Thirty Years in Computing

we'll never recognize computers by etcremote · 2004-05-28 04:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

I predict that in 30 years, what is and isn't a computer will be hard to distinguish.

Re:we'll never recognize computers by sixteenraisins · 2004-05-28 05:03 · Score: 4, Interesting

We're already there. Cell phones, PDA's, and handheld game consoles (Nokia N-Gage, anyone?) are already blurring the line between what is and isn't a computer.

What I think will be interesting to watch is how software also starts evolving from apps with a narrow focus (think along the lines of early 90's WordPerfect) to apps which try to do pretty much everything - perhaps a bad example, but MS Word already allows table and cell editing similar to Excel, graphics manipulation, and desktop publishing.

--
When you're not looking, this sig is in Latin.
Re:we'll never recognize computers by OECD · 2004-05-28 05:08 · Score: 3, Interesting

I predict that in 30 years, what is and isn't a computer will be hard to distinguish.
Conversely, movies and other linear entertainment will be utterly recognizeable. There will always be a place for good stories, and it's very hard to 'write' a good story on the fly and interactively. It starts to look too much like the tangled yarn that is life.

--
One man's -1 Flamebait is another man's +5 Funny.
Re:we'll never recognize computers by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2004-05-28 05:11 · Score: 5, Insightful

Guy I know once talked about looking at an old Sears & Roebuck catalog from, I think, just before WW1. In it there was a section for early power tools. They sold power saws, screwdrivers, etc. just like they do now. The difference was, though, to use any of these tools, you had to buy a separate motor. This was a bulky thing that you set on your workbench next to your project. It came with a variety of adapters which you could use via a chain drive or something along those lines to power your saw, screwdriver, etc.

The analogy here is pretty plain, I think. I'm not sure that the idea of "the computer" as a separate machine will ever entirely go away, but certainly the computing power in everyday appliances (TV's, radios, hell, even toasters and refrigerators) is growing all the time. The standalone computer may eventually go the way of the standalone power tool motor.

--
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Re:we'll never recognize computers by dark404 · 2004-05-28 05:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

umm... blurring the line? They ARE computers. A computer is an electronic device that is one thing, and can do three. It must be programable. And it must be able to retrieve, store, and process data.
Re:we'll never recognize computers by bigman2003 · 2004-05-28 05:46 · Score: 5, Interesting

That's a good point. Because current WE need to GO TO the computer. Soon, the computer will just be where we need it.

Tablet computers are an example of this. A small tablet, that is hooked wirelessly to your network can be used for e-mail, etc. Of course the tablet will get smaller and smaller, and soon not recognizable as a 'computer'. It will be similar to a piece of paper.

Now, most people connect their MP3 type player to their computer, and download the music. Eventually, your MP3 player will once again, connect wirelessly, and just download everything- because storage won't be an issue. Of course it will be smaller, and barely noticable. But once again, you won't need to go to your computer.

Currently you can buy things on-line on your computer. But wouldn't that be better from your TV? Just yesterday there was an article the next Xbox having more computer functionality. With HDTV quality screens, I would rather make my purchases from my couch, not sitting at my desk. Why go to the computer, when the rest of my house is more comfortable?

Sitting in my 'office' at home isn't fun- it's not where I want to spend my time. I'd rather be out with everyone else. We've been tied to the keyboard long enough, and I think we'll start moving away.

Yes- I really would like a web-enabled refrigerator...It would be nice to walk into the kitchen, and get my news/e-mail while standing there drinking out of the orange juice container.

When display devices get advanced enough that they can simply be 'printed' then we can have them everywhere. This will be the biggest step forward.

Your TV is actually a great display device- because it streams in a lot of different information. But it is too big, bulky, expensive and ugly to have everywhere. But when I can place a display in the wall of my bathroom, I can use it while I take a crap. It won't be the luxury device of a Texas oilman anymore- it will show up in everyday life.

--
No reason to lie.
Re:we'll never recognize computers by filmsmith · 2004-05-28 06:02 · Score: 4, Funny

But I predict that within 100 years computers will be twice as powerful, 10,000 times larger, and so expensive that only the five richest kings of Europe will own them.

nngh-hey!

fs
Re:we'll never recognize computers by mhesseltine · 2004-05-28 06:25 · Score: 4, Funny

What I think will be interesting to watch is how software also starts evolving from apps with a narrow focus (think along the lines of early 90's WordPerfect) to apps which try to do pretty much everything - perhaps a bad example, but MS Word already allows table and cell editing similar to Excel, graphics manipulation, and desktop publishing.

One word: EMACS

--
Overrated / Underrated : Moderation :: Anonymous Coward : Posting
Re:we'll never recognize computers by pgnas · 2004-05-28 06:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

The most significant convergence will involve the computer and our best friend, the Television.

Computers will be the center of the house. The "Media Center" computers are in the infant stages, these are the early attempts to bring the computer to the part of your house that currently receives the most attention.

When this technology becomes seamless, television will become an interactive and more personalized experience.

Do you like the outfit that Jennifer Lopez is wearing? "Click here to buy". "MMM, that pizza looks good" click here to have one delivered.

Personalization will allow for advertisers to provide to you the things that you are interested in making their advertisements more effective.

In addition, Television re-runs and first-runs will be individually selected and provided on-demand.
Re:we'll never recognize computers by joggle · 2004-05-28 06:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

I don't know about all of that. While some things may become cheaper, many things will simply become better (not cheaper).
For instance, those power tools in that old Sears catalog probably didn't cost more than modern power tools, possibly less since they were simpler and didn't each have their own motor and battery (even after adjusting for inflation). Laptops only cost about $1000 less than they did 15 years ago and have been pretty steady for the last 6 years or so.
I predict that many technologies will start off relatively expensive and then stabilize after 5-10 years, just as many technologies before them did (TVs, microwaves, etc.).
Re:we'll never recognize computers by Awperator · 2004-05-28 06:39 · Score: 2, Funny

Computers will be so ubiquitous that we wont even realize that we are plugged into the matrix.
Re:we'll never recognize computers by anthony_philipp · 2004-05-28 06:54 · Score: 2, Funny

two characters: vi
Re:we'll never recognize computers by Kyosuke77 · 2004-05-28 07:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

Is my cell phone a computer?

I know mine is. The damn thing takes a leisurely 10 seconds to boot up when I press the power button. I thought it was ridiculous when I got it, and equally ridiculous was the fact that it seems to allow for firmware upgrades.

