Slashdot Mirror
Ars's Skeptical Take on Wired's NextFest
jamestech writes "Over the weekend, Wired magazine held its 'NextFest' in Chicago, a demonstration of what the future supposedly holds. Arstechnica's Hannibal visited NextFest, and was not impressed. Regarding a dolphin-shaped water vehicle and exoskeletons for the old, he notes, 'if you're being pursued by a senior citizen then you can use the dolphin to escape.' Wired's been more about style rather than tech since the late 90s, but have they finally dropped science in favor of science fiction?"
Wired has been more eye candy than anything else as long as I've read it
I hadn't read Wired for many years. I recently "inherited" a subscription from a departed co-worker. The magazine has become a total entertainment rag. I spend less time on an issue of Wired than I do on an issue of Information Week (and it comes out 4 times as often!).
Buy Wired? Nuh-uh.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
The guy was obviously in a pissy mood. I mean, come one, robotic exoskeletons for the elderly (a bit like that Centurions cartoon that used to be on TV) and he didn't see anything interesting or exciting? Did he have anything more to say about the Dolphin-shaped craft other than the shape reminded him of a dolphin? What about some actual information about what was going on at the show instead of trying to be funny with stupid tales of escaping by water when exeskeleton-enhanced geriatrics chasing after him? Maybe he should have taken some Alka Seltzer for his hangover. Nothing is as easy to spot as an article that's been written by someone in a bad mood, with a hangover, or both. Sheesh!
Drill baby drill - on Mars
God I hope so. I loved that magazine.
And I'm not talking about the article-- since when has it been hip to bash on Wired? I suppose it's one of those things the tech elite (or ignorant /.'ers) like to do because it reassures them of their status, or perhaps it's mere bandwagon jumping. What exactly is wrong with the magazine? (And give me something more original than the bad layout one liners)
I've had a subscription for several years, and have always found the magazine a worthwhile read. Sure alot of the stuff we already learn from online publications and news sites, but then the magazine offers enough original material to warrant its existence. They're also different than they were a few years ago because of the increasing number of free tech-sites online. Sure they sometimes take a look at the tech of pop-culture, but this may have to do with the increasing adoption of technology in the public realm. This past issue they had an article on Spielberg's "War of the Worlds", and last issue they covered Lucas-- how is this not relevant to the discussion of technology and geek-culture? Both are revolutionary directors who, despite their occasional misteps and flaws, consistently push the art of film-making and its use of technology.
Anyone who has actually read a recent issue of Wired and found nothing of value can't deny that the magazine offers something of value, especially in a world where we see decreasig numbers of hard-technology publications. After all, if Wired were as useless as some of you say it is, why do we keep featuring Wired stories on Slashdot?
Agreed, I feel the same way about the mag. True there's a lot of flash there too, but it's still a good place to see interesting stuff coming down the pipe and is often a good, light read.
That's nice and all, but most of the stuff there has been slowly developed over the last 10 years, and is hardly even remotely cutting edge. When one hears the name "NextFest" one tends to think there'll be some kind of new ideas, not incrimental developments on old ones.
Hell, the robo dolphin has been around at least that long. I remember seeing it in the early 90's on one of the Beyond 2000-esque shows that were popular back then, still doing the same goofy twists and turns. Damn thing was in an episode of Seaquest for god's sake, it's hardly what most would consider "Next".
Now sometimes that fiction becomes fact, but in no small part it is because either:
A) Someone states something completely obvious like "Television will change the way people see the world".
or
B) People find certain science fiction concepts so cool, they try to make new technologies emulate the fiction. A good example of this? Star Trek and Cell phones. No, Star Trek didn't create cell phones, but it certainly influenced their direction and design.
Pop culture does that to all aspects. Something becomes engrained and "natural" to us. So we make that idea a reality.
But, no one can predict the future. You can guess of course, and the ones who get lucky tend to be the rich/successful ones. But more often than not people just guess wrong, in no small part because when you guess the future, you are focusing on one single(or maybea handful of things) and assuming that these things will evolve in a vaccum without outside influence. Problem is, very few things evolve in a vaccum, and the wants and needs of a culture change over time too.
All inventions and technology are created to fill a need(be it entertainment, travel, communication, etc). People change, needs change, making the future impossible to ever predict.
You are who you are, let no one tell you different. But, never close your mind to a new point of view.
I was at the NextFest and was familiar with a lot of the technology being presented. Seeing it in the real world is a lot different than reading about it or seeing it on TV. Compare your live to that of the average citizen of a century or two ago and you get a sense of how much technology and science has shaped our lives. But if your standard of comparison is not reality but the Jetsons, or Star Trek then yes, NextFest would seem rather ordinary.
http://redcone.net
Style is not irrelevant. Portable MP3 players have been around for years. Yet what really popularized them? The stylish iPod.
Fashion has more to do with the future than most geeks are prepared to admit. And, as a recent NYT article pointed out (can't find the link), tech jobs are fleeing the country like rats from a sinking ship, but most of the major artistic design firms -- the ones who put the pretty boxes around the circuits -- are still in NY, LA, Chicago, etc.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
Well, that's the problem with revolutions isn't it. If you can predict them, so can the people who have a vested interest in quashing them. Had Microsoft recognised that threat of open source back in '91 they would have crushed it then and there. As such, any well published prediction of revolutionary technology, people or philosophy is likely to be quashed. Therefore the only predictions of the future that can be accurate are the ones that re-enforce the status quo.
How we know is more important than what we know.