > he just swapped the last two year digits round, thought it sounded like as good a future date as any

      Think of the fictional future as a reflection of the (then) present.

      --
      rant
    15. Re:30-year rule by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 2

      There is (probably) a 30 year rule though. Things really do seem to take 30 years. That is probably because the people who get control/power/money want to maintain the status quo. They take that long to get old and retire. They need to be out the way for progress to be made, in many cases.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
  15. Absolute worst technology prediction... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Macintosh OS X is a new operating system."

    Mmph! Just tell that to the guys who spent all their time and energy writing *BSD, only to have Steve "I am not a thieving maggot" Jobs use them and lose them, kinda like Wozniak. They never saw a damned dime for any of it.

    1. Re:Absolute worst technology prediction... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those scummy bastards. well, at least they didn't get fp. and that's what counts.

    2. Re:Absolute worst technology prediction... by expro · · Score: 1

      They chose the license.

  16. I DO NOT want any flying cars, dammit! by LordZardoz · · Score: 2

    While the concept of any civilian being able to fly is an intriging one, it does pose certain problems.

    Most drivers are of the opinion that 95% of other drivers should not be driving. At least that is the way it seems to myself when my friends who do drive choose to vent their spleens on the subject.

    Do you really want that Drunken idiot who cut you off flying around? The hazards for office buildings and high rise apartments alone are staggering. I do not like the idea of having some 16 year old DUI parking his Hovercar in my apartment living room.

    END COMMUNICATION

    1. Re:I DO NOT want any flying cars, dammit! by weaver · · Score: 1

      I agree with you. By and large, the number of car wrecks that occur on a daily basis are a compelling argument against universal access to flying vehicles. One aspect, though, that seems to keep creeping in is that folks want to have something for themselves as they are different and better. Flying cars would be great if I was the only one having them. :-)

      Take care,
      Mike

    2. Re:I DO NOT want any flying cars, dammit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      www.moller.com there is your flying car. FAA approval in pending. wheee.. a 9/11 everyday in my point of view.

  17. Slashdot should do this! by Snaller · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Make a subject where the users can enter their predictions about the future - then we return in ten years and check it out :)

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    1. Re:Slashdot should do this! by sirius_bbr · · Score: 0

      Why not ffwd 10 years and see what happened :)

      --
      this sig has intentionally been left blank
    2. Re:Slashdot should do this! by InfoVore · · Score: 4, Interesting
      You should check out the Foresight Exchange.

      Basically it is an idea stock market. When you become a member, you receive a small amount of fake investment money. You can then buy and sell against ideas posted by other members. The premise is the the closer an idea is to being true/possible, the higher its value will be in the market. Ideas do have adjudicators who are responsible for judging when and if a stock has met its criteria and can be pulled off the exchange.

      Here is an example of the top 10 traded ideas on Foresight Exchange now:

      Rank Volume % Symbol Short Description

      1 26234 83.4% T2007 True on Jan 1 2007

      2 1034 3.3% BBRP Bal Bdgt 2002 w/2000 GOP Pres

      3 803 2.6% USIraq US attacks Iraq in a year.

      4 437 1.4% HURR02 Atlantic Tropical Storms 2002

      5 371 1.2% ObL1yr Osama bin Laden 1 year after

      6 275 0.9% $bill U.S. Prints New Dollar Bill

      7 222 0.7% SCHRDR Schröder Remains Chancelor

      8 193 0.6% Clone Human Clone before 2005

      9 160 0.5% King Prince Charles remains heir

      10 154 0.5% SLvl 1 m rise in Sea Level

      --
      "These laws they're passing won't even compile anymore, let alone execute." - anon
    3. Re:Slashdot should do this! by Snaller · · Score: 2

      >You should check out the Foresight Exchange >Basically it is an idea stock market [...]

      Hey, Nifty! Thanks for the link :)

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    4. Re:Slashdot should do this! by Lars+T. · · Score: 2

      Sounds like Delphi from John Brunner's Shockwave Rider.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  18. "Asimov's Law" by sakusha · · Score: 2

    This sounds like a good time to sort out an old (possibly apocryphal) quote I heard, it was allegedly attributed to Issac Asimov. He said something to the effect that "any time an expert says something is absolutely impossible, it is certain to happen, eventually. Any time an expert says something is possible, it will happen sooner than anyone expected."
    Now I'm sure I've mangled that, Asimov could spin a phrase much better than that. But it does sound like Asimov, an ironic skepticism against skeptics, disbelief in pundits, and a belief that we are most infallible when we claim things are impossible.

  19. 802.!! !!! by opencity · · Score: 1

    "Telecom could invert itself and become a bottom-up phenomenon," is a deliciously subversive idea. Like the local currency systems - LETS and whatever comes after major labor music distribution this promises to really shake things up in a good way (read: shaft the bad guys) and is also right around the corner.

    Then I'll get a cell phone

    --
    Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.
  20. In the shorter term by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's one possible layout for the next 20 years. A couple are coming true early, like Linux AOL!

  21. Words of wisdom by Subcarrier · · Score: 2

    People always overrate the future, its the one constant..

    "The future looked much better in the olden days." -- Grandfather

    --
    "I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them." -- George H. W. Bush
  22. Accenture by dexter+riley · · Score: 2, Funny

    Glover Ferguson, Chief scientist, Accenture;

    I predict that Mr. Ferguson might need to find a new job before too long.

  23. More Human Misery by hydrofilic · · Score: 0, Troll

    I only see technological developments resulting in more an more human misery for the majority of humanity.

    Humanity is becoming more and more disconected from the natural environment we evolved in the more we try to modify that environment.

    Biotechnological "advances" will result in the extinction of the human speces in 100 years or so.

    1. Re:More Human Misery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you hate technological advances so much, the WHY THE FUCKING HELL ARE YOU USING A COMPUTER?!

      Make yourself a spear, go somewhere remote in the Amazon basin and see if you can catch a few fish, without being eating or stung by anything or starving to death. THEN you can start lecturing others on nature.

      And yes, I do know that that was a troll.

    2. Re:More Human Misery by hydrofilic · · Score: 1

      Make yourself a spear, go somewhere remote in the Amazon basin and see if you can catch a few fish, without being eating or stung by anything or starving to death. THEN you can start lecturing others on nature.