With modern cellphones incorporating fairly complex computing tasks like voice recognition, internet access, modem functionality, and digital image and video processing, not only are they computers, but they're easily as powerful as desktop PCs were 13 years ago, if not moreso. And , on top of all that, they inherently (being cellphones) have some pretty advanced wireless networking technology with widely accessible connectivity.

And if anybody still doesn't believe me, I'll gladly crack open their cell phone and show them the CPU.

--
GET THEM INSIDE THE VAULT!
Re:we'll never recognize computers by ObjetDart · 2004-05-28 07:24 · Score: 2, Funny

Currently you can buy things on-line on your computer. But wouldn't that be better from your TV?
No. Why on earth would it be better from the TV? Are you saying that sitting around in front of a TV is better than sitting around in front of a computer?

--
I read Usenet for the articles.
Re:we'll never recognize computers by RogerWilco · 2004-05-28 08:30 · Score: 2, Informative

>MS Word already allows table and cell editing similar to Excel,
>graphics manipulation, and desktop publishing.

WP 5.1 did do a lot of that in the nineties already.
WP 6.0 did all of it in 1994.
In features WordPerfect was and is still way ahead of MS Word.

You could do calculations, references and use variables in WP5.1 tables.

WP was always a more serious DTP tool. WP 6.0 already supports folding signatures to do 2-up, 4-up, 16-up, booklet, separate font libraries, absolute page positioning styles, kerning, ligatures, a good equation editor, TextArt, fully WYSIWYG, etc.

And lo' and behold, it still uses the same file format for all versions since 6.0. I can make a file in WP 10+ for XP and my dad can use it on his 486 in WP 6.0 for DOS.

Where Word had the advantage is in usability and OS support (!)
It lost it in the win3 and win32 steps MS took, where playing catch-up - only having a version about 2 years after the OS arrived -
gave Word the opportunity to overtake WP.

I could go on, but I've found that this site is very complete
http://www.wpvsword.com might you be actually interested in the difference between WP and Word.

--
RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor

Think outside the box! by erick99 · 2004-05-28 04:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm sorry but this is not how you look into the future:simple extrapolation of the present. Nielsen simply takes all of the features we look at today and scales them up (3PHz processor, exabyte hard drives, etc.). My God, whatever computers look like in 30 years will probably bear little semblance to what we use today.

He and other futurists might do better to look at what we use computers for now and what we don't, but could, use them for in the future. They could also think way outside the box and think about how computers will physically change (will it still be everything in one box or will the hardware be as distributed as software can be) or how computers will integrate into everyday life.

I guess I expected a bit more imagination. 30 years is an awfully long time in terms of technological development.

Keep smiling!

Erick

--
http://www.busyweather.com/

Re:Think outside the box! by AviLazar · 2004-05-28 04:56 · Score: 3, Interesting

I think we have a better shot of getting an "out of the box" original thought from an episode of Star Trek then some of these guys. Though in thirty years it will be cute to hear "My wristwatch has more computing power then the fastest computer in the year 2004." Considering I remember my teacher saying that in 1995; comparing his wrist watch to the ENIAC :)

--

I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
Re:Think outside the box! by AKAImBatman · 2004-05-28 05:00 · Score: 5, Interesting
Actually, the extrapolation procedure doesn't work too bad. It's just a matter of connecting the dots. I have a book from 20+ years ago about the future of video games. Some of the claims were:
- Games could allow more than two players. Perhaps even enough to play a full game of soccer or football! (The picture showed a "dome" with controls in a ring around it.)
- Games will be able to be played over great distances! (The picture showed a chess board with a wireless antenna on it.)
- Games will be so much more realistic! (Shows a handheld game with a full scene of a motor bike jumping a dirt ramp.)
None of these predictions were wrong per say. Rather, the author failed to connect the dots and follow the the most likely path of games. Why have an arcade machine with 15 control sets when you can simply hook machines together over long distances? Why have a chess board with an antenna when you can play the same thing on your super-realistic, Hi-Res, 3D screen?

The future of computer technology has always been known. It's simply been a matter of developing the power to do it. The only failure of the visionaries was in their lack of understanding market conditions and forces. They thought of each technology in a vacuum and didn't put them together as actually happened.
--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Re:Think outside the box! by inoffensif · 2004-05-28 05:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

and where does bio-tech technology fall in all of this. Foret about only hardware driven machines. How will they interact with our bodies in 30 years. Just a thought. 30 years is a long time.

--
- you are sofa king weed todd did
Re:Think outside the box! by SerpentMage · 2004-05-28 05:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

No kidding... The article is so lacking in imagination it is not even funny.

I even doubt that he is right. The reason is because it will become impractical. Right now we have plenty of CPU power on the desktop. For example we can build cars (drag racers) with 2000HP, but is it practical for a mainstream car? Not with oil prices being what they are.

As you point out computers will integrate into mainstream and the features that we pre-occupy ourselves with (RAM, CPU Speed, etc) will become irrelevant. Even now I do not say the MHZ of my computers, as it is not proportional to performance.

--

"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
Re:Think outside the box! by TGK · 2004-05-28 05:30 · Score: 4, Interesting

Of all the futurist sci-fi authors out there, the best and (in my opinion) most realistic rendition of future societies is given in Peter F. Hamilton's Reality Disfunction series.

Note: Think away the energy manipulating poltergeist possession thing to get my point.

Human society divides along two lines, Adamists and Edenists. Adamists embrace nanotechnology and information technology. Edenists embrace biotechnology. While the division isn't that plausable, most of the tech described from the Adamist side of things is a real possibilty in the distant future. We're allready seeing the beginings of it.

My predictions:
1.) Augmented Reality will be the killer app that moves the personal computer from your desktop into the category of wallet, watch, and keys that you need to leave the house.

2.) Increases in display technology and plumeting memory and processor costs continue to push more embded devices into the marketplace.

3.) Computer interaction will edge out human interaction as the primary means of doing buisness. How this happens will depend on the particular industry. It has allready happened to the banking industry. Some of this will be online interaction, an appreciable portion of it will be based on biometrics and customer tracking. The privacy people will object to this, but will be overcome by the allmighty dollar.

4.) The computer applications we use will continue to become more abstract and seperated from the data they handle. The reason this occurs is the cycle that drives hardware also drives sofware. Hardware sells because people want to run the latest software. Software sells because people who have the latest hardware want things to run that pushes their system to the limit. Programers thus write applications that allows a more sophisticated rendition of the same dataset. Not to use Microsoft as an example, but compare Excel 95 to Excel XP. What's the difference?

