Slashdot Mirror


The City of the Future

Ponca City, We Love You writes "One century ago, many Americans still had not seen a movie or ridden in an automobile. The New York World greeted its readers on January 1, 1908 with a stirring rumination about the past and future of America: 'We may have gyroscopic trains as broad as houses swinging at 200 miles an hour up steep grades and around dizzying curves,' the newspaper said. 'We may have aeroplanes winging the once inconquerable air. The tides that ebb and flow to waste may take the place of our spent coal and flash their strength by wire to every point of need.' Today the NY Times asked ten knowledgeable New Yorkers to imagine New York City a century from today. Their visions include archaeological excavations at the Fresh Kills landfill, the waterfront at Third Avenue and Seventh Avenue, a dome over Central Park, and a virtual reality grid superimposed over the city."

274 comments

  1. Comp Sci prediction is a bit Orwellian by xmas2003 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From Ken Perlin, professor of computer science at New York University "... everyone's eyes will be implanted with tiny displays. All the information we need about the city will be accessible to us without conscious effort: where to go, what to buy ... how to hook up with friends."

    And not surprisingly, Robin Nagle from the New York City Department of Sanitation predicts "Sanitation workers ... will be heroes"

    On a lighter note for the holiday season, here are the Christmas Lights of the Future! ;-)

    --
    Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
    1. Re:Comp Sci prediction is a bit Orwellian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please redesign the page. It's ugly and somewhat broken. I'm glad it's still up after all this time, but... eww.

    2. Re:Comp Sci prediction is a bit Orwellian by Annymouse+Cowherd · · Score: 1

      where to go, what to buy ... how to hook up with friends. what's the name of the story that's like that again?

  2. Please post the text by Rix · · Score: 1

    All that link leads to is a registration page.

  3. There won't be a New York by tjstork · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Sorry to put a damper on things, but, in the nuclear war of 2072, New York City will be incinerated. In the year 2108, there's only going to be a bunch of glassy craters inhabited by trash and rats.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:There won't be a New York by mrbluze · · Score: 1

      Nah, it won't be incinerated, but will be renamed 'Old York', probably in arabic.

      --
      Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
    2. Re:There won't be a New York by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the year 2108, there's only going to be a bunch of glassy craters inhabited by trash and rats.

      So in other words, aside from the inversion of the glassy nipples you see in the city today (you, blandly, probably refer to them as skyscrapers), things won't change much.

      Side note: I think I need to start selling NYC t-shirts that make poetic use of the phrase "glassy nipples".

    3. Re:There won't be a New York by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      I have never considered a skyscraper to be like a nipple before.
      I've always considered them penis extensions for blokes who have outgrown cars.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    4. Re:There won't be a New York by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nah, it won't be incinerated, but will be renamed 'Old York', probably in arabic.

      Nah. Mandarin.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    5. Re:There won't be a New York by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      a bunch of glassy craters inhabited by trash and rats

      You forgot the roaches. There will always be roaches.
      Especially in NYC.

    6. Re:There won't be a New York by Odin's+Raven · · Score: 1

      Nah, it won't be incinerated, but will be renamed 'Old York', probably in arabic.

      Nah. Mandarin.

      Tsai boo shr! That's just fahng-tzong fung-kwong duh jeh.

      --
      A marriage is always made up of two people who are prepared to swear that only the other one snores.
    7. Re:There won't be a New York by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      It will be called the New York that Was.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    8. Re:There won't be a New York by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's easy for YOU to say, sir! Hurmph.

    9. Re:There won't be a New York by arminw · · Score: 1, Insightful

      .....in the nuclear war of 2072, New York City will be incinerated........

      About 2000 years ago someone named John made some predictions. According to him, NY among the other cites of the world will some day experience this:

      "And there was a great earthquake, such as has not been since men were on the earth, so mighty and so great an earthquake. And the great city came to be into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell." (Revelation 18:18-19)

      A 50-100 mile diameter asteroid striking the earth would make quite a mess and cannot be categorically ruled out. Hailstones of a hundred pounds each, and the other things described in this part of the Bible, maybe as a result of such an event, are not impossible either.

      Mass extinctions happened before and can happen again.

      --
      All theory is gray
    10. Re:There won't be a New York by pravuil · · Score: 1

      You forgot to add, "They will rebuild on top of Old New York and call the new city New New York."

    11. Re:There won't be a New York by tjstork · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "And there was a great earthquake, such as has not been since men were on the earth, so mighty and so great an earthquake. And the great city came to be into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell." (Revelation 18:18-19)

      I think it is widely held that John was talking about Rome.

      --
      This is my sig.
    12. Re:There won't be a New York by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Sure, that's the downside. But if you're a mutant, or looking for the latest in mutant fashion and trends, it will be the ONLY place to go.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  4. Trains? by calebt3 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    We may have gyroscopic trains as broad as houses swinging at 200 miles an hour up steep grades and around dizzying curves This just shows how far we have come. Dan Quayle once said "The future will be better tomorrow." These days nobody would take the train idea seriously. Now the goal is teleportation.
    1. Re:Trains? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This just shows how far we have come. Dan Quayle once said "The future will be better tomorrow." These days nobody would take the train idea seriously. Now the goal is teleportation.

      Except that we're rediscovering that if you have more than 5000 people or so that all want to go from point A to point B, the most efficient way we have to get them there is by a mass transit device that can expand to the required capacity... say, by adding cars. The future from "back then" is still coming. It'll be here tomorrow ;)

    2. Re:Trains? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah I'm sure that's what Mad Max thought too. Next thing he wok up from a
      bad dream and realized he had to chase down some fellons that day in his
      superchargeed Ford Falcon!

      (Kinda similar to me wakin up today to show up for my job)

    3. Re:Trains? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It depends on how far it is from point A to point B, and what is between them. Minneapolis to Chicago would be fine, but New York to LA is not quite so practical. I doubt if Denver to Beijing would ever be possible by train.

    4. Re:Trains? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt if Denver to Beijing would ever be possible by train.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bering_Strait_bridge

    5. Re:Trains? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have much more sophisticated, futuristic vaporware these days. Flying cars? Ridiculous. It's all about the space elevators.

    6. Re:Trains? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      We may have gyroscopic trains as broad as houses swinging at 200 miles an hour up steep grades and around dizzying curves
      This just shows how far we have come. Dan Quayle once said "The future will be better tomorrow." These days nobody would take the train idea seriously. Now the goal is teleportation.

      Well, nobody would take it seriously as a prediction for the future today because trains have already pretty much hit the mark.

      Steep grade handling? Modern trains don't have nearly as much trouble with steep grades thanks to moving to modern electric designs that can have motors every so often instead of a single engine. I've seen light rails in San Jose, CA climb something that I couldn't imagine a traditional train climbing in a million years. Check.

      Extreme curves? Modern trains have coupling designs that dramatically enhance the ability to navigate curves at speeds compared with trains a hundred years ago, IIRC. With the addition of modern shock absorber technology, curves that a hundred years ago would have been unthinkable are now at least possible. And again, with modern electric designs, the ability to distribute the torque to multiple points along the train can also basically solve the problem of tugging cars sideways off the tracks when going around tight curves. :-) Check.

      As wide as a house? Many modern passenger trains are about as wide as a single-wide home. Check.

      200 MPH? Part of the TGV Est Line in France has a maximum operating speed of 198 miles per hour. Check.

      So of course somebody wouldn't be taken seriously with such an idea today. After all, why would somebody bother making a prediction for a train of the "future" that can basically be built today? Okay, so all the pieces aren't there in the same single train in the same place, but it really isn't much of a stretch, and the only reason we don't have trains that meet all those criteria at once are basically economic in nature, not issues of feasibility.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    7. Re:Trains? by pravuil · · Score: 1

      Replication would have to come before teleportation. Building an object from scratch is better than tearing it apart with no idea of how to build it again. Processing power would have to handle extreme amounts of data which would act as a blueprint for a structures molecular design. With current commercial innovations, processing shouldn't be a problem.

    8. Re:Trains? by Eivind · · Score: 1

      You where cherrypicking though, somewhere there exist some train that at some point in its route hit 200mph, true. Your other points are also individually more or less true. They're not however overall a good description of the train-systems we have today.

      To the contrary, travelling Bergen-Oslo, Berlin-Dresden or Chicago-NY by train today takes similar time to what it did 50 years ago, infact for the first 2 examples it takes a few minute -longer- than it did back then.

      Cheap flight have made trains close to irrelevant for long-distance passenger-travel.

    9. Re:Trains? by doom · · Score: 1

      So of course somebody wouldn't be taken seriously with such an idea today. After all, why would somebody bother making a prediction for a train of the "future" that can basically be built today?

      Actually, no one would take that prediction seriously, because it doesn't have the word "car" in it. Everyone knows that the future is "cars". Cars cars cars.

  5. As fun as these can be by Joe+Tie. · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've come to really respect scientists who tell reporters to shove off when they ask about the world of the future. So much of future technology has to do with culture, and so little actual science, that it's like asking what color of clothing will be 'in' on 2106.

    --
    Everything will be taken away from you.
    1. Re:As fun as these can be by jamesh · · Score: 1

      that it's like asking what color of clothing will be 'in' on 2106.

      Grey. Haven't you seen _any_ sci fi movies???
    2. Re:As fun as these can be by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      Just because you're useless doesn't mean the rest of minorities are, you're, as we could say, a minority among minorities...

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    3. Re:As fun as these can be by NoMaster · · Score: 1

      that it's like asking what color of clothing will be 'in' on 2106.
      Grey. Haven't you seen _any_ sci fi movies???
      Yes, but 30 years ago the answer was "white, loose & flowing, with lots of cleavage (for both men and women)".

      I don't know about you, but personally I hope the future doesn't include a Disco-fied New New York...