      Clearly that is impossible. Most of humanity has lost the technological skills and knowledge to be able to survive and thrive in the wilderness areas.

      Furthermore I don't hate technology, I tolerate it. And I wasn't trolling I was just trying to get people to question the benefits of technology and its consequences for human happiness, and where it will ultimatly lead us.

    3. Re:More Human Misery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      > I only see technological developments resulting
      > in more an more human misery for the majority of > humanity.

      Which is why you are using a computer, one of the jewels in the crown of technology.

      You nature-is-good people are a bunch of hypocritical morons. Go back and live in nature, without antibiotics, anesthetics, heating, and so many of the horrors of technology.

    4. Re:More Human Misery by grumpygrodyguy · · Score: 1
      I only see technological developments resulting in more an more human misery for the majority of humanity.

      Humanity is becoming more and more disconected from the natural environment we evolved in the more we try to modify that environment.

      Biotechnological "advances" will result in the extinction of the human speces in 100 years or so.


      I know that most of us don't want to believe this. But there are many compelling signs which indicate he's correct. This is not a troll, and he shouldn't be modded down as one.
      --
      The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
  24. a little one-sided by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What, they couldn't find even one woman to ask?

    1. Re:a little one-sided by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who cares about new types of potpourri and upcoming Bette Midler movies?

  25. Very poorly formatted. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When doing something that is a list of things in html, try making the headings a little more distinct.
    Chances are pretty good that people will want to skip over the boring ones.
    Maybe a bold tag around the words "Worst Prediction:"

    This was interesting reading, too bad it looked like shit.

  26. I dunno... by Spazntwich · · Score: 0

    I've been talking to my computers (In the form of yelling horrible obscenities) for as long as I can remember, and I swear they can understand me. They always seem to crash worse once I start yelling.

  27. Clarke's Law by ColdGrits · · Score: 2, Informative

    You mean Arthur C Clarke's First Law - "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."

    Do at least try to attribute the correct author!

    --
    People should not be afraid of their governments - Governments should be afraid of their people.
    1. Re:Clarke's Law by sakusha · · Score: 2

      Thanks for the attribution, that's what I was looking for. But I'm not so sure that what I heard was Clarke's Law. I think Asimov was spoofing Clarke's Law with one of his own. Hard to recall after all these years, that's why I'm tossing this out to the /. hive-mind.

    2. Re:Clarke's Law by Captain+Nitpick · · Score: 2, Insightful
      But I'm not so sure that what I heard was Clarke's Law. I think Asimov was spoofing Clarke's Law with one of his own.

      Asimov's Corollary to Clarke's First Law: When the lay public rallies round an idea that is denounced by distinguished but elderly scientists, and supports that idea with great fervor and emotion -- the distinguished but elderly scientists are then, after all, right.

      --
      But then again, I could be wrong.
    3. Re:Clarke's Law by Steve+B · · Score: 2
      Asimov's Corollary to Clarke's First Law: When the lay public rallies round an idea that is denounced by distinguished but elderly scientists, and supports that idea with great fervor and emotion -- the distinguished but elderly scientists are then, after all, right.

      Asimov hedged his corrolary with the statement that the distinguished elderly scientists are "quite probably right", and cited vaccination as one of the rare exceptions.

      Of course, the distinguished but elderly scientists were (mostly) brought around in the face of hard evidence that a cowpox innoculation really did confer immunity to smallpox, which distinguishes that case from the various newage popular enthusiams that were Asimov's intended target.

      --
      /. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
  28. Tech predictions by craigeyb · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When it comes to making predictions regarding technology, it is typically much safer to predict the possibility of something than the impossibility of it. Human ingenuity is truly amazing.

    Perhaps that's what makes all these old predictions about talking, thinking computers so intriguing. Computers have advanced in so many ways as people have boldly predicted (perhaps the most astounding of which is that Moore's Law continues to hold true), yet AI has accomplished very little. And unfortunately, speech recognition and AI (which might be the same) are probably the most important for making computers truly useful for the ordinary end users that don't have to time to learn complex interfaces.

    This sig is false.

    --

    Social Contract? I don't remember signing any Social Contract!

    1. Re:Tech predictions by CommandNotFound · · Score: 1

      And unfortunately, speech recognition and AI (which might be the same) are probably the most important for making computers truly useful for the ordinary end users that don't have to time to learn complex interfaces.

      Well, that's the problem, isn't it? I agree with this when the interface is overly complex or cumbersome, but if a person doesn't want to learn the concepts of a technology, job, or process, then a talking computer won't help them anymore than a teacher or helpful co-worker. Better to just make the computer a little bit smarter and leave this non-learning user out of the loop altogether, IMO. For the classic consumer uses of computers like kiosks and teller machines, touchscreens work just a well, keep information more private, and cost less.

      This notion of the talking computer making everything possible reminds me of the notion of self-programming computers. The problem is this: most users can't describe their software needs to human analysts and developers. Why should they be able to describe ("program") the software to a machine any better? Or, to put it another way, who cares if the Enterprise mainframe can increase your Tachyon emmission field by 75% if you have know idea what a Tachyon field is, or how increasing it 75% can save you from the enemy ship (the computer said it was a "Klingon". What's that?).

    2. Re:Tech predictions by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      In Star Treck most of that stuff is done with physical interface to the computer. With commands like, "such and such, set Tachyon emmission ..." then beep beep beep, and it is done by a person. or ensign, set course blah blah blah. The whole talking computer thing is Star Treck is not as all encompassing an interface as people seam to think. All it really does is answer factual questions when people cannot be bothered to type. I think that even the view screen is handled by crew taking captain's orders.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  29. Good! by chrisbro · · Score: 3, Funny

    There seems to be a common agreement on having overrated the ability of machines to talk back to users

    This is a strong point. Now I don't have to worry about getting yelled at by my girlfriend and my computer, which the two combined occupy 95% of my time.

    "You moron! Windows XP is SO not my look!"

  30. My Fav by Gregg+M · · Score: 4, Funny

    "The internet will collapse in 1996." -Bob Metcalf, Ethernet inventor and 3Com founder.

    --
    Linux is only free if your time has no value. Windows is only free if you threaten to use Linux.
    1. Re:My Fav by jwilcox154 · · Score: 0

      "The internet will collapse in 1996." -Bob Metcalf, Ethernet inventor and 3Com founder.