5.) Longhorn will begin a trend in operating systems that SGI first demonstrated with the Onyx. The OS is the redheaded stepchild of the mainstream software market right now. It is untilitarian, focusing more on getting its job done and less on looking slick. Apple has tried to change this, SGI has tried to change this, Enlightenment has tried to change this. Microsoft will succeed.

Most of these predictions are more like 10 years down the road instead of 30. What's really interesting are the social change that this kind of technological integration will bring about. What will happen as the governments of the world lag further and further behind the corporations as providers of the day to day services that people depend on?

The next 30 years of computing promises more than just faster system and bigger drives, it promises radical changes in where computers are found, what computers do, and how human beings interact.

Thirty years is a long time, and while I wouldn't put a bet in for me being able to get an 802.11 jack for my head in that time frame, it's only because I don't think the FDA would allow it by then.

--
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
Re:Think outside the box! by Profane+MuthaFucka · 2004-05-28 05:39 · Score: 4, Funny

I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that in 30 years we won't have any computers at all. Instead, we'll have spice, and hot Bene Gesserit women. Yes, I am predicting the Butlerian Jihad.

--
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
Re:Think outside the box! by Deflagro · 2004-05-28 05:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

Again i'd have to point to Kurzweil about this. People don't realise how quickly we've advanced since the computer was created. Every technology we create only fuels new techs with fuels new ones exponentially.
In one century we've experienced multiple revolutions, industrial and technological. Considering we've been around over 10 times that long (civilised anyhow), i'd say it's amazing.

I just think tech advancement happens on a much shorter scale as you'd have to change the measurement yearly almost.

I think it's exciting that i'll be alive to see some really crazy advancements, as long as human nature stays out of it and we don't destroy everything.

--
Der Tod ist der einzige Weg hier raus!
Re:Think outside the box! by badasscat · 2004-05-28 06:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

Actually, the extrapolation procedure doesn't work too bad. It's just a matter of connecting the dots. I have a book from 20+ years ago about the future of video games. Some of the claims were:

* Games could allow more than two players. Perhaps even enough to play a full game of soccer or football! (The picture showed a "dome" with controls in a ring around it.)
* Games will be able to be played over great distances! (The picture showed a chess board with a wireless antenna on it.)
* Games will be so much more realistic! (Shows a handheld game with a full scene of a motor bike jumping a dirt ramp.)

It's no stretch to think that in the future, graphics will be better, and different types of games will be possible with more computing power. But statements like the following have really becoome a pet peeve of mine:

Computer games in 2034 are likely to offer simulated worlds and interactive storytelling that's more engaging than linear presentations such as those in most movies today.

News flash: people *like* linear presentations and plotlines. We don't have linear presentations in games right now because of any technical limitation in the medium, we have them because that's what people *want*. Case in point: the Final Fantasy series. FFXI - the first MMORPG in the series - has sold fewer than 700,000 copies worldwide on both the PC and PS2. FFX - the last truly linear game in the series - sold 5 *million* copies on *one* system. FFX-2 was offline but also not linear, and it was criticized by some as a result and did not sell as well as FFX. Part of the reason people buy games in this series is *because* of the linear story-telling in them.

There will be a market for both types of games in the future, as there is now. I'm not saying linear games are all the market has room for. But we've had linear presentations in various mediums going back *thousands* of years; it's a method of storytelling that's been perfected by many skilled artisans. Can you imagine Shakespeare as a choose-your-own-adventure? Our human desire for linear stories goes much deeper than simple technical limitations; such stories are present in all cultures and have been basically since man learned to communicate.

There's nothing "more engaging" about persistent worlds; in fact they've already become passe, with most MMORPG's just copying each other. It's just a different style of gameplay, which has yet to reach maturity. Someday it will, but there is nothing inherently superior about that method of gameplay, just as there is nothing inherently superior in sports games vs. RPG's or in fighting games vs. platformers. They're just different genres.

I don't have any problem with extrapolation to predict the future in computing, because most of that extrapolation is born of the assumption that processors will continue to get faster, and applications more complex. I think that's a safe assumption to make. But I do have problems with expectations of fundamental shifts in the way humans have enjoyed their leisure time for centuries just because a faster CPU enables them to. It's not up to consumers to fit their interests around their PC's; it's up to hardware manufacturers and application designers to fit their products to consumers' interests.
Re:Think outside the box! by Dun+Malg · 2004-05-28 06:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

He and other futurists might do better to look at what we use computers for now and what we don't, but could, use them for in the future. They could also think way outside the box and think about how computers will physically change (will it still be everything in one box or will the hardware be as distributed as software can be) or how computers will integrate into everyday life.
Yeah, I've heard "futurists" like him before. One goofball suggested that "in the future" we would store ALL our music on a disc the size of a dime that we'd be able to carry around with us everywhere and, when we purchase an album, we'd hand the clerk our disc and they'd add the music to it. Totally fails to take into account the "lose- and steal-ability" of a dime-sized disc. Pure extrapolation only works up to a certain point, then you have to ask yourself, "why?"

--
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.

It won't really change... by gerbick · 2004-05-28 04:52 · Score: 2, Funny

Gaming won't really change... heck, I'm still waiting for my flying car.

--
Noli nothis permittere te terere.

Re:It won't really change... by stanmann · 2004-05-28 05:00 · Score: 2, Funny

Well given the random and consistently lower qualities of movies today, I don't see how gaming can't help but be more engaging in 30 years.

--
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed

Um... by DrEldarion · 2004-05-28 04:52 · Score: 5, Interesting

Computer games in 2034 are likely to offer simulated worlds and interactive storytelling that's more engaging than linear presentations such as those in most movies today

Uh, don't computer games now have simulated worlds and interactive storytelling? Morrowind anyone?

Re:Um... by Kenja · 2004-05-28 05:02 · Score: 3, Interesting

"Uh, don't computer games now have simulated worlds and interactive storytelling? Morrowind anyone?"
While I liked the game (and am currently playing the Bloodmoon expansion). Morrowind was about as interactive as a chose your own adventure book. Sure, you could do things that where outside of the script. But they had no effect.
You could rob all the great houses blind while the guards watched, you could kill entire towns, you could reach the rank of guild master in any of several guilds. But nothing changed. No one reacted diferently to you regardless of what you did (unless you where wanted for murder or something, then you had to pay a small fine. And keep in mind that you realy could kill entire towns without getting a price put on your head). One would hope that in the future there will be Morrowind like games with real interaction rather then scripted events.
PS: My favorite example of this problem in Morrowind is when I would walk into a house vault naked, turn invisible, unlock the vault doors, take anything not nailed down,stagger back out with more stuff then I'll ever be able to sell, and all the guards say is "we're watching you. Scum!". I bust out laughing every time that happens.