      --
      What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
    4. Re:As fun as these can be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BLACK, you imbecile, BLACK. Black never goes out of style! And it goes with everything! The only thing that will vary is the luminescence of the black: will it be dull cotton black, or sparkling PVC black, or, heaven forbid, infinitely refracting Nanotube black?! Dear lord, I'm onto something! Dibbsies on nanotube black!! I call dibbsies!1111

    5. Re:As fun as these can be by jamesh · · Score: 1

      I think every generation has to have at least one period in their past that they can look back on and say "wtf were we thinking???"

      For me (born 1975) I have my own personal periods in my past that I think that about, but nothing yet I can share with the bulk of my generation...

    6. Re:As fun as these can be by pravuil · · Score: 1

      Yes, but 30 years ago the answer was "white, loose & flowing, with lots of cleavage (for both men and women)".

      You're right, cleavage will never go out of style...

  6. A little late for this -- by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 2, Funny

    New York in 100 years? It will continue to be a maximum security prison.

    1. Re:A little late for this -- by CrazyTalk · · Score: 1

      Personally, I take my disability check and head for Pants 'n At.

    2. Re:A little late for this -- by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 1

      Don't let the details (i.e., the real line) get in the way of a good signature....

  7. America in 2108... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Most Americans still will be unaware of what true science is. The country will have turned into a religious backwater, filled with power hungry zealots whose only purpose is to quash logical opposition. The division of the Bible belt will have moved up to the 49th parallel and all scientific progress south of the Canadian border will have been halted. Religious leaders will shout that if it's contrary to the Bible, then it's heresy and should be destroyed... otherwise, it's redundant and should be destroyed anyways. Religious leaders and politicians will be one and the same, and surveillance will be everywhere. Every American will be implanted with the equivalent of RFID tags that not only transmit location but also a plethora of biometrics and thought patterns; monitored 24x7 by the Federal Bureau of Morality. Computers will become an extension of people and connections will be strictly regulated and every point of contact flows through the government. Sexual relations will become outlawed -- procreation will only be authorized and then performed in a lab by extracting DNA samples. Alcohol will be banished, except for the excessively rich religious leaders/politicians who manage to bribe their way into keeping their own stash. Citizen rights will be replaced with privileges, and habeas corpus will be a long forgotten archaic concept. Everyone is guilty until proven innocent; after all, bringing the innocent to trial would be unfair.

    Welcome to the future of America. It's closer than you think. [dfe82306ee91753eedb08098fd4ad2e3]

    1. Re:America in 2108... by jacquesm · · Score: 1

      I really so hope you are wrong but I can't find much fault with it, some of this stuff is well under way.

    2. Re:America in 2108... by LaughingCoder · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, if you want to extrapolate trends, I have a few for you to consider. Unlike your sensationalistic and inflamatory extrapolations, mine are based on actual, statitisically verifiable trends: - Children raised by one parent will be the norm. Two parent households will be rare.
      - America will be a mainly Spanish speaking country
      - Marriage will be almost non-existent
      - Government will be "responsible" for all the care-and-feeding of the large majority of the population,
      and will meet these responsibilities through ever-increasing taxation of the ever-shrinking productive members of society
      - The military will be a small shadow of its former self


      All of these trends are very evident today, have been gaining momentum in the past 20 years, and show no sign of abating. No serious person can say with any validity that the America of today (2008) is more religious than the America of 1908, and to imply that religion is ascendent in American society today is pure BS. In fact, the opposite is demonstrably true. The military is undeniably in decline, as is the "nuclear family". And demographics clearly point towards a majority Spanish speaking population mid-next century. None of these points is really arguable.

      Welcome to the future of America.

      --
      The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
    3. Re:America in 2108... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      I think Robert A. Heinlein wrote this better. :)

    4. Re:America in 2108... by Amigori · · Score: 1

      Honest question... what's your source for those stats? I don't disagree with any point except the military one. Spending would need to drop for that to happen, unless you're counting active duty population, which continues a relative decline. Spanish speakers will continue to increase, especially in southern areas, but I see it plateauing as the largest minority.

      --
      "The quality of life is determined by its activites."--Aristotle
    5. Re:America in 2108... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...what's your source for those stats?
      They're printed on the cards he hands out at the local Republican Party rallies.
    6. Re:America in 2108... by Gman14msu · · Score: 4, Funny

      I for one welcome our future Spanish speaking, bastard, unwed, government teat sucking non-militaristic overlords...

    7. Re:America in 2108... by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      Recruiting levels are going down because there's a war going on and most people don't like it. Once the war ends they'll bounce up again.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    8. Re:America in 2108... by LaughingCoder · · Score: 1

      Actually, Wikipedia has a nice graph regarding the military - it depicts a steady drop both in enlistment and percent of GDP; both have dropped by 50% since 1950 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_United_States)Note, there is a small uptick in expenditures in 2006 due to the Iraq war, though the enlistments are not higher.

      As regards a majority Spanish-speaking population, this is the best reference I could track down. It doesn't explicitly validate my claim since it only looks ahead 50 years, but I strongly suspect if you do the math based on the growth numbers provided it will prove my projection accurate. http://www.census.gov/population/www/pop-profile/natproj.html

      --
      The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
    9. Re:America in 2108... by LaughingCoder · · Score: 1

      See my comment and a source elsewhere in this thread. It shows that recruiting rates have been steadily dropping for the past 60 years.

      --
      The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
    10. Re:America in 2108... by WrongMonkey · · Score: 1

      Do you have any facts to back up your statements?? One and two probably have some factual merit, but the rest are just completely out of wack with reality. - Children raised by one parent will be the norm. Two parent households will be rare. So? - America will be a mainly Spanish speaking country No problemo. Diversity is good. - Marriage will be almost non-existent Good riddance. - The military will be a small shadow of its former self Also good riddance. - Government will be "responsible" for all the care-and-feeding of the large majority of the population, Seriously, you already pay farmers NOT to grow food, why not pay them to grow the food then give it away? "Luxury" food items will still be available for those who want them. Housing projects have a bad reputation, but there's no fundamental reason why cheap, commodity housing couldn't be made available. Habitat for Humanity has a really good program for building affordable home and setting people up with fair mortgages. I see no reason why programs like that couldn't be extended. Welcome to the future of America. Doesn't look bad to me.

    11. Re:America in 2108... by ralphdaugherty · · Score: 2, Funny


            It was supposed to be 100 years from now, not next year.

        rd

    12. Re:America in 2108... by Latinhypercube · · Score: 1

      How on earth is your shrinking US army based on ANY current trends ? Extrapolating from what we have now, everyone will be involved in the military to one extent or another.

    13. Re:America in 2108... by Xeth · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I'm reminded of a scene from The Simpsons:

      Disco Stu: "Did you know that disco record sales were up 400% for the year ending 1976? If these trends continue... AAY!"
      There are more logical, thorough debunkings of your (and all others') wild speculation, but I leave them to other posters.
      --
      If your theory is different from practice, then your theory is wrong.
    14. Re:America in 2108... by MorpheousMarty · · Score: 1

      "- The military will be a small shadow of its former self"

      Yup, the largest military budget in the world, a bigger budget than the rest of the world combined will have to shrink, or our entire economy will be directed towards the military.

    15. Re:America in 2108... by LaughingCoder · · Score: 1

      I'm glad you are so encouraged by these predictions. Perhaps you mistook my projections as judgemental. I don't think you will find a single word in my post that indicates whether I approve or disapprove of those trends. I was merely presenting a plausible picture of America in 100 years based on long-standing trends in today's America. This was meant to refute the silly projections of the AC/OP, which were not based on any demonstrable long term trends, but rather were merely lame political posturing.

      --
      The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
    16. Re:America in 2108... by LaughingCoder · · Score: 1

      Hopefully you are able to read and understand a simple graph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_United_States

      If not, let me interpret it for you. It shows that military spending as a percent of GDP has dropped over 100% in the last 50 years. There is a brief uptick in 2005-2006 due to the Iraq war, but the longterm trend is steadily and undeniably down. Any fool half paying attention would easily notice that our military even in the last 20 years has shrunk dramatically. If you don't believe me, do some googling. You will find a dramatically smaller army, navy, and air force. Were you sleeping while all those bases were closed during the last decade? Do you remember "the peace dividend"?

      --
      The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
    17. Re:America in 2108... by phantomcircuit · · Score: 1

      That graph is ridiculous, after every American war spending and enlistment returned to normal levels, except after WWII. Scary.

    18. Re:America in 2108... by WrongMonkey · · Score: 1

      That's a relief. I guess I'm just used to seeing similar lists of predictions with implicit negative connotations and I responded reflexively.

    19. Re:America in 2108... by superdude72 · · Score: 1

      None of these points is really arguable.

      Of course not. It's hard to argue with "statistically verifiable trends" you've pulled straight out of your ass.

    20. Re:America in 2108... by syousef · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, if you want to extrapolate trends, I have a few for you to consider. Unlike your sensationalistic and inflamatory extrapolations, mine are based on actual, statitisically verifiable trends ...because we all know that trends continue indefinitely, that nothing unforeseen halts, or reverses them, and that none of these are self-limiting.

      None of these points is really arguable.

      True, but only if you refuse to have a rational argument.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    21. Re:America in 2108... by Jeremi · · Score: 1
      If not, let me interpret it for you. It shows that military spending as a percent of GDP has dropped over 100% in the last 50 years. [...] Any fool half paying attention would easily notice that our military even in the last 20 years has shrunk dramatically.