      Better than that, 50 Years ago, Almost everyone thought that computers would die out.

    2. Re:My Fav by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Internet? Is that thing still around?

      Homer Simpson

    3. Re:My Fav by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And of course, there were the many people who thought that the Internet (among many other things) would collapse in 2000 (midnight on January 1st 2000, to be exact.)

  31. I'm willing to bet... by JFMulder · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... that some overzealous Microsoft basher is soon about to quote Bill Gates on the 640k limit, even tough it has been shown recently that he never uttered these words.

    1. Re:I'm willing to bet... by JFMulder · · Score: 3, Funny

      I knew it!!! :-)

    2. Re:I'm willing to bet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > even tough it has been shown recently that he never uttered these words.

      Don't beleive the marketing spin.

      He said that.

    3. Re:I'm willing to bet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      even tough it has been shown recently that he never uttered these words.

      Where did you read that... Encarta?

  32. Thomas Watson Senior, Chairman of IBM, 1943 by edgrale · · Score: 5, Funny

    "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." -- Thomas Watson Senior, Chairman of IBM, 1943

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    1. Re:Thomas Watson Senior, Chairman of IBM, 1943 by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      In 1943... there was.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  33. My prediction: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A subculture of people who refuse to take part in these "biotechnological advances" who will be shunned by those who did take part in some dramatically huge advancement.

    1. Re:My prediction: by hydrofilic · · Score: 1

      A subculture of people who refuse to take part in these "biotechnological advances" who will be shunned by those who did take part in some dramatically huge advancement.

      They would probably be outlawed by legislation, hunted down and locked up in Guantanamo Bay.

    2. Re:My prediction: by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      Change is scary.

      Get over it. The best you can do it try to nudge it in the right direction. Being a luddite won't accomplish anything.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  34. My Favorite by DavidLeblond · · Score: 1

    "Surround sound is going to be increasingly important in future offices"

    Actually, the article is FULL of horrid predictions IMHO. Especially the office being dark and hushed? So we'll get eye strain? Great idea!

    1. Re:My Favorite by pivo · · Score: 2

      Actually, I read an article serveral years ago which confirmed my preference for a dimly lit (but not dark) office. The article claimed that significant eye strain is created due to glare on monitors from the ambient light in bright offices. I asked my optometrist he agreed with the opinions in the article.

      I've always found it more comforable to work with dim lighting, and thankfully most people at my company agree. We have desk lamps for when you're not looking at your monitor or for people that insist on having bright light. Works out better for everyone, and let's face it, with the decor of most modern offices, the less you see of it the better.

    2. Re:My Favorite by balloonpup · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I work in a 24-hour call centre (ugh) doing tech support. The computers and phones are on generator backup, the lights aren't. One night, power got cut to our centre, and we were working by computer light. My eyes felt so much better that night, at the end, and the working environment felt more relaxed. It certainly helped *my* day go better...

      --
      I sing the doggie electric!
  35. They missed everything ESR said by JohnTheFisherman · · Score: 5, Funny

    Like Microsoft collapsing in 6 months back in 2000, and more recently, Windows becoming obsolete with the advent of the new $299 Linux boxes from WalMart.

  36. Hey! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not the original author, but if he's like me, he has problems to remember names.

    I got an excellent memory for proverbs, witty things etc. -- and numbers.

    I'm lousy at remembering names.

    It's not easy for everybody, ok?

  37. It's in India. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pronounced Ma Whore.

  38. My predictions by Subcarrier · · Score: 2

    I predict that in 10 years /. has been ranamed to ./ and focuses on local news on each continent.

    I predict that in 10 years weblinks have become illegal because
    a) they are almost invariably a copyright violation
    b) they can be used to direct slashdot DDoS attacks

    I predict that in 10 years we have moved on and slashdot is being read by another generation of pimple faced nerds.

    --
    "I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them." -- George H. W. Bush
    1. Re:My predictions by suranyip · · Score: 1

      you may not have to wait 10 years for the first one: Slashdot Japan

  39. I thought this was funny by waltc · · Score: 1

    "The Internet will ultimately be more about information than transactions."

    Heh...I don't think this is much of a prediction as this has always constituted the Internet as I've known it.

    1. Re:I thought this was funny by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1


      I thought the internet was all about pr0n... You mean people use the internet for information? You must be kidding me :-)

  40. People actually underrate the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While it's true that they often overrate the future, more often than not, they underrate it.

    Look at all the cheezy sci-fi films of the 30s. You'll see:
    * computers are huge monstrosities that need flashing lights and tape
    * computers are all voice activated because people obviously couldn't adapt to typing and reading
    * essential stuff like the microwave and internet don't exist
    * "food pills" are the solution to the "how to simplify your housework" problem, and not mass production of prepackaged food.

    1. Re:People actually underrate the future by Gerald · · Score: 1
      "food pills" are the solution to the "how to simplify your housework" problem, and not mass production of prepackaged food.

      Wouldn't "food pills" qualify as mass-produced, prepackaged food? Although they got the exact format wrong, the overall concept was right.

  41. The Great Crash by SexyKellyOsbourne · · Score: 0

    This site run by Zack Exley began offering a a subscription for "The Great Crash Will Burst Your Bubble in 200X" t-shirts every year until the stock market crashed for $35.

    He shouldn't have stopped printing them and offering that deal -- the crash will happen very, very soon if we attack Iraq.

  42. Its Clarke's 1st Law by InfoVore · · Score: 3, Informative
    You are close. What you are refering to is known as Clarke's 1st Law. Arthur C. Clarke (scientist, futurist, and one of the great Science Fiction authors of all time) came up with 3 laws:

    Clarke's 1st Law

    When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

    Clarke's 2nd Law

    The only way to discover the limits of the possible is to go beyond them into the impossible.

    Clarke's 3rd Law

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

    --
    "These laws they're passing won't even compile anymore, let alone execute." - anon
  43. Hmm... by Valen0 · · Score: 1

    I wonder if Microsoft's Vision of the Future Workpace qualified in time for this competition... Just remember that...
    "Surround sound is going to be increasingly important in future offices," says group marketing manager Tom Gruver in leading a tour of the new facility.
    I'm just waiting for those days where I come into the office and the person in the next cube is BLASTING DVD movies in their full 5.1 surround sound glory for everyone in the entire office (and possibly for everyone in a 1/2 mile radius) to hear... Those will be the days...