--

"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"

Re:What? by TwistedSquare · 2004-05-28 04:54 · Score: 2, Funny

Still no hollowdeck?

No, they haven't perfected the technology yet to prevent the outside collapsing onto the hollow inside ;)

Computer games in 2034? by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · 2004-05-28 04:55 · Score: 4, Funny

DNF due in March.

Compu...what? by Deflagro · 2004-05-28 04:56 · Score: 3, Interesting

I agree with someone else's post. A computer won't be a box with a monitor, etc..
It will prolly be like a PDA that has periphs you can plug in and just have everything virtual.
I mean, 30 YEARS! Considering the exponential advance in technology, all we'd have to do is find a new battery model (nanotech i'm sure) and voila.

I'm gonna be in my rocking chair playing final fantasy XX i'm sure.

--
Der Tod ist der einzige Weg hier raus!

Re:Compu...what? by grumbel · 2004-05-28 05:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

Just consider the last 15-20 years, back then computer where very small, directly build into the keyboard, almost made no noise beside the drives, could be plugged into every TV and 'just worked', no need to maintain or reinstall the OS really, just insert another floppy and viola it worked.

Today computers are in most cases big noisy grey boxes. People have to reinstall or maintain their OS, manually install security patches and every once in a while a nice internet worms does funny things with your machine. GUIs are still pretty much the same as the first GUIs that apeared, just a bit more colorfull here and there, but fundamentally still pretty much the same.

Beside getting faster, bigger and louder and more throublesome in maintaince there really wasn't much change in the computers you normally use in the last 15-20 years, sure memory has grown bigger and now we can do some cool new stuff, but fundamentally not much has changed, some issues have even getting worse.

That said, technology might improve expotentially, user interfaces however do not. Just look at something basic like 'undo', neither Linux, Windows or MacOS provides an 'undo' on filesystem level, instead they provide this ugly workaround of a trashcan which doesn't help on a plain 'rm' or if you overwrite a file instead of deleting it. Versioned filesystems however are nothing new and should be easily doable with todays machines, however non OS does it that way, which just shows that hardware might be evolving fast, software however is not.
Re:Compu...what? by mr_mischief · 2004-05-28 07:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

They're bigger because we wanted user-upgradable parts. They're louder because they need to be reliable and not burn up in a couple of months -- it's one of the prices of getting faster. They're less secure because we're connecting them to one another to enable things we couldn't easily do 15-20 years ago.

You can easily buy an SBC with an AMD Geode 1 GHz CPU and 128 megs of RAM, put your storage on CompactFlash with an IDE convertor, and have integrated Ethernet on it. With no fans needed and solid-state storage, it'd be quiet. With everything but the CF on one board, it'd be small. It would run most software people run on the stock desktops.

VMS indeed does do versioned filesystems. It's not too long, I'm sure, before there's a Linux filesystem that implements it at the FS level if there's not already. Until then, there are versioning systems at the application level.

There are all kinds of software we have now that we didn't 15-20 years ago. You're almost certainly reading /. on a web browser. SMTP/POP3 email software certainly wasn't the norm on desktops 20 years ago. We have much better animation now than then. We have realistic computer audio done mostly in software (this is enabled largely by the processor speeds and memory sizes, but the software to take advantage of it is fairly new). Instant messengers which work outside the LAN are certainly new within the last 15 years. The programming languages used to write other software have changed much over the last 15-20 years. Machine translation of natural languages was a dream 20 years ago, but now it's getting reasonably accurate. Software in just the last couple of years has taken big strides toward displaying everyone's languages together on screen in the proper character sets -- even with more than one alphabet in use at a time. Desktop operating systems have come from offering filesystem services and port access to one program at a time through the days of cooperative multitasking into the days of memory-protected preeemptive multitasking and even machine virtualization.

Sure, the uses of the individual applications may not have changed much -- reading text, editing text, listening to sounds, playing games, todo lists, calendars, address books, etc. Tewnty years ago, though, could you open your address book, drag a CD-quality sound clip into it, and type an annotaion before clicking a button to send it to someone on another continent?

IN 30 years,,,, by Jailbrekr · 2004-05-28 04:56 · Score: 2, Interesting

I think there will be a backlash against technology. We will hit a critical point in our social evolution where we say "enough!" How much of a backlash, I know not.

At least I hope there is a backlash. Too much, too invasive, too quick.

--
Feed the need: Digitaladdiction.net

Re:IN 30 years,,,, by SoCalChris · 2004-05-28 05:30 · Score: 3, Insightful

I think technology will keep getting better, but we'll see it less. In fact, it is already happening.

Take Tivo for instance. A few years ago, if you wanted to record something, you had to set up your VCR, program it, make sure there was a blank tape, etc... Now you just punch into your Tivo that you like certain kinds of shows, and they are recorded for you. In the future, devices like Tivo probably won't even need you to tell it what to record, it will know what you want to record based on what you watch most.

Another example is cars. The new Mercedes recognize who is driving, and adjust the seats/mirrors/stereo to what that driver likes automatically. They also recognize if a seat is empty, and in an accident it won't deploy the airbags for empty seats. Some of the new cars don't even require a key to start any more. The owner carries a card with a RFID chip in their wallet that the car recognizes, and allows them to drive the car without having to use a key. Even 10 years ago, the things that are standard on a lot of new cars would have been unimaginable.

I think things will keep getting far more technologically advanced, but we will see it less and less.

I doubt there will be immersive storylines by lawpoop · 2004-05-28 04:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

These people should do some reading on narrative theory.

A story is a meaning applied to events after they have occured. A game is a game, like sports or a board game. You can only make a story out of it after events have been completed. A story has a status quo, an event that disrupts that status quo, and a hero who overcomes a challenge to create a new status quo. You can only joing narrative events to actual events after they have all taken place. If you have a wandering storyline, what's to say that this particular event is the shift to the 2nd or 3rd act? It's only after you have everything that you can make a complete story. And that's not to say that there's only one story. Any event might serve as any of the narrative events, depending on the story you're telling.