      I suppose I am a fool, but I notice you had to include the qualification "as a percentage of GDP" in your claim. That suggests that the military has in fact been growing, just not as fast as the country's GDP has. Is that what you meant? Because if so, growing != shrinking.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    22. Re:America in 2108... by LaughingCoder · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I am continually amazed at how many people on \. are unable to understand the notion of a trend. It really isn't difficult - 8th grade algebra really. But alas, there is also a trend that shows a dramatic decline in the quality of public schools, so I guess I shouldn't be too surprised at the inability of many folks to appreciate such advanced concepts. Here's a short primer. You take some data samples over a period of time (say, for example, percent of GDP spent on the military). You plot those points on a graph and connect them with lines. Really advanced people then apply some sort of smoothing function called a moving average to eliminate local peaks and valleys. Then you do this really tricky operation where you fit a function to the points. The slope of the function allows you to predict future data points even before they happen! The graph on this page (url:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_United_States) shows a nice example of how US military spending as a percent of GDP has fallen over 100% since the 1950s. You see, it slopes downward - that means a decrease. It is not too hard to imagine what that line will look like 50 years from now -- you kind of just trace it in a similar fashion, continuing it on its established trajectory -- gosh, look, since it's going down that means that military spending is going down. Imagine that! Now for a user exercise, go find some data points indicating the number of Spanish speaking people in the US. Plot those points on a graph and see what it tells you. Hint: it's going up, pretty dramatically actually. You can repeat this process for the percent of children in 1-parent homes, or the number of Americans who are married. Amazingly, I think you will discover, much to your dismay, similar graphs exhibiting similar trends. Could it be that I didn't pull these projections out of my ass? Could it be that the statistics really do verify that these trends are real? If you want me to check your answers once you've finished your homework I will be glad to.

      --
      The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
    23. Re:America in 2108... by LaughingCoder · · Score: 1

      You have to normalize expenditures or the comparison is meaningless. Obviously, if you spent $100,000 on the military in 1776, that would buy you a far larger army than $100,000 does today.

      --
      The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
    24. Re:America in 2108... by bigdavex · · Score: 4, Funny

      I am continually amazed at how many people on \. are unable to understand the notion of a trend.

      Does Bizarro Superman post on backslash dot?
      --
      -Dave
    25. Re:America in 2108... by superdude72 · · Score: 1

      Here's a short primer. You take some data samples over a period of time (say, for example, percent of GDP spent on the military). You plot those points on a graph and connect them with lines. Really advanced people then apply some sort of smoothing function called a moving average to eliminate local peaks and valleys. Then you do this really tricky operation where you fit a function to the points. The slope of the function allows you to predict future data points even before they happen!

      Then if I extrapolate the trend for the Pets.com stock I purchased in 1997, my shares are now worth... Holy shit! I'm rich!

    26. Re:America in 2108... by pravuil · · Score: 1

      America will be a mainly Spanish speaking country

      Doubt that will happen. We'll automate labor markets before there's an influx of foreigners who might want to influence the country their own way. We'll put pressure on neighboring countries to meet certain international standards especially when a big heaping pile of real responsibility hits their laps. They won't have anywhere to turn except for our expertise and experience in those areas. We'll hold out on the deal until we will know that they will comply to our demands all the while helping their advisories. We've done this a lot.

      Marriage will be almost non-existent

      Relationships will change but they will go back and forth over the period of several decades with each change. Different motivating factors will prompt these changes. Homosexuality will be redefined while heterosexuality will be reinforced.

      Government will be "responsible" for all the care-and-feeding of the large majority of the population, and will meet these responsibilities through ever-increasing taxation of the ever-shrinking productive members of society

      Bioengineering of food will improve over the course of the next hundred years. You never know that they might create Replication technology like they have in Star Trek. They've been working on this for a while using a soup of atoms. It doesn't work but with the developments of processing technology, that will probably change within the next 50 to 100 years. Housing will force people to relocate into skyscrapers in a given area. Apartments will be bigger and more private. Home ownership will be for the wealthy.

      For the productive members of society, they will focus efforts elsewhere on just maintaining a society. Space travel will become a more pertinent issue, not because of resources or any other form of competition, mainly because of the flexibility technology has provided for the human race. Of course there will be wars. Some that might wipe out the entire race but regardless of how bad it is, the technology will always remain. If it's wiped out one way or another, there will always be interest in order to bring it back. The steps taken to preserve that information have been extreme.

      The military will be a small shadow of its former self

      I hate to disappoint you but the military is stronger than it has ever been in the history of humanity. New technologies have been made which makes soldiers and artillery practically invisible. Weapons have been improved. Really the list of all the improvements in arsenal and training is really long. It would be very easy for the military to police the states in a matter of hours if needs be. If properly equipped the military would only need a handful of dedicated soldiers to take on a medium sized army. Why we don't do this with Iraq is because Iraq is a good place to work on training.

      None of these points is really arguable.

      The point of my reply is that everything is arguable. You can make baseless claims as good as the next guy. There is a lot about the present most people don't know or refuse to realize. People with agendas think they have an answer to help themselves but the reality is that most people have already thought of it before. What's the old saying, "There isn't anything in the world that hasn't been thought up already." It's sounds like you have a very pessimistic and limited view of the world you live in. Religious movements come and go and have done that for the past several thousand years. There are think tanks that spend time and money on all of this.

      The dream of America will change. The 1950's idea will not exist. It never has, it never will. People are too human to create something like that to exist. People will always create mistakes, they will always let you down and they will surprise you from time to time. They will make breakthroughs, they wi

    27. Re:America in 2108... by Boronx · · Score: 1

      You might normalize expenditures to inflation, but normalizing to GDP only makes sense if you think their's some value in spending a particular fraction of income on the military. That would mean you'd be advocating a military budget increase for no reason that's at all related to defense.

    28. Re:America in 2108... by Boronx · · Score: 1

      - America will be a mainly Spanish speaking country

      Awesome! For those that don't want their mother tongue encroached upon, I hope we form an American Quebec somewhere where they can go and be happy.

      - Marriage will be almost non-existent

      If Marriage is useful for Americans, it will stick around no matter the trend. I suspect that married couples have more, healthier kids with better prospects, so this trend is probably self correcting.

      - Government will be "responsible" for all the care-and-feeding of the large majority of the population,
      and will meet these responsibilities through ever-increasing taxation of the ever-shrinking productive members of society ...until the baby boomers die.

      - The military will be a small shadow of its former self

      The military is still at cold war levels, is a political colossus that towers over all other interests and has it's toes dug into everything, and is so powerful and effective it entices idiots to start wars. I can't wait for this trend to kick into high gear.

    29. Re:America in 2108... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None of these are arguable points, eh? ;) What a croc of shit. You might indeed conclude that we will get universal health care and such, yes, but your implication that this will strain "productive" members of society in a negative context is utter opinion, opinion which is, in my humble opinion, little more than conservative propaganda. Many European countries are what we might now call "welfare states" and many offer their citizens higher standards of living than the USA does. There is a vast middle between free market radicalism and pure socialism (which I would agree doesn't at all work in the real world). We are simply too far right of that ideal middle at the moment - it's high time we join the rest of the industrialized world and move a bit to the left.

      As to marriages, who the fuck cares, seriously? This is part and parcel of our move to the left. If we follow Europe's lead, we can KEEP our social indicators (abortion rates, crime rates and such) low (and indeed, LOWER them to their levels) AND give people the freedom to ditch ancient traditions if they so need/desire. The doing away with the nuclear family stuff will only harm us if the context is a right-wing, conservative "social-issue-Big Brother" state. If divorce might turn a single mom into a welfare recipient, make sure she got a world-class education early in life, allow her to go to college for "free", and provide her subsidized day-care, so that she can work instead of staying at home watching The View. Let the 'village' fill in the gaps as in other comparable countries. We know this works, and have no reason to think that we somehow need socially conservative values and the thoroughly modern invention known as the "nuclear family" to have a civil society.

      Finally, while the number of church-going Americans might be declining (I don't know that it is or isn't), the superstition, ignorance and general view of religion by the public as a good thing, a virtue, something that CAN interfere with government, is on the RISE. Ever look at the number of folks who accept evolution of late? It's in decline.

      As for the military, again, my argument is more against your strong Conserva-Nazi implications and less to your actual facts, which I don't altogether dispute. Indeed the military might be shrinking, but we already spend more than everyone else put together - how long did you think we could keep this up, anyway? It is our single biggest entitlement, costing us far more money that we don't have than Social Security and all the rest of what conservatives typically get irked by. Don't tie this into, or blame it on, what I perceive to be your anti-liberal, Fox "News" outlook on the matter.

      As for Spanish, lol, welp, sorry Lou! ;) My kid already takes Spanish in school. America really should mandate this, and should have mandated this for some time now. But as with slavery and the metric system, we have to keep pretending that we do it right just because we do - we keep pretending that we won't end up a bilingual country...

    30. Re:America in 2108... by IHateEverybody · · Score: 1

      Actually, Wikipedia has a nice graph regarding the military - it depicts a steady drop both in enlistment and percent of GDP; both have dropped by 50% since 1950 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_United_States)Note, there is a small uptick in expenditures in 2006 due to the Iraq war, though the enlistments are not higher.

      It all depends on how you read that graph. It would be far too simplistic to just say that military spending has been on the decline all along. The graph shows that US military expenditures and recruitment have historically been quite low except for large spikes during wartime. In fact it shows three huge spikes -- the Civil War, World War I, and World War II -- each followed by huge drops in military spending and recruitment. But the most interesting thing is that despite the steady decline in military spending following WWII, the trend reverses itself several times -- during the Korean and Vietnamese wars. After that, we see military steadily drop until the '80s which coincide with president Reagan's military build-up while recruitment remains flat because despite the build-up, there is no draft and we are not fighting any major wars. Military recruitment remains at about the same low level throughout the late '90s and early '00s until the Iraq war when it declines for obvious reasons -- no draft coupled with an unpopular war leads to low recruitment. I don't think you can read any trend from this graph except that when the US needs to fight a war, it spends a lot more money on the military. Also, notice that despite the steady decline in military spending and recruitment, neither number drops to levels anywhere near what they were before WWII.