    --
    -Valen
  44. Problem with all predictors - no metrics. by wowbagger · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I wish the article had presented a bit more background on these guys predictions than "Here's the worst, here's the best, here's the current". That really doesn't let me gauge whether these guys are making good predictions or not.

    Consider Slashdot posts: You might say that my highest rated post is 5, my lowest -1, and my most recent is 3. But, does that give you any real feel for whether you want to read my posts? Now, if you said that my mean post value was 3.5, my mode was 4, and that only 10% of my posts are rated less than 2 (NOTE: all figures are made up - I don't keep that close track on my moderations) then you might be able to judge better.

    Simillarly, when judging someone's ability to predict where things are going, I'd like to know what their ratio of hits to misses are. If somebody is right no more often than they are wrong, then I can weight their prediction accordingly.

    That's one of the problems I had with Tomorrowland at Disney - it's nothing but a bunch of predictions from the past. I'd rather they have done a "Yesterday's Tomorrow" - for every decade show what people thought the future was going to look like, along with a reality check. Show the things they got wrong (flying cars), the things they got right (television), and the things they completely missed (computers).

    OT: is anybody else having problems getting to /.? For the past week I've had a timeout on about 1 in three connections to /., both from work and from home.

  45. No wonder Novell is in the dumps..... by Brian_Ellenberger · · Score: 2

    From Alan Nugent, Chief technology officer, Novell

    "Like Mr. Negroponte, Mr. Nugent thought people would be conversing with their computers years ago. He also thought computers would be able to emulate human thought. He says IBM's champion chess-playing computer is evidence of the progress that has been made, but the field still falls short of early expectations."

    IBM's chess-playing computer was just a massive parallel search assisted by human generated heuristics. It was not progress into emulating human thought. The only thing it progressed was building a computer to play chess.

    If this guys is Novell's CTO, that explains Novell's problems.

  46. If you build it, they will come. by sketerpot · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Since lots of CPU, RAM, hard drive space, and other stuff are now available, who cares? I do. Once more computer capabilities become available, software will be made that will take advantage of them. I know that games are pushing technology forward because they are always finding some way to fill all of the capacity of modern computers. Doom 3, for example, now has souped-up lighting because computers can handle it. Realtime raytracing (and raytracing in general) could definately benefit from faster processors--and as processors become faster, neat new computationally expensive things will become widespread, because they can be.

    I agree with you on some other things that could become interesting. IPV6 could allow IP addresses everywhere, which will probably be taken advantage of. It also supports packet prioritization, which would be very good for VoIP and related technologies.

    Linux already runs on several non-i386 processors, and it is commonly used on these in, for example, embedded systems. Embedded systems, I think, are quite exciting. And Linux (or one of the *BSD's) will probably be the kernel of choice for those, since the idea of putting an OS on one of those is to allow the device to be programmed easily and not be noticed by the user. From that perspective, Linux is obviously superior to any harder-to-develop-for OS that you have to pay for, like Windows.

    I'm still excited about the future. Are you?

    1. Re:If you build it, they will come. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only thing that will take advantage of all that extra computing power is the next version of Windows. Who cares about better graphics in games, etc, etc, Duke Nukem 3D was the last game I actually liked. I don't really care about playing something at 16000 x 12000 resolution in 256-bit colour, it just seems so pointless.

      IPV6 is definitely interesting, because it will allow my waffle iron to communicate with my front door, and do something vaguely useful, (like, errr, I dunno). Nah, seriously IPV6 will be cool, because it'll finally make home automation a reality. That IS quite cool.

      True, Linux runs on non-i386 architectures, but most of the distros that are available are rubbish. Until I can get Slackware for StrongARM, I won't be happy :-).

      Don't get me wrong, I am not not happy excited about the future, but until 5 years ago, I knew what I was excited about - you know:

      'Wow, with memory coming down in price like this, I really will be able to have 128 megs by next year - and I have applications now that could use that'

      is more exciting than,

      'Hmmm, IPV6. Sounds interesting, but what can I DO with it'

      I still think we've lost something in the last few years.

    2. Re:If you build it, they will come. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but until 5 years ago, I knew what I was excited about - you know:

      You grew up. Get over it.

    3. Re:If you build it, they will come. by grumpygrodyguy · · Score: 1

      I still think we've lost something in the last few years.

      NO shit. It's called our sanity.

      --
      The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
  47. Thurow was wrong on Japan because.... by MtViewGuy · · Score: 2

    I think Lester Thurow was wrong on Japan because their economic collapse showed that Japan's cultural norms could not accommodate the changes necessary to improve their economic systems.

    Look at South Korea--after the horrid experience of the Asian financial crisis of 1997-1999 this country was willing to take drastic steps to improve its economic system; as a result the country is doing quite well indeed.

    Here in the USA, the fact we're more than willing to make changes in our economic system to correct problems show why the USA will do well economically.

    1. Re:Thurow was wrong on Japan because.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mostly agreed. But one thing also about South Korea that is very different from Japan concerns demographics. South Korea has a very high percentage of young people and thus more people in the work force.

    2. Re:Thurow was wrong on Japan because.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm... cultural norms have zilch to do with it. Human nature has everything to do with it. Centrally planned economies never work.

    3. Re:Thurow was wrong on Japan because.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here in the USA, the fact we're more than willing to make changes in our economic system to correct problems show why the USA will do well economically.

      What the politicians call "reform" today will be what they're "reforming" 10 years from now.

    4. Re:Thurow was wrong on Japan because.... by MtViewGuy · · Score: 2

      South Korea has a very high percentage of young people and thus more people in the work force.

      And more importantly, a work force that is highly literate and have lots of technical skills, too. I saw a show on The Learning Channel about a month ago on Hyundai's amazing shipbuilding plant and it shows just how good their skills at shipbuilding have gotten.