--
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso

Re:I doubt there will be immersive storylines by lawpoop · 2004-05-28 05:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

Remember that a story is something you tell after the fact. It has a punchline, like a joke. Something that hits you. Good stories are planned out, and their telling is practiced.
For good, unplanned stories to happen, I think that will only happen in MMORPGS with either great AI (unlikely), or a lot of freedom for avatars. And then, again, *a story will be a re-telling of events that have already happened* . Hey, did you see what happened in $_MMORPG yesterday? I finally got my castle fortifications set up, and that jerk Ermond did a surprise attacks, but he didn't know that I had a pet dragon, so I let his forces in, and they all died a fiery death! That'll teach him.
The thing is that currently, a computer doesn't have enough AI to be a narrator. Right now only a human being can wedge events into a narrative stream and tell it to someone.

--
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
Re:I doubt there will be immersive storylines by zephiros · 2004-05-28 05:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

A story is a meaning applied to events after they have occured. A game is a game, like sports or a board game. You can only make a story out of it after events have been completed.

I will never understand why this old chestnut appears every time there's a discussion of interactive storytelling.

By your definition, fiction is impossible. When the author sits down with a blank sheet of paper, he should be stuck, since there are no past events for him to relate.

But of course, we know this isn't the case. Even school children are capable of inventing fanciful, novel stories. The path to interactive storytelling is collaboration between the player and the computer to produce a narrative which is both interesting to the player and dramatically compelling. The narrative is a product of this process, it is not the process itself.

Perhaps we need to come up with a new term. When people say "interactive story" they obviously don't mean "give me a book I can shove into my Playstation." They mean "give me a piece of software that allows me to have an experience similar to reading a good book, but also provides me agency, and allows me to control how I experience events."
Re:I doubt there will be immersive storylines by Otto · 2004-05-28 06:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

But of course, we know this isn't the case. Even school children are capable of inventing fanciful, novel stories. The path to interactive storytelling is collaboration between the player and the computer to produce a narrative which is both interesting to the player and dramatically compelling. The narrative is a product of this process, it is not the process itself.

The problem is that storytelling is hard. It's easy to create a story. It's tough to create a compelling and interesting story. And it seems to be damn near impossible to do it without knowing what the main character is actually going to do.

This is why we don't have any good examples of immersive fiction yet. Think about it, you're basically telling the creator of the game to create a compelling and interesting story without knowing exactly what the main character in the story (the player) is actually going to do. This seems pretty hard to me, and is likely why most attempts have ended up as just more complicated versions of choose your own adventure. They come up with perhaps a dozen ways the story could go, max, then program those in using branch points. At some point in the game, you can either go do this or go do that and thus the branch is chosen. But after replaying it several times, you run out of branches.

To create something truly compelling, you'd need a lot more freedom of action. However, the program is fixed. It can't change. So anything it does must be scripted in advance. This means that truly immersive storytelling is, in fact, impossible without some form of artifical intelligence, to let the story actually change according to an unlimited number of actions.

Now, that's obviously too far. So since we're not going to let the computer tell the story, we have to let the programmer of the computer do it. This means that the possible lines are fixed. Now, if someone were to spend a hell of a lot of time on it, they could possible come up with several dozen branches at each chosen branch point in the story, and thus give the illusion of truly immersive story by sheer number of possible things to do. After about 30 possible choices at a branch point, the human brain can't really tell the difference anyway, unless they're presented with options of things to say like console games do, and such. But if the choices were actual actions that the player carried out, 30 would be more than enough.

The problem with this is that it's such a big job. If you're going to provide that kind of freedom of action, you're looking at writing thousands of similar but separate stories. And no cheating like many games do, where no matter which branch you take, the impact is slight at best and the story remains mostly unchanged. We're hoping for replay factor here. We want total changes in the storyline. Some cheating this way is okay, because things happen that way sometimes through no act of your own, but still, too much of this and you lose the point of doing it on a large scale in the first place.

Immersive storytelling is simply a hard, hard thing to do. I don't think that technology will solve this problem either, because it's not a problem with the technology. We can do it now, for that matter. It's simply a matter of spending enough time actually writing the thing out on a grand enough scale to make it seem to be unlimited. But that's still big enough to prevent it from really happening so far.

--
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.

I'm still trying to figure out... by Throtex · 2004-05-28 04:59 · Score: 2, Funny

...if the network is the computer, or if the computer is the network, or what! Stupid Sun...

Shared game content by ArsonSmith · 2004-05-28 04:59 · Score: 2, Interesting

One thing the gameing industry needs is a shared content license similar to how open source is set up. If someone spends 6 months makeing a detailed land scape for level 14 of a game and it turns out the everyone blows through level 14 in just a couple of minutes is level 14 worth those 6 months?

Not really, but if that level was "Open Source" sort of speak, it would then be able to be modified, with modifications going back to the original, and used in the next game. With several improvments over time that section would eventually become a great peice of colabirated art.

--
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.

Re:Shared game content by JWhitlock · 2004-05-28 06:20 · Score: 2, Funny

One thing the gameing industry needs is a shared content license similar to how open source is set up. If someone spends 6 months makeing a detailed land scape for level 14 of a game and it turns out the everyone blows through level 14 in just a couple of minutes is level 14 worth those 6 months?
Still designing levels in 2034? Can't the games make their own levels on the fly yet? Boy, NetHack still has 'em beat...

So.. by thebra · 2004-05-28 05:02 · Score: 2, Interesting

Certainly, our personal computer will remember anything we've ever seen or done online. A complete HDTV record of every waking hour of your life will consume 2 percent of your hard disk.

Doesn't it already do this, its called history. I see that he is saying it will screen capture all of it, but why? This article doesn't really predict anything but just states the obvious. Yes, we will have faster processors and more hard drive space, bigger screens, higher resolutions, amazing predictions! But I want to know when my computer will talk to my car and refrigerator and let me know when I'm driving to the grocery store that my son (future son) just drank the last of the milk.

DUKE Nukem by tonywestonuk · 2004-05-28 05:02 · Score: 2, Funny

Computer games in 2034 are likely to offer simulated worlds and interactive storytelling that's more engaging than linear presentations such as those in most movies today.

So, I guess this will be when Duke Nukem Forever is completed then....

uh.... by Thud457 · 2004-05-28 05:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

You overlooked the crucial part of the quote:

"Computer games in 2034 are likely to offer simulated worlds and interactive storytelling that's more engaging than linear presentations such as those in most movies today "

Even some of today's primitive games have most movies beat... (watching Hollywood eat it's young at a prodigious rate, I sometimes think "Tetris" is more complex, multifaceted and emotional storytelling.)

--

the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

The Unix Clock will Overflow by lildogie · 2004-05-28 05:04 · Score: 4, Funny

Airplanes will crash, nuclear weapons will detonate, and NBC will air a hokey movie about it all.