      As regards a majority Spanish-speaking population, this is the best reference I could track down. It doesn't explicitly validate my claim since it only looks ahead 50 years, but I strongly suspect if you do the math based on the growth numbers provided it will prove my projection accurate. http://www.census.gov/population/www/pop-profile/natproj.html

      The words "Spanish" and "speaking" do not appear anywhere on this page. It merely projects that an increasingly large portion (22.5% by 2050) of the population will be of Hispanic origin. While this may come as a huge surprise to you, a person of Hispanic descent is just as willing and able to learn the English language as anyone else. Some of us even grow up speaking English!
      --
      Does this .sig make my butt look big?
    31. Re:America in 2108... by Brother+Seamus · · Score: 1

      We have always been at war with Eastasia.

    32. Re:America in 2108... by Layth · · Score: 1

      Are you describing "Demolition Man" with sylvester stallone?

    33. Re:America in 2108... by IHateEverybody · · Score: 1

      You might want to take a closer look at that graph. It shows that the military spending and recruitment has historically been very low during peacetime. In a time of war, military spending and recruitment grows dramatically and rapidly. Despite the downward trend of the past fifty years, military spending and recruitment today remains much higher than it was before World War II. In fact even after cashing in the "peace dividend," both statistics remained higher than they were before WWII. I'm also reluctant to call the Iraq War uptick "brief." I'm guessing that when the 2007 data is all in, military spending will have gone up, not down -- again due to the Iraq War. And even if the next president abruptly ends the Iraq War, problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan will probably continue to keep our military busy and well-funded through the rest of the decade.

      Unless, the United States suffers a huge reversal of fortune (or someone brings about world peace) over the next 100 years, it is a sure bet that the size of our military will be dictated by our status as a world power and will continue to expand and contract to meet our strategic needs -- just as it has for the past two hundred years.

      --
      Does this .sig make my butt look big?
    34. Re:America in 2108... by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      I think for a completely human-free economy you don't need replicators, just robots that can work without outside intervention, i.e. they can handle maintenance and production of further robots as well. Once we have those the issue will be that noone will have money other than the robot owners so something must be done to deal with the large numkber of people without food. But when the robots don't need human interaction to keep replicating and doing their job why should we reward any human for their work? Just let the robots run the economy and provide everything everyone wants, they won't need money if they can get their own resources. Basically a host economy between robots and a leech population consisting of humans. (cue the obligatory "and then they decide they don't need us" post) I don't believe there's any job a human can do that can't be replaced by a robot, if necessary just make that robot a modified human who is reprogrammed to enjoy being a slave and provide for the leeches (think of worker bees).

      Stanislaw Lem's star diaries have a chapter like that, about an alien population that reached the point where the robots could do everything but they insist on keeping capitalism alive (because they see it as a basic freedom) even though capitalism ran into a deadlock there (the consumer has no money anymore, all money is owned by the factory owners but without consumers there's noone to buy their stuff).

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    35. Re:America in 2108... by MorpheousMarty · · Score: 1

      I can read (no need to be a jerk about it). And I am open to new evidence, so allow me to admit I was wrong and you seem to be right, the US economy is not moving to a military one, that seems to be my mistake. I would like to know what counts as a military expenditure in the graph but I am satisfied we won't all be working for the military in the future. I took offense with the grandparent post that our military will be a shadow of its former self, implying that it will be ineffective. The US military is the most powerful force in the history of the world, and better funded then the rest the world combined. Any implication the US military is becoming "weak" is only fear mongering. No military force in the world would dare attack the United States (China may want to but they need our consumers).

    36. Re:America in 2108... by imgod2u · · Score: 1

      Computers already automate what used to take a practical army of humans to do. Humans will always find other things to do and facilitate the flow of wealth. There will always be things to do no matter how useless it is practically speaking (I'm looking at you interior decorators). Once people are free from the burdens of the basic necessities, they will invariably seek luxuries which is a market in and of itself. Then there's the stock market. Really, no one in the stock market contributes to society per se. A day-trader or a stock broker doesn't produce anything. He/she is simply a facilitator of the flow of wealth and a gambler. I suspect that as less and less practical needs are met by human labor, we'll all begin to just spend our days betting each other on what price Google will be at tomorrow. Money will still flow back and forth.

    37. Re:America in 2108... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe 100 years from now we won't have certain types of people who consider religious people as part of the untouchables class and religion itself will stop being blamed for scientific stagnation. People aren't blaming religion for scientific stagnation; quite the contrary: religion is holding back scientific progress in such areas as stem cell research, for example, where the government only funds research that are in line with the leaders' religious views. This hasn't stopped private research, which continues to happen regardless. Your strawman argument about people blaming religion for stagnation is absurd.

      In addition, maybe those who still want religious people at the bottom of society will not post as AC so that we may at least know who the real coward is who holds such prejudices. Oh, I can't wait for your utopia where we have the Jack Thompsons of the world dictating to us what we can and can't do. There's nothing wrong with people who are spiritual, even religious... it's the ones who try and foist their beliefs upon others who should be punished by society.
    38. Re:America in 2108... by howlingmadhowie · · Score: 1

      is taxation higher now in america than it was 100 years ago? how about 50 years ago?

    39. Re:America in 2108... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In that case you're over a decade late, and Pedro y Juan en Home Depot decir "Dónde has estado? Todavía estamos esperando."

    40. Re:America in 2108... by tricorn · · Score: 1

      I am continually amazed at how many people don't understand how something that has "fallen 100%" is now zero, much less "fallen over 100%"...

    41. Re:America in 2108... by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      I would have expected both without the military becoming weaker (indeed, I expect both happening at a time when the military is getting stronger.)

      Growth in GDP has generally massively out-paced inflation throughout most of the last 50 years. And the draft has been replaced by a volunteer army. The latter means higher quality men, and less of them, meaning less expenditure on troop levels while maintaining a consistently higher standard.

      To extrapolate from either statistic that the military has gotten weaker strikes me as extraordinary. Both compared to its former self, and to its position in the world, the US military is unarguably the strongest it's ever been. There are good cases for actually cutting it at this stage, as it's strength has encouraged some of the nuttier elements in politics to involve this country in conflicts - or even start wars - where we can only, as a nation, ultimately lose credibility and goodwill.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    42. Re:America in 2108... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does any number "fall over 100%" without becoming negative? Does it mean the military is funding the rest of us?

    43. Re:America in 2108... by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Actually, sounds a lot more like "Escape from L.A."

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    44. Re:America in 2108... by Sergeant+Pepper · · Score: 1

      US military spending as a percent of GDP has fallen over 100% It's extremely ironic that you say something like this in a post lecturing someone else about his math ability. What, is military spending NEGATIVE now?
    45. Re:America in 2108... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      It shows that military spending as a percent of GDP has dropped over 100% in the last 50 years.

      That would make it less than zero.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  8. Re:My view of a city of the future... by calebt3 · · Score: 1

    That wouldn't happen to be a pun, now would it?

  9. cities of the 'future' may look deserted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    at the rate we're ruining our current turf, we'll be fortunate to even have any land left to build on.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071229/ap_on_sc/ye_climate_records;_ylt=A0WTcVgednZHP2gB9wms0NUE

    is it time to get real yet? A LOT of energy is being squandered in attempts to keep US in the dark. in the end (give or take a few 1000 years), the creators will prevail (world without end, etc...), as it has always been. the process of gaining yOUR release from the current hostage situation may not be what you might think it is. butt of course, most of US don't know, or care what a precarious/fatal situation we're in.

    for example; the insidious attempts by the felonious corepirate nazi execrable to block the suns' light, interfering with a requirement (sunlight) for us to stay healthy/alive. it's likely not good for yOUR health/memories 'else they'd be bragging about it?

    we're intending for the whoreabully deceptive (they'll do ANYTHING for a bit more monIE/power) felons to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather', as well as a # of other things/events.

    http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video+cloud+spraying

    dictator style micro management has never worked (for very long). it's an illness. tie that with life0cidal aggression & softwar gangster style bullying, & what do we have? a greed/fear/ego based recipe for disaster.

    meanwhile, you can help to stop the bleeding (loss of life & limb);
    http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/28/vermont.banning.bush.ap/index.html

    the bleeding must be stopped before any healing can begin. jailing a couple of corepirate nazi hired goons would send a clear message to the rest of the world from US. any truthful look at the 'scorecard' would reveal that we are a society in decline/deep doo-doo, despite all of the scriptdead pr ?firm? generated drum beating & flag waving propaganda that we are constantly bombarded with. is it time to get real yet? please consider carefully ALL of yOUR other 'options'.

    the creators will prevail. as it has always been.

    corepirate nazi execrable costs outweigh benefits
    (Score:-)mynuts won, the king is a fink)
    by ourselves on everyday 24/7

    as there are no benefits, just more&more death/debt & disruption. fortunately there's an 'army' of light bringers, coming yOUR way.

    the little ones/innocents must/will be protected. after the big flash, ALL of yOUR imaginary 'borders' may blur a bit? for each of the creators' innocents harmed in any way, there is a debt that must/will be repaid by you/us, as the perpetrators/minions of unprecedented evile, will not be available. 'vote' with (what's left in) yOUR wallet, & by your behaviors. help bring an end to unprecedented evile's manifestation through yOUR owned felonious corepirate nazi glowbull warmongering execrable. some of US should consider ourselves somewhat fortunate to be among those scheduled to survive after the big flash/implementation of the creators' wwwildly popular planet/population rescue initiative/mandate. it's right in the manual, 'world without end', etc....

    as we all ?know?, change is inevitable, & denying/ignoring gravity, logic, morality, etc..., is only possible, on a temporary basis. concern about the course of events that will occur should the life0cidal execrable fail to be intervened upon is in order. 'do not be dismayed' (also from the manual). however, it's ok/recommended, to not attempt to live under/accept, fauxking nazi felon greed/fear/ego based pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking hypenosys.

    consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtollin

  10. Paleo-Future by jalefkowit · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This has nothing to do with TFA per se, but if you're into this stuff you should check out the excellent blog Paleo-Future, which is dedicated to "the future that never was" -- how people in various times over the last 140 years or so have thought the future would look.