    5. Re:Thurow was wrong on Japan because.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here in the USA, the fact we're more than willing to make changes in our economic system to correct problems show why the USA will do well economically

      Personally, I think that over the longer term (say 30-50 years), the biggest economic challenges for the US will be coping with increasingly competent economic competitors, as countries such as China begin to become serious players in the world economy. The US, where a fairly large percentage of new technologies are developed, often start with a lead in a market, but eventually lose that lead for various reasons, such as product mediocrity (success -> complacence) or other difficulty making products as good and as cheap (e.g. consumer electronics). And of course, it is almost always cheaper to just reverse engineer someone else's technology and make a cheaper product, because your R&D costs are less (e.g. consumer electronics, printer cartridges etc). And there is only so far that artificial controls (e.g. government subsidies, import tariffs etc) can help you. Anyway, this is getting off-topic.

  48. 100 arrogant monkeys each flip a coin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Each of them predict an outcome, while the coin is in the air.
    10 of them are correct in that their predictions of either heads or tails came true. And they believe that their high level of intelligence led them to the correct conclusion.
    These 10 geniuses are given HUGE book contracts for their obvious ability to tell the future.
    Millions of other monkeys soon believe in SUPER 10s abilities and send these geniuses millions of dollars.
    Things are looking good.
    5 years pass. Another flipping of the coins is called for and the original SUPER 10 attempt to repeat their original success.
    But NONE of them succeed. In fact only 7 monkeys predict the correct outcome of their coin toss.
    The original SUPER 10 retire to the Caymon Islands.

  49. DEC late 70's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "There is no reason that any normal person would want a personal computer"

    - The CEO of DEC (the name escapes me)

  50. Hard problems by Gerry+Gleason · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Yes, I think it is very interesting that so many AI problems continue to be much more difficult than many predict. Even successes like chess playing programs beating all human players, although it has happened, the way it is done is not particularly satisfying.

    Thurow is an economist, not a scientist or engineer, which is why his predictions about biotech are particularly bad. The science is on the edge of a lot of new understanding and breakthroughs, but that will only put us up against the really interesting and hard problems. As if we would be able to find genes that more or less directly influence something as subtle as IQ.

    I find the predictions about the future importance of web services and the junk about "insight" to be particularly inane. On the first, nobody should forget that GM and Ford are still about the only companies that represent a percentage of the U.S. economy. Manufacture of physical goods (and commodities production, etc.) will continue to be the drivers of economies.

    In my opinion, the most important trend is a favorite of this forum. The growth factors that have been working for Free software are fundamentally exponential, even if the constant factor is small. If it isn't killed off by legal/social influence of current big players, and I don't think this is likely if it is even possible, then the exponential term will eventually dominate.

    When this plays out, the companies that make their reputations by being the best at efficiently building and servicing products that are mostly designed in the "Creative Commons". People will pay for quality in goods and services, and there will always be value in good execution. Customers do not value "insight" as described in one prediction. They find this sort of thing invasive and manipulative, and you won't be able to keep it secret.

    It was when I was chasing down some secondary links from the GNUradio interview that I came across the stuff about the value of a network increasing at greater than linear rates. You get O(N) for broadcast networks, O(N^2) in peer to peer networks, but the exponential (O(2^N)) comes in when you have group forming networks (GFN).

    When you think about it, this is what drives the GPL software phenominon. Every project fork or new initiative forms a new group or groups in the network, and every project is a nucleus for new group formation. The only way this could be stopped is to destroy to possibility of the group forming that leads to the exponential growth. While this might be possible, our robust institutions that support free speech make this very difficult if not impossible.

    So my prediction is that Linux on the desktop will overtake Windows in the next ten years, and the RIAa and MPAA will finally lose out to the best interests of the actual artists they claim to support. Also, derivitives of GNUradio will be core technology in establishing cooperative wireless mesh networks. This is the only prediction of any of the pundits in the article that will come true.

    1. Re:Hard problems by PissedOffGuy · · Score: 1

      what are you talking about? exponential growth in software development? theres relatively fixed number of people in software development, its not increasing exponentially. pretty much everyone who would work on open-source is already working on it. the rest of the developers have real jobs and get paid real money to work on a real product.

    2. Re:Hard problems by Nakoruru · · Score: 1

      This all ignores the fact that Free Software and Linux exist in an economy/jungle and is not a math problem.

      Insects and bacteria also have exponential reproduction rates, but they do not automatically take over the world.

      Simply demonstrating that a system has exponential growth is not sufficient to predict that it will succeed.

    3. Re:Hard problems by Gerry+Gleason · · Score: 2
      what are you talking about? exponential growth in software development?

      No, I certainly made no claims about productivity.

      theres relatively fixed number of people in software development, its not increasing exponentially. pretty much everyone who would work on open-source is already working on it.

      This is clearly false. More people than ever are using open-source, and more people are involved in all phases of development as well. For the student of technology, there is nothing better than to get your feet wet with these projects. I'm sure SourceForge has some good statistics on this if you are interested.

      the rest of the developers have real jobs and get paid real money to work on a real product.

      Not everyone working on free/open source is working for nothing. For many well paid academics, it is an important part of their research work.

      This all ignores the fact that Free Software and Linux exist in an economy/jungle and is not a math problem.

      No, it isn't, but that is not what I said. Jungle? That's one metaphor. War is even more common, but also not the only one. I like the suggestion that "conversation" is a better metaphor in the present context (see Cluetrain Manifesto for hints).

      Insects and bacteria also have exponential reproduction rates, but they do not automatically take over the world.

      Simply demonstrating that a system has exponential growth is not sufficient to predict that it will succeed.

      Of course, there are limits, but what are the limits for open/free source. Until we hit the limits of Moore's law, there will always be a very strong demand for technical skills, so the pool of potential participants goes up. Cheap hardware, networks and more projects means that people who wouldn't get the opportunity to learn technology can.

      The only really limiting factor is competition, but these projects don't really compete in the traditional way. Why do you thing MS is so scared? They can't just introduce a competing product and either buy them out or cut off their oxygen. It's making them nuts because they can't figure it out, and they will probably ruin their business fighting it.

      In any case, time will tell.

  51. Prediction by mtec · · Score: 1

    Flying phones
    Video cars

    in the next - well - real soon...

    --
    Cake or Death? Cake Please!
  52. Prediction quality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is interesting to notice that when they got it right it was for relatively vague predictions (like Negroponte's) or short-time ones (Thurow's;) whereas those specific, momentous ones they got wrong always.

    Once more, it is interesting how AI practitioners insist on the inminency of human-intelligent computers, against all evidence that the AI community has NO CLUE about how to develop such systems.

  53. It's a scientist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    who only does it for money - so he can put himself through college.