I'm just glad I live in a later timezone. Oh, wait....

Re:The Unix Clock will Overflow by darth_MALL · 2004-05-28 05:12 · Score: 2, Funny

Sorry to be anal...I think it's 2038

Control versus centralization by 14erCleaner · 2004-05-28 05:05 · Score: 2, Interesting

This quote from the article struck a nerve for me: People who started using computers after the PC revolution have no idea about the miserable user experience that centralised computers imposed. Even the worst PC designs today feel positively liberating by comparison.

I started using computers about the same time Neilsen did (only 28 years ago for me :). One of the trends that keeps rearing its ugly head is the return to centralized computers. Nowadays they call them "Application Service Providers", or similar euphemisms, but every time I hear another story about how Oracle or IBM or some company like that is going to "simplify application management" by running some big application from a central server with remote PC clients, I cringe; I flash back to mainframes with green-screen CRT's and wonder why anybody would ever willingly go back to that sort of model. Individual PCs may be harder to deal with for non-technical users, but those with the skills to do their own software installation will always be better off when they don't have to rely on the Man Behind The Curtain to keep things working.

--
Have you read my blog lately?

Re:Control versus centralization by mschuyler · 2004-05-28 05:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

Why do you cringe? I'm replacing 150 public computers with $300 thin clients coming off a terminal server (well, a cluster of them), just exactly what you are talking about. Right now, if I need to change anything, I have to visit 150 computers individually, even for the tiniest tweak of a config file. Plus I have to lock these things down tight because John Q. is either stupid and wrecks stuff unintentionally, or he's trying to show me how clever he is by sabotaging the machines and attempting to hack my system. So that means stuff like Centurion Guard, Fortres, keys, and all kinds of crap that wastes my time.

With thin clients, I make the same change on the server and it's all done. It IS a return to the mainframe model, and it's one I'm extremely happy about because it will make my life so much simpler. Once I get these 150 done I'm going after 150 staff computers. Most people simply do not need real PCs, and half of them couldn't see a difference anyway. As long as they get a login screen and a desktop they couldn't care less if the files they create are stored on a server or locally, or whether they have a hard drive somewhere under their desks. Sure, there are a few folks who are going to need local storage for various reasons, so they can keep their PCs. But the vast majority simply don't need it. I'm also saving money. Even when you amortize the servers over the number of thin clients they can support, my capital cost is half what it would be for PCs.

I surely would not advocate that approach for any of us, perish the thought. But in the real world in a production environment, which slashdot certainly is not, it's a viable solution.

--
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.

The Turing Point... by solarlux · 2004-05-28 05:07 · Score: 3, Interesting

What I'd like to know is when... computers will have the same level of consciousness as we do.

At that point, they will be empowered to invent and innovate creatively without the biological encumbrances we have. Imagine a human-like mind that can, while thinking, remember every fact with equal clarity. And imagine the scope of that knowledge base to include all discovered facts. Every theoretical mathematical conjecture could be instantly evaluated and computed (no more tedious sessions working with Mathematica). Sci-fi writer Vernor Vinge has stated that this point in history will be so revolutionary that we are entirely incapable of seeing what lies after it -- a horizon "singularity".

Re:The Turing Point... by thakadu · 2004-05-28 05:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

I am willing to bet that this will NEVER happen with the current von Neuman design of computers which is basically what Nielsen thinks will still be the norm in 2034. You need a differnt design to get consciusness (whatever that is).

Circular Logic by beatleadam · 2004-05-28 05:10 · Score: 2, Interesting

I knew that it could feel good to use computers, and I wanted to recapture that sense of empowerment and put humans back in control of the machines.

While I applaud anyone who is willing to attempt to predict "30 years in computing" and like everyone, can not say he or she is wrong (after all, it has not happened) I have to say that this is a useless article from Mr. Nielsen. In the same couple of paragraphs that he is talking about his dislike of the mainframe and his pleaant experience with the desktop machine, he tells us his *feelings* on why the computer has to feel "good" to use. Not only is this a non-empirical argument but it is Circular/pretzel logic as well.

--
I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. -- Hunter S. Thompson

Diamond Age by Glog · 2004-05-28 05:11 · Score: 3, Interesting

Nielsen's Law of Internet bandwidth? Puh-lease... Anyone quoting themselves in anything but a scientific paper sounds rather pompous and pretentious.

Nielsen may be a fine usability expert but as a futurist and visionary he is lacking in the imagination department. I strongly recommend the Diamond Age by Neal Stephenson for an inspired read of what computing may be like many years from now.

Half an exabyte of hard disk equivalent storage by mst76 · 2004-05-28 05:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

can hold every movie and sound track ever published.

Re:Half an exabyte of hard disk equivalent storage by Anubis350 · 2004-05-28 05:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

ah, but by the time we have it more movies and sountracks will be published, in higher quality that take up more space.

--
"goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
Re:Half an exabyte of hard disk equivalent storage by Have+Blue · 2004-05-28 05:37 · Score: 2, Funny

Sure, but what are all the P2P addicts going to do afterwards?

Thanks, I like my passives very much. by RoufTop · 2004-05-28 05:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

People have been expecting these interactive movie worlds to tell us non-linear stories for at least a decade. There are several problems with this line of thinking: it's far more expensive to tell a non-linear story than a linear one, moviemakers are much better at telling stories than audiences, and people LIKE linear stories.

Alternate endings to movies on DVD's and open-ended worlds in games like GTA are good examples of the kinds of things we'll be doing for a while. But a story told from a million angles? Forget it. Even with technology to create those worlds, you still need to think about, well, everything, and all the consequences of every action. It's not gonna happen.

What we like about linear stories is their flow from conflict to resolution. And we see movies because the people that make them are good at what they do. The original storytellers around a fire could have sat there waiting for their "users" to interact with them ("storyteller, put the mail on the duffel bag" :-), but instead they were valued for their imagination and timing.

rouftop

--
QAExpress: Solid bug tracking for you. Graphs and reports for your PHB.

Too far in the future... by dylan_- · 2004-05-28 05:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think it's crazy trying to predict 30 years in the future unless as a sci-fi scenario.

I mean, if you'd asked me in 1974 what things would be like in 2004 I simply couldn't have guessed what we'd have now. Actually, I'd probably just have replied "Goo! Gah gah gah! Whaaaah!" but that's besides the point...

--
Igor Presnyakov stole my hat

Scott Adams figured this out a while ago by JoeBuck · 2004-05-28 05:15 · Score: 4, Funny

Dogbert: I can predict the future by assuming that money and male hormones are the driving forces for new technology. Therefore when virtual reality gets cheaper than dating, society is doomed.