    1. Re:Paleo-Future by ReclusiveGeek · · Score: 1

      so in 1956 someone saw that coal and oil reserves were dwindling... how prophetic.

    2. Re:Paleo-Future by sgt_doom · · Score: 4, Insightful
      People far more prescient than myself have stated (and correctly so) many times over the years that the inherent problem with even contemplating the future is the problem of human greed and avarice. The General Motors Futurama Exhibit at the 1964 World's Fair (held in NYC) had many pragmatic predictions, which certainly should have come to past.

      Alas, vile greedheads interfered. As those lowbrows who are forever exclaiming about, "...if they can put a man on the moon...." Of course, they murdered the man behind that project (JFK), which killed many a future prediction and dream. Therein lies the problem.

      Urban transportation in America, a pathetic pipe dream in most places - but it could have been realized many, many years ago. As that House Select Committee Investigation, back in 1974, demonstrated, General Motors, Firestone and Sun Oil conspired to curtail any valid and optimal urban and exurban transportation systems throughout America as they wish to sell tires, large vehicles running on gas (buses) and oil.

      Can anyone seriously ponder any predictions of the future given the imbeciles currently being elected as president? Given the criminals being currently elected to VP? SecDef? SecState?

    3. Re:Paleo-Future by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      If you don't take human nature into account, you are bad at it. That's like developing this great economic system where everybody gets everything they need-- let's call it Communism! Of course, it has no compatibility whatsoever with the human race, but it sure looks good on paper, huh?

    4. Re:Paleo-Future by s20451 · · Score: 1

      Summary of post: "Wouldn't it be great if humanity was replaced by an army of robots under my command? Then nobody would disagree with my nutty ideas."

      --
      Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
    5. Re:Paleo-Future by BorgCopyeditor · · Score: 1

      Yes, anyone who recommends trains and buses as modes of urban transportation is clearly a nut.

      --
      Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
    6. Re:Paleo-Future by westlake · · Score: 1
      Urban transportation in America, a pathetic pipe dream in most places - but it could have been realized many, many years ago.

      People began abandoning the streetcar, the interurban railroad, almost from the day Henry Ford introduced the Model T. Most of these services were in financial trouble long before the Great Depression of the 1930's. Few survived long past the wartime rationing of the 1940's.

    7. Re:Paleo-Future by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      "...if they can put a man on the moon...." Of course, they murdered the man behind that project (JFK)

      Wait.. are you trying to say that it was actually the Cubans who were behind the space program??

      --
      You just got troll'd!
  11. An excercise in absurd futility by MSTCrow5429 · · Score: 0

    The Singularity will almost have certainly taken place by 2107, making the future existence of cities a moot point. Even if not, the constantly accelerating pace of technological development makes it absurd that anyone can accurately predict any major shifts in the world a century from now, much less ten years from now. As a minor various examples, consumer VoIP was non-existent and unforeseen 10 years ago, no one knew the impact of Half-Life, there were no dual-core multi-GHz CPUs, and we were largely unaware of the Islamist war of aggression against civilization. Google didn't exist either. Now missing all those micro-variables, how can you generate macro predictions? If I could predict the future, I would have wormed my way into Google, pre-IPO.

    --
    Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
    1. Re:An excercise in absurd futility by theurge14 · · Score: 1

      Accelerating? Perhaps, perhaps not. When the Wright brothers first took the Wright Flyer up at Kitty Hawk in 1903, I don't know if either of them could have imagined 11 years later a world war that would include dogfights and ace fighter pilots such as the Red Baron and Captain Rickenbacker.

    2. Re:An excercise in absurd futility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      the singularity? grow up.

    3. Re:An excercise in absurd futility by TheSkyIsPurple · · Score: 1

      > consumer VoIP was non-existent and unforeseen 10 years ago

      Not true... I know AOL (believe it or not) had this on target at least 10 years ago. It just stayed on the shelf for unspecified reasons. (read: couldn't figure out how to make it simple enough for the consumer, and couldn't figure out how to market it appropriately)

      But they did foresee it, and I'm sure many other companies did as well.

    4. Re:An excercise in absurd futility by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      All of those things, with the possible exception of Google, were predicted 10 years ago. People have been talking about things like VoIP (which is really just a re-invention of digital phone networks that already exist), broadband video on demand, multi-core CPUs etc way longer than ten years ago. It was predicted by many people that clock speeds would hit a wall due to physical constraints, and would have to go multi-core, back in the 80s.

      Google is a more interesting case. I think the value of a "universal answering machine" is obvious and people were dreaming about such things back in the 50s. The fact that these things are actually called "search engines" and don't work by knowing everything but by sorting and ranking documents that contain the information you need, was less well predicted. And the fact that it'd be supported by contextual advertising wasn't really predicted at all.

    5. Re:An excercise in absurd futility by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wow. Someone who still believes in the Singularity. Awesome. I'd suggest you go read the Commonwealth series of books by Peter F. Hamilton, but they're probably a bit heavy for you. Suffice to say, the nature of super-intelligences is that they are only dangerous if you let them get out of control.. and it takes an abundance of investment to get a proto-intelligence to the stage where it can improve itself at any significant rate, and by then you'll have so many possible applications of the technology that there simply won't be the economic need to develop it to a threatening level.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    6. Re:An excercise in absurd futility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and we were largely unaware of the Islamist war of aggression against civilization.

      Ten years ago, plenty of people predicted an increase in terrorism-- it was increasing before our very eyes, if you looked. Only the stupid and ignorant could have missed that. Americans tend to be self-absorbed, and were completely ignorant of terrorist happenings outside our own country.

      Perhaps this is because people are obsessed with fluffy technological advances. VoiP is essentially just a phone. Half-life is just a game. dual-core multi-GHz CPUs is just a CPU. All of those are pretty small advances, and not very signinfigant outside the computer world.

    7. Re:An excercise in absurd futility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some other guy told u to grow up but I don't think he/she understands the
      plausibility of such a thing or anything like it happening.

      I have no doubt that computers will be more than just tools for researchers
      of the future. I believe they will be the primary part of the research effort.

      The only research Scienntists do will be learning HOW the computers came up
      with what they came up with (like a student understanding a professors lecture)
      to A help them build beter computers, or B direct the computersto build better
      computers.

      There won't be enough scientists to analyze the research, so guess what..
      computers will do that too.

      How much ethics people employ with the management of these computers
      will be analogous to the type of world we live in at that time.

      A: A society not very dissimilar to our present one -
            based on capitalism. The computers will be used by
            companies for compeitive strategies far into the future.
            Precise weather prediction (think Back to the Future II)

      B: Some other Economic system, whereby the computers help us find our
            way to our true path. By analyzing the probable outcome of actions
            to the very minutest detail, we could know the implications
            of every decision we make. We could maybe even what the best course
            of action is for mankind.

      Imagine having this capability now or in the past.

      Think Chess! So much of the mstakes mankind makes in the world
      are because we can't investigate the consequences of our actions
      or fully undderstand them. Would we really have relied on the
      combustion vehicle if we knew the kind of trouble it would bring.
      Elevating sinister Middle East regimes to great power! I think
      not.

      Or Iraq? (in the present)

      Computer:/ What would you like to do now?
      User:/ Invade Iraq
      Computer:/ Bad idea. Diminished support, heavy resistance, spiralling costs,
                            bad morale for the world, apathy, anger, breakdown of alliances
      User:/ Ooh, I don't like the sound of that! Where should we invade then?
      Computer:/ As far as I can see - issue an ultimatum to N. Korea
                            Attack if necessary, but only go in with allot of global support.
                            Transparency will help with support
      User:/ Intersting!
      Computer:/ Yes, but you have to let them rebuild their country with your fininancial
                            assistance. Don't meddle too much. S. Korea may help you
      User:/ Oh, I see. Any advice then?
      Conputer:/ One step at a time. I'd blow ur mind!

    8. Re:An excercise in absurd futility by Cheshire_Smile · · Score: 0

      How about you go and study Ray Kurzweil's future predictions and mathematical models based on the exponential increase in technological development toward the Singularity before telling someone to "grow up". Your opinion may be different, but that does not make his irrelevant. I come to expect /. posters to actually have something to say before posting.

      Some light reading for you:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Kurzweil

      Also see, Singularity Summit 2007:

      http://www.singinst.org/media/singularitysummit2007

    9. Re:An excercise in absurd futility by MSTCrow5429 · · Score: 1
      I'd suggest you go read the Commonwealth series of books by Peter F. Hamilton, but they're probably a bit heavy for you.

      Implying that people that disagree with you are unintelligent, assuming the premise? Sounds like I'm not the one lacking in verbal intelligence...

      --
      Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
  12. Just a bit down on the future, aren't they? by arthurh3535 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    New York will be under water, owned for foreigners and be infested with alligators with huge advertisements covering entire buildings with lights.

    I don't think we can really 'predict' the future, of course. We might have truly artificial intelligence, brain-machine interfaces and very advanced cybernetics along with genetic engineering *really* advancing. Nuclear power is going to be really used and not just feared... and we'll have new problems that we can only dimly see like losses of personal freedoms due to corporate greed, an out of touch government and seemingly out of control costs.

    --
    No! It's a *SIG*. Keep the Special Interest Groups away! (Con joke!)
    1. Re:Just a bit down on the future, aren't they? by ralphdaugherty · · Score: 1

      I don't think we can really 'predict' the future, of course.