    1. Re:It's a scientist by bratgrrl · · Score: 1

      Ha! my vote for best comment!

      --

      ---

      SCO is weenies
      Gator is Spyware
      Microsoft is thugs

  54. Re:The worst thing is that it's all boring nowaday by Mac+Degger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    First off: you don't use your computer for anything intensive, do you? I use it for 3d modeling and animation, and boy-oh-boy do I need the extra cpu-power, the extra ram, that superduper new gfx card. At least, if I want to move the objects at anything but frame-by-frame on my monitor.

    As for the HD...yeah, I photoshop my own textures. You bet that I need that HD-space for something else than divx'.

    And all this certainly comes in handy when I have to do some finite-element analysis for school (or any other simulation for that matter).

    Added bonus: I can play computer games with realistic graphics on it, too!

    Now, secondly; there is more to life than the computer itself. Read the very last line of the article...damn if that's not true, and maybe the most important piece of the whole chebang (sp?). Also, the bottom-up telephone system...that got me thinking bigtime. I like that idea.

    Oh, and just to prove I can't count, here's number three; you want new stuff? There's whole area's of the universe not understood yet, where breakthroughs are coming (just you wait). Just a couple are: the nature of time (we still have no clue!), human nature in mind and body (what is the mind?, the soul? and what about huge breakthroughs in understanding becoming possible by biochips?). There's loads more, all only coming within reach because technology is making it possible for us to simulate/look at/describe these systems and phenomena.

    Trust me, we don't know nothing yet.

    --
    -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
  55. Stylesheets are overrated as well by Snaller · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    >Why do you think style sheets make web pages unreadable?

    You wouldn't be a young fellow with an expensive monitor would you?

    >Do you even know what style sheets are?

    Of course, how else would i know they are the bane of the WWW today:

    Because most webdesigners use absolute font size, which means you can't resize it in browsers. Ie, you are stuck with a font size which is often too small (it is for me most of the time).

    Jakob Nielsen (who you should know if you are a regular slashdot reader, if not search the slashdot archives), the man CNN calls "Web usability guru" (ironically they do it wrong as well), will tell you why Stylesheets "reduced readability of an increasing number of websites" - He will also tell you how to do it right. - Basically doing it right is to specify percentage weights so that the stylesheets DO cascade, instead of taking over.
    Some sites who do it wrong:

    http://www.cnn.com
    http://www.microsoft.com
    ht tp://www.nvidia.com
    http://www.asus.com.tw/
    http ://www.wiseeye.com/
    http://www.syfyportal.com/

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  56. I think he forgot to add "again" by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

    ...to his statement. Let's face it, the signal to noise ratio of usefull info on the net has dropped significantly the past years.

    But that's changing again, thank [diety-of-choise] and places like MIT putting their content online.

    --
    -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
  57. They got plenty... by mtec · · Score: 1


    He hires (bunches of) them to work for money

    and of course - there's the satisfaction that your work is the foundation of something wonderful.

    --
    Cake or Death? Cake Please!
  58. Have you tried Mozilla? by pivo · · Score: 2

    Though not young, I do have an expensive monitor (dual 21", both @ 1600x1200.) Still, I have the same problem you do. Fonts are often too small to be legible. Mozilla lets you easly adjust the font size, even for the sites you mention. It's a life saver (or eyeball saver at least) for me.

    1. Re:Have you tried Mozilla? by n3k5 · · Score: 1

      opera lets you zoom the whole page in and out, almost continuously adjustable. with a mouse wheel, if you want. by the way, if you can't read something at 1600x1200, your monitor is too small ;-)

      --
      but what do i know, i'm just a model.
    2. Re:Have you tried Mozilla? by Snaller · · Score: 2

      >Mozilla lets you easly adjust the font size, even for the sites you mention.

      I used to use it several years ago, but it failed on more and more pages, so i switched to MSIE... (guess that should have taught me not to tilt at windmills, eh?)

      Perhaps I should try it again.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    3. Re:Have you tried Mozilla? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The OEOne version of Konq/Mozilla (can't remember which one) had the same feature. I can't imagine why such a dang neato feature hasn't made it to the main branch.

  59. OT: Re:Stylesheets are overrated as well by GigsVT · · Score: 1

    So it's not style sheets you have a problem with then, it's idiot web designers.

    It's arguably easier to make crappy pages with absolute font sizes and resolution dependant features without stylesheets than with. At least with stylesheets, the "programmer" (I use the term loosely) can fix the problem in one place instead of having to change it throughout the site.

    Sure, there are a lot of shitty sites out there, and a lot of terrible "web designers"... but stylesheets are not the problem.

    Since this is offtopic, I'll start a journal entry for this, if you want to reply, reply to the journal.

    --
    I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    1. Re:OT: Re:Stylesheets are overrated as well by Snaller · · Score: 2

      >So it's not style sheets you have a problem with then, it's idiot web designers.

      True, but the sigs can only be very short. Writing something like "Use stylesheets correctly" would hardly work since everybody thinks they are doing it right.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    2. Re:OT: Re:Stylesheets are overrated as well by npietraniec · · Score: 2

      Well, "don't use stylesheets" doesn't make sense. If you're not going to change it, you shouldn't use it at all.

      Stylesheets are part of the latest HTML spec, and when used properly reduce bandwidth usage and aid in usability. To not use stylesheets is to create depreciated code.

      Even a 486 will run a browser that supports stylesheets. You'll just have to let go of the romantic notion that it's still 1996... it's called progress.

    3. Re:OT: Re:Stylesheets are overrated as well by Snaller · · Score: 2


      Even a 486 will run a browser that supports stylesheets. You'll just have to let go of the romantic notion that it's still 1996... it's called progress.

      Yet another self-centeret edu kid, with an IQ of a dead rat and perfect vision no doubt. Its not called progress, its called regression - now hundreds, if not thousands of websites are unreadable to me and millions of others, because people use stylesheets badly.

      Jakob Nielsen, who CNN called "Web usability guru" puts it this way:

      Because most webdesigners use absolute font size, which means you can't resize it in browsers. Ie, you are stuck with a font size which is often too small (it is for me most of the time).