Woman (to Dogbert): Is Dilbert available?

Dogbert: He's been in the holodeck since March.

You mean "if"... by sean.peters · 2004-05-28 05:20 · Score: 3, Informative

Since it's by no means a sure thing that computers will EVER attain consciousness.

I also have heartburn with the term "singularity" as applied to the growth in computer capability. "Singularity" is a mathematical term with a precise definition: it's a point on the curve representing some function at which the slope of the curve is infinite - think of the limit of f(x)=1/(x-1) as x approaches 1. But "Moore's Law" is an exponential function - its slope is finite everywhere on the curve.

While I understand what people mean when they discuss a computer "singularity", it's really not a very accurate way to use the word.

Sean

My computing prediction. by Sunken+Kursk · 2004-05-28 05:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

Given the way it seems DRM and such have been going recently, I have a different view of where home computers will be in the future...

In the past, Internet Terminals were heralded as the wave of the future. This was because of their convenience, ease of use, etc. I see them now as the wave of the future because they don't store content. They are simply a gateway into someone else's content. Once the RIAA and MPAA have finished their buyout of the legislative and legal system, new regulations will require that computers not store any information. That way the big guys don't have to worry about the little guy sharing music or downloading the latest episode of Law & Order - Pothole Repair Crew for free. To listen to music, plug in your credit-card and connect to their services. Only $5.99 for an hour's worth of music. Want to play the latest game? Only $2.99 to plug into the Doom 5 server and play.

This can even extend to the workplace. Microsoft Office Services. For $15,000 per year, you can get a 10 connection license to allow your employees to work on presentations, software requirements, etc. Then for only $150,000 per year, two of your developers can connect to Microsoft Development Studio Services and work on that software you need written. Then for the low-low price of $200,000 per year, Microsoft will go ahead and host the software you wrote. Imagine, you don't have to worry about backups, and you'll never need to worry about the BSA pounding down your door.

All that needs to happen is widespread acceptance and availability of broadband. This is sure to have happened in 30 years.

Think this can't happen? I guess we'll have to wait and see.

--

When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.

Re:No, in a visor. by Greyfox · 2004-05-28 05:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

They'll actually have the visor by 2007. It'll take another 30 years to make it cool.

--

I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

What's the benefit? by CycleMan · 2004-05-28 05:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

Okay, petabytes and exabytes sound interesting from a "Wow - technology" perspective, but why do I care? Will they improve how we live our lives, increase the amount of face time we spend with each other, decrease hunger and poverty, elevate the human spirit or cure race relations?

That amount of computer storage probably won't be enough to help men understand women. =)

I'm growing in favour of technology being just a little more clunky and difficult so that people will move their heads away from the monitor once in a while - and not just to make new PC mods.

In Thirty Years I predict.... by platypibri · 2004-05-28 05:25 · Score: 5, Funny

1. Finally!!!! Computers will wreck a nice beach... er recognize speech.
2. EUI. Emersive User Interface, perhaps something like Minority Report or The Matix. I mean manipulating virtual object in real space, not jacking in.
3. Cyrrano Virus proof of concept hits on your girlfriend (or mom, in the case of hopeless nerds)
4. Indian Tech Giant "Bollysoft" is investigated for anti-competative practices, cuts cost by farming out tech support to the up and coming Afganistan tech industry.
5. Computers finally translate dolphin speech. Turns out it's mostly fart jokes and machismo pick up lines. And, they are very interested in our culture's "beer" and "ESPN"
6. PentiumXI prosessor requires a 220 volt electric connection, liquid oxygen cooling. Intel investigates opening small wormholes between processors and surface of Jupiter moon Europa for joint processor cooling/planet heating terraforming project.
7. That's right, virtual 3D holographic blue screen of death.

--
Yeah, I guess I'm funny like that.

You want really hightech computers... by kabocox · 2004-05-28 05:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

I don't want to ever have to see another computer again. Period. I want a watch, eye and ear improvements. I want my eye improvement to be able to give me 20/20 vision. I want it to record everything that I've ever experienced and beable to display anything to the same level. The ear implants should be able to record both ears worth of audio in the full human hearing range and store it. It should be able to reproduce almost any sound that the human ear can perceive. The watch should be where everything is stored, the CPU where everything is processed, and is easily removable and replacable when we figure out how to make smaller, faster, and cheaper watches. Oh, the watch should tell time and GPS as well.

The next big thing will be the touch interface.

Re:No, in a visor. by www.sorehands.com · 2004-05-28 05:31 · Score: 2, Funny

I am telling my kids to get me the visor with laser beams attached. Forget the shark.

--
Fight Spammers!

The Star Trek Holodeck by Kyosuke77 · 2004-05-28 05:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

I always thought the holodeck represented what they thought would be the ultimate in video game technology 400 years into the future. However there was a well known problem with it, which in later series' acquired the name 'holoadditcion'. Basically, it created completely immersive worlds that were completely real to all the senses, down to the finesse of actual replicated matter for some elements. It was something so powerful it made Evercrack addiction look like the equivalent of a jones for skittles versus heroin. Nevertheless, I'd say that a prediction that video games evolving into, or at least approaching, something that involves complete immersion in a photo-realistic, randomly interactive environment is actually nothing new. If you look at the present, we have video cards that can render 'cinematic' quality graphics in real time at resolutions of several megapixels. To put it mildly, we've come a long way from Pong.

--
GET THEM INSIDE THE VAULT!

Re:Computer will replace certain kinds of workers by Have+Blue · 2004-05-28 05:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

A computer could easily replace the DSM and probably has already done so in many places, but if you really think that's all that doctors do and is the only skill required to practice medicine then I'd really hate to end up in your operating theater.

Jakob's Clueless re:Pre-PC Centralized Computing by theodp · 2004-05-28 05:45 · Score: 5, Interesting

People who started using computers after the PC revolution have no idea about the miserable user experience that centralised computers imposed.

Check out Plato. Pre-1975 bitmapped graphics, audio and photographic quality images, instant messaging, near zero latency multiplayer network gaming, distance learning, groupware, newsgroups, online newspapers, animated email, network delivery of music, client/server computing, touch screen interfaces, flat-panel displays, and multimedia that were delivered across a worldwide educational network with satellite and cable communications using CDC mainframes.

linear story telling by hak1du · 2004-05-28 05:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

No matter how you author or present a story, people will still experience it in some linear order. Authors spend a lot of time worrying that the order a reader actually gets is interesting and makes sense; that's what a big part of good writing is all about. Linearity is something that is an added value for a story, not a restriction.