            I thought the New York World did a pretty good job of it back in 1908.

        rd

    2. Re:Just a bit down on the future, aren't they? by SeanAhern · · Score: 1

      alligators with huge advertisements

      I hope I'm around to see those alligators! Now, about the sharks with the lasers...

  13. Energy crisis by little1973 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Most probably the population of Earth will be greatly reduced due to the shortage of energy. That means hundreds of millions people will die unless something miraculous happens. Do not forget that our civilization depends on cheap energy and energy will be much more expensive in the future.

    --
    Government cannot make man richer, but it can make him poorer. - Ludwig von Mises
    1. Re:Energy crisis by calebt3 · · Score: 1

      Hundreds of millions of people dying isn't a bad thing. As long as they die of old age.

    2. Re:Energy crisis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right now 150000 people die every day. In 100 years, at current rates, about 5.5 billion people will die.

      Who gives a shit about a few hundred million?

    3. Re:Energy crisis by RobinH · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Most probably the population of Earth will be greatly reduced due to the shortage of energy. That means hundreds of millions people will die unless something miraculous happens.

      This seems quite counter-intuitive. Look at all countries on the Earth and compare two variables: birth rate vs. energy consumption. I think you'll find that population growth has little need for energy, as long as you can produce enough food. Food is all solar powered, and we keep improving food production technologies. When food stops keeping up with population growth, the population will stop growing. I would assume at that point that condoms and vasectomies will be cheaper than food.

      Do not forget that our civilization depends on cheap energy and energy will be much more expensive in the future.

      I think you're confusing civilization, population, and brute force work. I think a future energy shortage will only affect things that take more energy: transportation, commuting, living and working in the more extreme temperature environments on Earth. As energy prices rise, you'll see the growth of energy efficient activities like working from home, telepresence, a shift in population to more temperate areas, etc. People adapt. Society adapts. Civilization adapts.

      --
      "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
    4. Re:Energy crisis by little1973 · · Score: 1

      For more info read Olduvai theory.

      And to clarify things those hundreds of millions of people will die in a short period of time (a few years)
      and of course not during a 100-year-period.

      --
      Government cannot make man richer, but it can make him poorer. - Ludwig von Mises
    5. Re:Energy crisis by SirLurksAlot · · Score: 1

      Do not forget that our civilization depends on cheap energy and energy will be much more expensive in the future.

      Says who? Sure, fossil fuels are running out, but there have been great advances in renewable energy. Solar, wind, biofuel, nuclear, hydrogen..... I think we're going to see a huge increase in the use of these sources, and we'll wonder why we didn't do it sooner.

      Humans are nothing if not resourceful, and I have no doubt that we'll see the end of our dependence on fossil fuels and sigh in relief. The future is bright, don't forget your shades.

      --
      God, schmod. I want my monkey man!
    6. Re:Energy crisis by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 4, Informative

      Dude, there's no shortage of energy and I say that as a fully paid up peak oil convert.

      We're surrounded by energy. Once natural oil production starts to slide (and I can believe that'll happen in 0-5 years, if not before) we can and probably will replace it with coal-to-liquids technology, which is crap for global warming but does solve the problem of powering our food trucks.

      It's an open question what will happen after that. Our investment in petroleum based propulsion is gigantic. It's lockin on a far bigger scale than Windows ever was. Even relatively minor changes like ethanol have problems with things like pipeline incompatability. Bigger changes like going to all-electric cars are thrown around without thinking through the costs.

      Personally, I wouldn't be surprised at all if in 2108 we're still using cars powered by petroleum. Not petroleum that we suck out of the ground with hi-tech straws of course. That'll probably end in the next 50 years. Probably, either petroleum manufactured from biomass or extracted directly from the air and water (CO from the air, H from electrolysis, CO + H == syngas, input to the fischer-trope process). Petrol is amazingly energy dense, easy to transport and we have very hundreds of millions (billions?) of vehicles deployed that use it already ..... carbon-neutral renewable petroleum? What's not to like?

    7. Re:Energy crisis by PhysicsPhil · · Score: 2

      This seems quite counter-intuitive. Look at all countries on the Earth and compare two variables: birth rate vs. energy consumption. I think you'll find that population growth has little need for energy, as long as you can produce enough food. Food is all solar powered, and we keep improving food production technologies.

      Food production is strongly dependent on fossil fuels. One of the largest uses of worldwide oil production goes into producing the fertilizers that provide for the levels of farming that the world's population requires. When we run out of oil, we also run out of fertilizer.

    8. Re:Energy crisis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other hand, hordes of people are working on new sources of energy and these sorts of doomsday predictions never come true.

    9. Re:Energy crisis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit

    10. Re:Energy crisis by KnowledgeKeeper · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Most probably the population of Earth will be greatly reduced due to the shortage of energy.

      I concur. But, the problem isn't just energy. Thinking of peak oil? What about peak metals Copper is already getting pretty thin. Not only that, the copper for our today's use has to be 99.95% pure. Zinc is on the list, too. The estimate is that there is 26% of Earth's copper bound in non-recyclable state (ie. landfills) and about 19% for zinc. Some estimates mention total depletion in 100yrs.

      I guess we're living in the oil age between two stone ages. What's worse, humans are the first and last chance for highly intelligent and technologically advanced species. Think about it - our development effectively started when our ancestors started getting metals out of the Earth's crust. What is next intelligent species (or our human successors) going to use to transit themselves into the next iron/bronze/golden age? Nothing. If we fail to transform into successful space dwelling species while there is enough energy to escape the gravity well we're a failure because in that case we're designated for extinction. I guess this guy said it best.

      --
      It is always better to be a first grade version of yourself than a second grade version of someone else.
    11. Re:Energy crisis by ralphdaugherty · · Score: 1

      Most probably the population of Earth will be greatly reduced due to the shortage of energy. That means hundreds of millions people will die unless something miraculous happens. Do not forget that our civilization depends on cheap energy and energy will be much more expensive in the future.

            Cheap and expensive are relative terms. We will have plenty of energy at a little higher rate than being paid now, in other words a little higher than bottled water or Gatorade.

            Solar and wind generation and other alternatives will be cost effective at those rates, as well as processing heavier forms of carbon than sweet crude.

        rd

    12. Re:Energy crisis by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      about 5.5 billion people will die. So about 500 million people will live past 99 years old? Cool!
    13. Re:Energy crisis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      our development effectively started when our ancestors started getting metals out of the Earth's crust. What is next intelligent species (or our human successors) going to use to transit themselves into the next iron/bronze/golden age? Nothing.

      All that metal is still here. In fact, it's conveniently dug up and placed in e-z-to-find piles presently known as buildings and stuff.

    14. Re:Energy crisis by pravuil · · Score: 1

      What is it in Brazil they use? I think it's sugar cane or something like that for ethanol. Should be some research to genetically alter sugar cane crops to grow in the states while producing a little more ethanol than what it can already produce. We'll see more nuclear energy in the next 50 years especially when certain companies wants to release their own personal nuclear reactors as posted on /. a couple of days ago. I agree, no shortage at all really.

    15. Re:Energy crisis by myrdos2 · · Score: 1

      The Chinese already have a small proof-of-concept coal to oil plant, it costs 45 dollars US to produce and distribute barrel of oil. They have plans to massively increase production.

      I also feel that peak oil is near for conventional supplies, but the unconventional stuff has the potential to keep us going for a very long time.

    16. Re:Energy crisis by Eivind · · Score: 1

      Except, offcourse, that landfills are nothing else than extremely high-grade ores. It's not as if the metals are -gone- or anything. The only reason we don't mine landfills today is that we've got other cheaper sources of metals.

    17. Re:Energy crisis by tricorn · · Score: 1

      I think it is safe to say that in the next 100 years, hundreds of millions of people will die. Heck, if life spans aren't significantly extended, over 6 billion people will die in the next 100 years (though I'm also pretty sure life spans will be extended, quite likely to "indefinite"; fortunately, that capability will also likely go hand in hand with a significant decrease in birth rate, the ability to clean up the environment, produce enough energy, water, food, make currently unusable land (and oceans!) habitable, and ultimately get off this planet; I plan to be around in 100 years to say "See? Told ya so").

    18. Re:Energy crisis by tricorn · · Score: 1

      Yup, if I had tons of excess cash available, I'd be buying up landiflls right now, waiting for the technology to cheaply separate out all the metals and convert the hydrocarbons to become cheap and reliable (quite a few such processes exist already, but they don't seem to be common yet).

    19. Re:Energy crisis by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      Sure, CTL is an old technology. It was used during WW2.

    20. Re:Energy crisis by KnowledgeKeeper · · Score: 1

      Yes, yes, but do remember to buy a coal mine too, since you'll need a lot of energy to get those metals into a usable form. Copper needs to be 99.95% pure, remember? Aluminum is also very difficult to get (needs abnormal amount of electricity; the Washington memorial has it's tip covered in aluminum since it was more expensive than gold at the time because of manufacturing process).

      --
      It is always better to be a first grade version of yourself than a second grade version of someone else.
    21. Re:Energy crisis by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      Such narrow thinking. In a hundred years we could have processing plants extracting all the metals we could ever want from the oceans, which have more metals dissolved in them than we could use in a long, long time.

      Nanotechnology might allow us to build superstrong materials that don't even need metals. Why not make machine parts and structural elements out of carbon nanotubes or even diamond?. Nanotech could also allow for recycling with a level of efficiency that can only be imagined today.

      We live a mere 240,000 miles from a huge source of all kinds of minerals that could easily be mined, launched into orbit with mass drivers and brought to earth for manufacturing. Then there's the idea of mining the asteroids, or even towing one to Earth orbit for our convenience.

      There's also that somewhat wacky but still plausible idea of "artificial matter" using a semiconductor matrix of quantum wells to trap electrons, which can mimic the properties of any kind of real matter.