      Jakob Nielsen (who you should know if you are a regular slashdot reader, if not search the slashdot archives), the man CNN calls "Web usability guru" (ironically they do it wrong as well), will tell you why Stylesheets "reduced readability of an increasing number of websites" - He will also tell you how to do it right. - Basically doing it right is to specify percentage weights so that the stylesheets DO cascade, instead of taking over.
      Some sites who do it wrong:

      http://www.cnn.com
      http://www.microsoft.com
      ht tp://www.nvidia.com
      http://www.asus.com.tw/
      http ://www.wiseeye.com/
      http://www.syfyportal.com/

      Why wrong? Because you can't adjust the font size in MSIE (its possible you use a minority browser which allows you to do this, but 99% of webusers can not adjust the size)

      So you can argue the tag shouldn't read "don't use stylesheets" but "use stylesheets properly" - but that wouldn't work, everone thinks that he is using them properly and only the others do it wrong. Its a soundbite - and its not entirely wrong, almost all of the unreadable websites are unreadable because the "webmaster" was using stylesheets.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    4. Re:OT: Re:Stylesheets are overrated as well by npietraniec · · Score: 2

      I don't know why I'm compelled to respond to this troll... I am well aware of Jakob Nielson. Why don't you just write "Don't use HTML because it's too hard to read webpages when I telnet into port 80"

      You completely ignore the fact that stylesheets, when used properly, reduce bandwidth usage and increase usability.

      If you've got cataracts are are so vastly intelligent, why don't you download a browser that will let you increase your font size instead of making generalizations and broad statements which are so easily proven wrong. I also doubt that there are "millions" of people that are so dramatically affected.

    5. Re:OT: Re:Stylesheets are overrated as well by Snaller · · Score: 2

      I don't know why I'm compelled to respond to this troll

      I'm nearsighted you jerk, not a troll.
      I am well aware of Jakob Nielson

      It's Nielsen.
      Why don't you just write "Don't use HTML because it's too hard to read webpages when I telnet into port 80"

      Because thats stupid bullshit, the other is a valid point.

      You completely ignore the fact that stylesheets, when used properly, reduce bandwidth usage and increase usability.

      No, I don't believe that I do. I agree about the reduced bandwith (even when used improperly) - I'm not sure what you mean about "usability" -however very few seem to use them properly.

      If you've got cataracts are are so vastly intelligent,

      I've never claimed that I was "vastly intelligent", just intimated that you and those of your ilk apparently are not very.

      why don't you download a browser that will let you increase your font size instead of making generalizations and broad statements which are so easily proven wrong.

      The statement is that a growing number of websites are abusing stylesheets by using fixed fontsizes making it hard to read for many people. This is fact. There is nothing to disprove there(nor have you). You can say "I don't care" or "just use 3-5 different browsers, you'll find one for all pages!" - you may have perfect vision today - you won't forever(statistically).

      I also doubt that there are "millions" of people that are so dramatically affected.


      Well, the number was a guess - but according to the American Optometric Association 30% of Americans are myopic - you do the math.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  60. I think that was Ken Olsen by mtec · · Score: 1


    More Olsen (from scripophily.net):

    However, the 1990s were an entirely new decade for the company. Digital was slow to comprehend the growing importance of UNIX. "UNIX is snake oil," declared CEO Olsen, one of the many factors that led to his departure. (He was replaced in 1992 by Robert Palmer.) The company was also late getting into the open systems PC market, and encroaching technology threatened the company's viability. It reported its first quarterly loss ever in 1990 and a net loss for fiscal 1991. Palmer undertook numerous restructurings, massive layoffs (more than 60,000 people), and plant closings in an effort to remain competitive.

    --
    Cake or Death? Cake Please!
  61. Cochrane by Frank+of+Earth · · Score: 2

    Peter Cochrane

    Director, ConceptLabs; former chief technologist, British Telecommunications PLC

    Worst prediction: Voice over Internet protocol technology would fall flat.

    Mr. Cochrane says 10 years ago he was extremely skeptical of the voice over Internet protocol systems that let people make voice telephone calls over data networks. He thought the networks couldn't handle it. Now he concedes that it's been successful at least on single data networks, like those used within a company.


    Shouldn't he be working on a warp drive instead of making these stupid predictions?!?

    1. Re:Cochrane by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 2

      Shouldn't he be working on a warp drive instead of making these stupid predictions?!?

      Nah, that's his grandson Zefram's job.

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
  62. Re:The worst thing is that it's all boring nowaday by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think I said 95% of users have long had adequate computing power on their desktop. You obviously are part of the other 5% :-). Seriously, though, 3d modelling is not a standard requirement, (otherwise it would have been built in to the latest version of Windows :-) ).

    Yeah, there is more to life than computers, but nothing is advancing on that front either - everytime I go out, I see litter all over the place, for example, which could be solved with today's technology. Also, pollution - that could be solved, easily by just not using fossil fuels, and actually getting our act together to improve things, but no, we're just dragging out feet.

    As for stuff like understanding how time works, well I don't see that being solved any time, (pun intended), soon.

  63. Re:under-rated --- by noshellswill · · Score: 0

    Actually, we under-rate techno advances ... my father grew up on a farm without electricity, and nobody had anti-biotics. Pretty basic, huh, and that's just ~100 years. Other hand, as for literary and political values, those -it's true- have not improved much since Thucydides, and do not seem capable of improvement. To live & die a prudent, free, aware man will always hold the highest place.

  64. modern large business strategy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you just hit on the strategy and thinking of modern business when it gets any larger than about, say 2000 employees. Substitute the Super 10 as mid level management and the worshiping short sighted monkeys as upper management. Meanwhile the engineers still can't get management to do the simplest aspect of their jobs (to which they were hired) and actually manage the project, share information and coordinate effort. Soon, the engineers leave and the company has a 20:1 ratio of management to implementers.

  65. In the year 2000 by SeanWithoutPants · · Score: 1

    Heh. Does anybody else imagine hearing "In the yeeeeearrr 2000... *slightly higher pitched* in the yeeearr 2000!" before each of these predictions?

    Maybe I just watch too much Conan.

  66. May I request a spelling correction? by claygate · · Score: 1

    I think by "mahor" you mean "major". Maybe some of the editors should write their submissions in MS Word or one of its equivalents before posting it to the masses.

    1. Re:May I request a spelling correction? by CommandNotFound · · Score: 2, Funny

      Maybe some of the editors should write their submissions in MS Word or one of its equivalents before posting it to the masses.