Many games may well be "non-linear" (i.e., have many different paths), but that's not to make them more engaging, it's to make them more replayable. And there will also continue to be many highly linear games that present a single, well-designed storyline as part of the game, although hopefully authors will find ways of making the interaction with the storyline more natural than "you must find switch A and trigger it to continue".

Don't forget Legal advancements by freeze128 · 2004-05-28 05:47 · Score: 4, Funny

The computers of 2034 will be impressive indeed! They will have many functions that will be illegal for you to perform.

My guess by Pendersempai · 2004-05-28 05:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

Processing and storage will be recentralized.

Imagine: a couple hundred corporations around the united states each have dedicated facilities to process and/or store information. Other companies network these commodities to cohere the aspects of computing. These companies could specialize in redundancy/dependability, power, or affordability. You subscribe to one of these companies' services, and they give you a username and password. Now, you can use any compatible I/O device, log in, and you're at your (virtual) computer.

These I/O devices could be anything from a current monitor/keyboard/mouse desk setup to a wireless touchscreen you carry around with you (assuming pervasive WiFi). Even if it's a palmtop, it'll have all the processing power and storage of your desktop setup. So a gameboy would be just as powerful as a desktop system, and a no-moving-parts $10 MP3 player could access your entire hard drive. The virtual computer recognizes which device you're using to access it, and adopts its interface accordingly.

But the I/O devices could start posing as appliances: your kitchen telephone AND your cell phone are just computer terminals. Your coffee maker takes commands from the virtual computer: once you've set your alarm clock (another computer I/O device), your coffee maker knows when to start preparing a morning pot of coffee.

I don't even care to speculate what this model would do to our legal battles over IP and DRM; I think 30 years is far enough in the future that the technology will remake the legality beyond recognition.

The barriers to this model of computing are bandwidth and (to a lesser extent) wireless permittivity. Many of the gains could be recognized even with only wired technology -- it's just that the alarm clock, coffee maker, and mp3 player would have to jack in to a wall port somewhere.

in 30 years... by hak1du · 2004-05-28 06:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

I don't need Nielsen to tell me that computers will be faster and displays will be bigger (although it is likely that Moore's law will have fallen by then).

Nielssen seems to be saying that computers will be used largely the same way they are being used today, with some obvious tweaks. While computers have gotten faster, fundamentally, we have made little progress in how we interact with them over the last 30 years (Smalltalk and the Alto were being developed in the 1970s and contained most of the paradigms that the most advanced commercial desktops are using today), and Nielssen is basically saying that not much will change over the next 30 years either. That may excite him, since it allows him to continue to peddle his user interface incrementalism, but, frankly, I find it depressing.

One thing is certain: in 30 years, we will still have self-appointed "gurus" that make a name and a business for themselves by repeating populist techno-babble and buzzwords, but without having any real insight or vision. That has nothing to do with computers, it is just human nature, and that won't change.

Actually... by fiannaFailMan · 2004-05-28 06:23 · Score: 2, Interesting

more engaging than linear presentations such as those in most movies today

I disagree with this statement too, but for a different reason.

I wouldn't underestimate the engaging nature of the narrative. Storytelling is as old as mankind and it's not likely to disappear just because we can suddenly take control of the story. In fact I would argue that if you could control the story, what's the point of readin/watching/taking part in it? The point of storytelling is to engage the reader and make him feel an emotion. It's a lot easier to do that if the story throws him a curveball that he didn't see coming, or if the story has a load of story arcs that end up being resolved in the most unexpected of ways.

I remember reading a series of childrens' books called 'choose your own adventure.' I seem to remember feeling a bit short-changed with these books. Sure, the writing quality was pretty good, but the use of the second person narrative just felt downright wierd, a book telling me what was happening to me. Maybe if they were written in the third person it would have been better. I digress. What was missing was the plot resolution. I was left wondering, 'what is this story about?' Is it about me solving the mystery (as happened when I read it on one occasion) or is it about me dying a painful death along with all my friends (as happened when I read it a different time)?

There is just something about a third person narrative that no interactive game can beat.

--
Drill baby drill - on Mars

Exactly! by fiannaFailMan · 2004-05-28 06:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

I never could figure out the point of the 'holonovel' in Star Trek. Why go to the trouble of taking part in the story of Wuthering Heights if you first have to read the story, learn your lines, and go through the motions of the character? I mean, supposing you're playing Cathy and you decide to marry Heathecliffe. Well then you all live happily ever after and the story is no longer Wuthering Heights.

--
Drill baby drill - on Mars

Re:One prediction - fewer/more programmers by pyrotic · 2004-05-28 06:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

This implies that either 1) language has no ambiguities, or 2) artificial intelligence is possible. Rewind 30 years ago, and see how far AI has come. Not very. But in 30 years we've learnt a lot on language, and it's very ambiguous. Which is why no one wants to program in Engligh, when they can use Perl or C or some other abstraction. Will AI be possible? Your assumption is that it will. I'm not so sure.

Pray for the Singularity by fstat(pipe) · 2004-05-28 07:39 · Score: 3, Informative

The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era Vernor Vinge

Or not.

from the hackers dictionary... by axiome · 2004-05-28 07:41 · Score: 2, Interesting

vannevar /van'*-var/ /n./ A bogus technological prediction or a foredoomed engineering concept, esp. one that fails by implicitly assuming that technologies develop linearly, incrementally, and in isolation from one another when in fact the learning curve tends to be highly nonlinear, revolutions are common, and competition is the rule. The prototype was Vannevar Bush's prediction of 'electronic brains' the size of the Empire State Building with a Niagara-Falls-equivalent cooling system for their tubes and relays, a prediction made at a time when the semiconductor effect had already been demonstrated. Other famous vannevars have included magnetic-bubble memory, LISP machines, videotex, and a paper from the late 1970s that computed a purported ultimate limit on areal density for ICs that was in fact less than the routine densities of 5 years later.

And this is why future predictions are nearly almost wrong. Think about it. What would someone from the 20s think life is like today only 65 years from then?

Instantaneous communication all over the world? Yes, that has happened (more or less) but not the way they predicted it. Its not through some star trek phone but rather using machines *completely* unthinkable in interface and design. General computation machines on our desktop? Nope. Flying cars? Nope but would they of predicted hybrid electrics? Nanotech wasnt even an idea yet but we're approaching slowly going that way. GPS system? Quantum physics? The list goes on and on...

79 of 316 comments (clear)