      There are plenty of challenges facing the future of the human race, and there's all kinds of potential disasters, but I seriously doubt that if anything catastrophic happens, running out of metals will be the one that does us in.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    22. Re:Energy crisis by KnowledgeKeeper · · Score: 1

      They are, but there's a limit to it. Mining landfills is just a temporary solution. After landfills there'll be mining graveyards (metal hips, teeth and other bones) etc, etc. But the point is still clear - we can't grow by recycling. For that we're supposed to mine sources other than Earth.

      At one point you're still going to need too much energy to extract it all. It's not as if we've got all the energy we could ever use, forever and forever and forever.

      --
      It is always better to be a first grade version of yourself than a second grade version of someone else.
    23. Re:Energy crisis by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 1

      >We live a mere 240,000 miles from a huge source of all kinds of minerals that could easily be mined, >launched into orbit with mass drivers and brought to earth for manufacturing. Then there's the idea >of mining the asteroids, or even towing one to Earth orbit for our convenience. Or you could go a mere 3200 miles in the exact opposite direction.

    24. Re:Energy crisis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      But the point is still clear - we can't grow by recycling.

      But that wasn't your point at all. Your point was that if humans disappeared there'd be no metal left for the next incarnation of intelligent life. Of course that's been shown to be a retarded point, so I can understand why you'd want to quietly shift away from it.

  14. Article Text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    December 30, 2007
    The World of Tomorrow
    By JIM RASENBERGER

    ON Jan. 1, 1908 -- New Year's Day one century ago -- The New York World greeted readers with a stirring rumination about the past and future of America. The title of the article was simply "1808 -- 1908 -- 2008." The World began by marveling at how far America had come since 1808, then turned to the question of the future: "What will the year 2008 bring us? What marvels of development await the youth of tomorrow?"

    The essay's visions were not timid. "We may have gyroscopic trains as broad as houses swinging at 200 miles an hour up steep grades and around dizzying curves," the newspaper went on. "We may have aeroplanes winging the once inconquerable air. The tides that ebb and flow to waste may take the place of our spent coal and flash their strength by wire to every point of need. Who can say?"

    Predictions about the future were a staple of New York journalism in the early 20th century. Newspapers, including this one, frequently solicited prominent citizens for their thoughts on the future of the world, of America and, most urgent, of New York.

    The city was vaulting into the 20th century with a haste that almost demanded prediction-making. As the population grew by 130,000 a year, New York's infrastructure exploded.

    Within the 12 months of 1908 alone, New Yorkers would see the cantilevers of the Queensboro Bridge joined and the cables of the Manhattan Bridge spun. They would see one tunnel open under the East River and another tunnel open under the Hudson. They would see the tallest inhabited building in the world, the 612-foot Singer Building, completed on lower Broadway, only to be immediately overtaken by the steel skeleton of the 700-foot Metropolitan Life tower on Madison Square.

    What next? New Yorkers were besotted with the possibilities. Architects and visionaries imagined a "cosmopolis of the future" with thousand-foot towers connected by webs of tall bridges and served by aircraft. Meanwhile, the very air seemed to buzz with the infant technology of wireless communication.

    "When the expectations of wireless experts are realized, everyone will have his own pocket telephone and may be called wherever he happens to be," one magazine predicted in 1908. Equally farsighted was a prediction made by Dr. Simon Flexner, the first director of the Rockefeller Institute. The same New Year's Day that The World was conjuring gyroscopic trains, Dr. Flexner declared that human organ transplants would someday be common.

    The point of such predictions was not necessarily that they were accurate but that people cared enough about the future to bother thinking about it. With that in mind, 10 knowledgeable New Yorkers, from the Nobel laureate Paul Nurse (Simon Flexner's successor) to a 12-year-old girl named Kate, were asked to imagine the city a century from now.

    Whether their visions turn out to be right or wrong, whether they are bleak or tongue-in-cheek, all are generous efforts to wonder about the lives of New Yorkers of 2108, as those New Yorkers of 1908 once wondered about ours.

    KEN PERLIN

    Inventor; professor of computer science at New York University

    In the same way we now have enhancements like pacemakers, it's reasonable to suppose that in a hundred years everyone's eyes will be implanted with tiny displays. All the information we need about the city will be accessible to us without conscious effort: where to go, what to buy, when the next subway will arrive, how to hook up with friends. We'll be able to see a virtual reality superimposed over the physical grid.

    This city is all about intensity of purpose and connections, and technology will only make it more efficient and more fluid. And in a city that is so multicultural, communication will be easier. A hundred years from now, you and I could be having a conversation in two languages and translation would be automatic. I could look at a newspaper written in any language and have the translation superimposed on my vision

  15. As a Geographer and 5 generation New Yorker by Urger · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No. The New York City of tomorrow is here right now. Most of the building that will be here then are built already. More then you may think were already there in 1908. New York is physically highly resistant to change. There will be some differences yes. Fresh Kills is well on the way to being a major park. (No really) If anything the radical changes will be occurring in Hoboken and Jersey City. They are the natural extensions of the city and with the Access to Regions Core project, future PATH tunnels, Cross Harbor Tunnel and likely increased ferry service the west shore of the Hudson will become just another borough except that they'll be independent cities in another state. Oh and the Mets may have won a World Series by then (We can't give up hope!)

  16. Where's the pessimism? by russotto · · Score: 1

    None of them predicted a radioactive hole in the water.

    1. Re:Where's the pessimism? by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      Here's how it works: You get the experts together, opine on the "100 years in the future" scenario, and then you know positively what won't happen.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
  17. Impossible predictions by Tempest451 · · Score: 1

    I find it funny how these predictions are always based on current trends. Nothing going on today will have anything to do with 100 years from now apart from maybe the trend of smaller and smaller electronic devices. These predictions are pointless when a dozen other factors such as the economy, politics, the environment, and security are equally powerful influences on the outcome of the future. A hundred years from now, California could fall into the ocean, terrorist could set off a biological catastrophy, or a meteor could fall from the sky and kill most of the world population (I'm looking at you 2012).

    1. Re:Impossible predictions by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      Well yeah, but if it's true that somebody predicted ubiquitous mobile phones in 1908 then that's damn impressive, and suggests that the future isn't as opaque as we often think it is.

      In 1908, hardly anybody even had landlines, the mobile phone was still 70 years away from invention and the idea of ubiquitous portable technology hadn't really taken hold yet. Today we take miniaturization for granted but in 1908 nobody had invented integrated circuits or the microchip. To predict mobile phones that far in advance shows tremendous hindsight and ability to correctly extrapolate from current trends (phones + radios + technology gets more ubiquitous == cellphones)

      In 1908 people still had the first two world wars ahead of them. I guess nobody was predicting devastating wars in the way people here are, but it didn't matter - they happened and civilisation survived, advanced anyway.

      I liked some of the predictions. The eye overlay is novel, but while I'm sure the technology for that will exist in 2108 I'm not convinced augmentation will be ubiquitous. There are easier ways to get the same effect. Why have your eyeball overwrite the words on a newspaper, when the newspaper could translate itself for you? Why even have newspapers instead of websites?

      Ooh, this is fun. I can play at this too. In 2108 TV channels as we know them will be long since dead. There will still be series and regular shows, syndicated through various online providers, but TV on demand will have completely taken over and the idea of broadcasting a stream of shows 24/7 won't have any relevance ... not even in news. Actually 2108 is probably way too pessimistic for that. I wouldn't be surprised if this happens in 30 years.

      In 2108 everything will be recycled, and we will absolutely be mining landfills as the article suggests. I'm not sure they'll be used as archaeological sites - the people of 2108 will have extremely good historical records of our time, far better records that we have of the world in 1908. We'll probably be mining the moon and perhaps Mars as well, as we'll have long since exhausted our supplies of some exotic metals, foolishly incinerating them and thus spreading them into the air rather than keeping them in concentrated areas until appropriate recycling/disposal technology is invented.

      Children will be given iPhone-like devices at birth (practically already happening) and we won't use email addresses or phone numbers anymore, at least not directly. Instead we'll use real names, disambiguated through social networks which cater to different kinds of people, but all partake in a shared social graph protocol of some kind that is as important and ubiquitous as HTTP is today. You won't ask girls for their number, instead you can just touch two phones together for a moment to mark that person as a "recent acquaintance" (these networks will have long sinced evolved beyond binary yes/no friend relationships).

      Physical books will have given way completely to eBooks, probably read on fold-out versions of iPhone like technologies. Buying a physical book will be seen as something of a historical curiousity, sort of like paying for a portrait painting would be today. Books will still consist primarily of text, but will also include movies, interactive geegaws (think flash in wikipedia) and will automatically translate themselves to whatever language the reader is most comfortable with.

      On the topic of automatic translation, statistical translation engines like Googles will have been tweaked, tuned and trained to the point at which they produce practically perfect translations of technical works, and human translation is seen as an expensive luxury reserved only for emotional works of literature (actually, I'd give this one 50 years). All phone/email conversations will be automatically translated behind the scenes, if necessary.

      Fluent speech recognition will finally be viable and ubiquitous after the whole process is moved into datacenters, where enormous statistical models of phrase probabilities can provide superior accuracy and speed to todays desktop-bound solutions, simply through brute force (I give that 30 years tops as well, probably sooner)

      Yeah, I'll stop there ...

    2. Re:Impossible predictions by sgt_doom · · Score: 1
      Now that's the spirit, Good Citizen Tempest451!

      Given that the majority of American industries are now majority foreign-owned; the US Treasury technically went backrupt back in 2003, the economy - when one subtracts the ever increasing debt which is figured into the GDP stats - has actually been shrinking over the preceding seven years; the exponential increase every year of the number of American jobs being offshored (that's what the numbers demonstrate and I follow the numbers, not Business Week nor The Economist) while foreign replacement workers are being imported by the boatload; that this crime outfit presently running the country has malevolently stopped publishing the M3 econ indicator, and Citigroup recently had to approach the Emir of Abu Dhabi for an $8 billion loan in order to stay solvent, I'm none too optimistic about the future.