      And then it would be ?major?

    2. Re:May I request a spelling correction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Sorry, wrong answer,
      The correct answer was 'M-x ispell-buffer'.

  67. don't forget vigilance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    history is full of those that pump their chests because of accomplishments yet later prove that they only rode the waves of sucess from the titanic displacement of drive and superior methods by the ones that made 'THEM' great. By failing to understand how and why, they doom themselves to lapsing into oblivion.

    Look at many sci-fi novels about post apocolyptic futures where a society treats our technology as artifacts. They don't understand how to use them really, or how they work. They merely press the 'go' button and depend on the machine's result. As these machines inevitably break down, no one can repair them. However, the trully sad part is that instead of adapting to this and either learning to live without them or even better trying to understand the mechanics they just huddle closer to the remaining technologies like crack addicts undergoing rehab.

    The result is that they would have been better off starting from scratch or putting resources into understanding WHY those technologies are so neat. In the US, we are lapsing into a state of complacency where instead of putting innovation and determination up on the pedastal as the ultimate achievements we put forms, papers, meetings and rhetorical repetition of policy and buzz. The end result are empty headed managers that instead of just not doing their job (that is one 'unit' of waste and inefficiency) they actively reverse the productivity of the group (relative to if they had struck out on their own) to which is a second 'unit' of waste and inefficiency.

    I have known some very talented facilitators that if they didn't know something they insured they placed around them someone that did. They could create opportunity from any chaos and motivated by sheer tenacity and drive where any skill lacked until they refined and LEARNED how to do it best. Now I find that instead of Learning, there is only lip service given in fancy buzz phrases. Someone wears a tie as if to say, "I have business sense, am motivated to work and am a member of a team," yet is as a monkey in a suit. Entertaining from afar and behind glass, is that monkey but be careful of him up close as he has a tendency to lash out, throw poop and trash all the tools needed to be productive.

    Superficial is the watchword today and until people wake up and pull their heads out of their asses, we will continue to be victims of circumstance instead of masters of our destiny.

  68. There WAS--the market grew by Planesdragon · · Score: 2

    in 1943, there probably was a market for about five computers.

    But then people saw these things, came up with new ideas for them, and the market grew. :)

  69. Predicting stuff is easy by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 3, Funny

    In the next 30 years:

    Personal transportation will be more efficent and quite possibly cheaper

    Processors will become much much faster they are are today. It is likely that processor powered devices may become smaller.

    There will be people in the general public interested in space travel.

    Most of the world will use the Internet. Some may even use it for pornography.

    Now where are my bags of money?

    --
    The Internet is generally stupid
  70. This is a bad thing how??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, how is it bad????

  71. fa! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lester Thurow ought to be thrown on the ash-heap of history along with the Soviet Union.

  72. fa! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lester Thurow:

    Best from the past: Predictions on the U.S. economic outlook for 1965.


    Mr. Thurow says in late 1964 he correctly predicted the U.S. economic performance for the following year, including such indicators as employment, inflation and economic growth rates. At the time, he was working for President Lyndon Johnson's Council of Economic Advisers and helped write its annual report. Mr. Thurow says his accomplishment would be impossible today, given the influence of so many international elements on the domestic U.S. economy.


    Gee, I wonder if he predicted hyperinflation and huge deficits, too? Another example of how Johnson's administration had even more assholes than Nixon's. BTW Professor Thurow, once Japan's brilliantly managed economy recovers, are they going to take over the world?

  73. My favourite- Wilbur Wright by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 2

    Just over a century ago he said:

    --

    -WolfWithoutAClause

    "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
  74. Re: /. Connectivity (OT) by balloonpup · · Score: 1

    I haven't had any problems from work (I work Sat-Wed, noon-8:30, eastern) connecting, but when I check from home (11 pm, eastern) I've been having problems on occasion. Not nearly as often as you, though.

    --
    I sing the doggie electric!
  75. Re:The worst thing is that it's all boring nowaday by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    one quote for you:

    Everything has already been invented.

    -- Chief of the US Patent Office, 1899

  76. Re:The worst thing is that it's all boring nowaday by error0x100 · · Score: 1

    chances are that the last upgrade was just for the sake of it, not because we really needed a faster processor

    I think chances are the last upgrade was to make Windows XP feel usable.

  77. Bill Gates' Predictions and Reflections... by xintegerx · · Score: 1

    Bill Gates' #1 Prediction (1995)

    "If a new computer or a software upgrade costs more than it's worth to you, don't buy it. After all, you don't have to upgrade. Software will run forever, and computer hardware will work as long as it is kept in good repair.

    "Upgrading is often smart, because the quality of your tools--whether shovels, snow skis, or software--can have a big impact on your effectiveness and enjoyment. Upgrades can be worthwhile. Right now Microsoft is investing heavily to suggest that people upgrade their operating systems, but the world won't end for people who don't. "

    Another quote: "Microsoft is always searching for the new thing that is coming along, whether it is in a research lab or at another company. "

    And: "I gave a great deal of personal thought to the Internet back then and even wrote a memo on it. But we were cautious because the Internet had drawbacks - including capacity and security limitations -compared to what was possible using alternate approaches (...) As it happened, the lightning struck early. The public got a taste of interactivity on the Internet's World Wide Web and said, "We're not waiting for a better solution! Let's go!" (What better solution were they planning? Oh, MS passport??)

    "I don't use a Mac. I use a Windows-based laptop computer with docking stations at home and work. The Apple Macintosh is a fine system, though. Microsoft has invested heavily in developing software for it since before the first Mac was released back in 1984. Microsoft is doing as much Macintosh software development now as at any time in the past. "

    "I used to button my top button, and it took me a while to figure out that wasn't cool. So you'd better watch out for that one. "

    "At any given moment, my company typically has as many customers playing our games online (at www.zone.com) as it has people using our online service. We don't know how to make money with online games yet, but we'll figure it out someday. " (1998)

    "I didn't have any teachers I disliked, or who were unfairly critical of me. Actually, I've always wanted to go back and see a few of my teachers who put a lot of energy into working with me and who encouraged me. But there's a world of good things I don't have time for. I'll probably be old by the time I get around to it."

    Also, I read on Bill Gates OWN HOMEPAGE that he denies ever saying the 640k comment he's credited to have spoken.

    -----