      Artificially stagnant and lowered wages.....anyone????

    3. Re:Impossible predictions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I agree with you in general, I don't think that automatic translation will happen within the next 100 years.

      Ever tried to translate a technical document thru commercial services? Their output is worthless. The basis for good (usable) translation is comprehension. So, in order to translate a piece of text you have to understand it first. When you have a machine that can understand human language (which entails the modelling of the world like a human), you basicly have artificial intelligence. From there on it's not much work to get to singularity.

      I don't think that improvements in technology will carry us to AI. For AI to work, computer science has to make break-thrus. A new way to model the world, a new way to act on that model.. Unlike technology, computer science advances slowly.

    4. Re:Impossible predictions by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      Well, perhaps. That's the conventional view. But in the last few years we've seen something unexpected ... that when you have gigantic amounts of data, statistical approaches can work very well.

      If I want an answer to a question, chances are, I can find it on Google (or another search engine). Google doesn't "understand" things, it just does very very large and complex statistical analyses of a giant dumping ground for words. Despite that, it works, most of the time.

      I think you should try the new Google Translate. The old comprehension based algorithms are gone, statistical translation are new. Even now, in their very very early days, there are noticable quality improvements. Given enough time and input material to train on, I think it's entirely feasible that they'll end up doing a good job on factual/technical texts for major languages.

      Answering questions given a large corpus of text, translation of texts and speech recognition can all be treated as statistical problems. Then it's just a matter of gathering enough data, and perfecting the algorithms.

      Anyway, comprehension based technologies are going nowhere fast, as you say. Machines that "understand" things are still stuck in limbo, and unless Cyc changes direction sharpish, will probably stay that way.

    5. Re:Impossible predictions by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

      Even now, in their very very early days, there are noticable quality improvements
      I beg to differ. For my usage pattern there has been significant quality regressions.
    6. Re:Impossible predictions by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      Interesting, what are your usage patterns? I usually translate either web pages or short speech-like phrases, and I've seen improvements in both of these.

    7. Re:Impossible predictions by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

      Two-way conversations. I don't speak spanish, but I like to talk to someone who doesn't speak english. I normally open three brower tabs: google spanish-to-english, google english-to-spanish, and a spanish-english dictionary.

      I started off having google translate what I want to say into spanish, then use the other tab to translate it back to english. That provides a basic sanity check.

      Before the change, I learned how to mangle my english to get a better result out of the translator. I knew what to write in english to get what I wanted in spanish.

      Now this has all gone out the window. Google will translate a phrase one way today and another way tomorrow. It is much more difficult to control now. Fortunately by now I can understand about 75% of the conversation without needing to translate and vice-versa. I've also learned enough spanish that I can normally tell if the translation is wrong without consulting google again, but it's still annoying.

    8. Re:Impossible predictions by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      A bit late now, as you've already learned Spanish, but there are now translation bots available for exactly this use case. Learning how to work around the quirks of the old translator is a pretty unusual situation, I'm not surprised that doesn't work anymore :( Even so, when I translate short conversational phrases from English to German/vice-versa I've found quality to improve ... in particular, with idiomatic expressions.

  18. Will the "action" be here? by bogaboga · · Score: 3, Insightful
    While I agree that New York will definitely be standing 100 years from today, I doubt that the "action" among world cities will be in New York. Think about finance and entertainment.

    Having visited Shanghai just last month and I must say I was very very impressed. Traffic lights, the weather, the transport system were all on track to be more modern as compared to what we have here in New York.

    Sadly, the status quo here in New York will not change anytime soon, and that will seal our fate mainly because of corruption.

    1. Re:Will the "action" be here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, this is just like why everyone has 110v outlets in the US, whereas it's 220 everywhere else.

      When you invest a bajillion dollars on something new, that no one else has, you are taking a risk that it will be obsoleted.

    2. Re:Will the "action" be here? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      No, this is just like why everyone has 110v outlets in the US, whereas it's 220 everywhere else.

      Actually, it's a big mess; there's some other countries with 110V (I believe Japan is one; of course, Canada and Mexico also use 110V), though many/most have 220V. Even worse, some countries use 60Hz like the US, and others use 50Hz (and this doesn't always correlate with 110V/220V). Some even have a mixture of both.

  19. We are Borg. Resistance is futile ! by Macka · · Score: 4, Interesting


    Ken Perlin will probably be close to the mark. 100 years from now you'll be able to get regular injections that contain millions of nano tech devices. These devices will travel through the blood to parts of the body they need to work on (e.g. the brain) and then construct interfaces that link wireless information networks directly into your consciousness.

    I don't think there will be implanted displays as such. Rather, you'll just received the information you request and the display will be superimposed on your eye sight via nano circuitry where the optic nerves connect to the brain. That way you can still 'see' the information you want without distractions by just closing your eyes. This scenario may sound far fetched, but it has a much greater chance of gaining traction in society if all it involves is a simple injection. No painful surgery, no mess, no fuss.

  20. it just happened outside the USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > We may have gyroscopic trains as broad as houses swinging at 200 miles an hour up steep grades and around dizzying curves

    Somehow odd that the rest of the world got the 200 MPH trains, while the USA stagnated technologically and is left with a train system that's the embarrassment of a first world nation.

    Trains, cell phones, TV, broadband internet ... seems like progress started to pass the USA by about 30 years ago. I don't imagine in 100 years much will have changed, unless you look to China or Europe.

    1. Re:it just happened outside the USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China is already developing a supertrain - a cross between train and plane

  21. Re:They've mastered teleportation.... sorta by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Goddamn MyMiniCity links

  22. Also by obeythefist · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The RIAA tracks your DNA and listens to everything you hear through implanted microphones, extracting micropayments wirelessly for everything you hear.

    --
    I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
    1. Re:Also by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      The RIAA tracks your DNA and listens to everything you hear through implanted microphones, extracting micropayments wirelessly for everything you hear.

      And remember

    2. Re:Also by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      In 2108 the "DRM war" will have resulted in a messy, inconclusive draw with neither "side" obviously winning.

      Music will be completely DRM free, and mostly sold by artists themselves direct from their websites using whatever the codec-de-jure is. URLs to simple "how to pay" files will be embedded using stenography into the audio itself, imperceptible to the human ear but easily decoded by peoples web-phones whether they are heard on the radio, in clubs, live, at a friends house etc. Paying for music won't be compulsory and sharing of collections will be common, in fact it'll be almost socially required to publish your music collection via some kind of social network app.

      Even so, we won't have a wasteland of amateur music. These apps will also show where you got the music from - whether you paid for it or took it from a friends collection. There'll be social stigma attached to "leeching" too much music from other people ... a collection composed entirely of music you downloaded from elsewhere will be seen as somewhat akin to living your entire life off social security. There'll be exceptions to this for people with no income, like teenagers or students, but people with jobs will be expected to buy most or all of their music.

      Movies and TV shows will be DRM protected, and although there'll be ways to circumvent this DRM, it'll generally be unintrusive and movies will be cheap enough that it's more hassle to break the DRM than to just buy/rent them. Once bought you gain an irrevocable right to that movie, even if the bits themselves are not stored on your local systems. This right will be protected by law. Movies will be available to buy, rent and view in cinemas simultaneously around the world, as will TV shows. A minority of people will download cracked videos but again, as movies are cheap, convenient, and simultaneously available everywhere there'll be a social stigma attached to doing that.

      Desktop software won't be DRM protected, but instead will have mostly moved into well protected datacenters where the bulk of their cleverness is implemented. They'll be subscription based rather than ad-supported and only a thin layer of UI logic will be running on a local client. It'll work, and people will like it, because peoples data and the software they use with it will be available everywhere in a secure manner. Latency will be low thanks to very fast networks and local "residential" datacenters that cache content and some code.

      Video games, that aren't really suited to running over a network, will have moved entirely to games consoles which are now so specialized for video games and entertainment they are hardly recognizable as regular computers. They will be protected by extremely tough DRM, as code+data will be distributed via the net rather than on discs. The hardware-implemented protection will be cracked occasionally by professional 'pirates' and due to the vast size of the video game industry (eclipsing the movie industry by orders of magnitude), such breaches will have law enforcement coming down on them with the same ferocity that drug dealers experience today.

      Right, I should go to bed before I spam this thread with my daydreaming anymore :)

  23. Re:We are Borg. Resistance is futile ! by calebt3 · · Score: 1

    I would hope that the nanobots would be under one's direct control. So if you decide that you want a new appendage, you can set them to it.

  24. The real NYC by NASA+NERD · · Score: 2, Insightful

    its not gonna be all that shiny and new. it probably gonna be pretty dirty. Trust me, i live in New York. Also, the story said some "knowledgeable" and intelligent New Yorkers, and not many intelligent people go to School of the Future (the brains are at The Salk School of Science!)

    --
    Scotty thats not funny! Beam down my clothes RIGHT NOW!-Capt. Kirk
  25. Re:We are Borg. Resistance is futile ! by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1, Funny

    I would hope that the nanobots would be under one's direct control. So if you decide that you want a new appendage, you can set them to it.
    More likely enlarge an existing appendage
  26. except, of course, if everybody patents the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .. the future tech, just like Ken Perlin patented his fixed-up procedural noise.

    I know, I know... "what!? it's patented??? But it's a textbook example in a gazillion books - and none of them mentioned anything!". yeah, sucks to be a graphics developer just realizing this - I know.
    http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6867776.html

    Back to his patent-free but discontinuity-happy noise.

  27. Uh-huh by Sitnalta · · Score: 1

    Ancient city ship. Make it happen.

    1. Re:Uh-huh by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 1

      Ancient city ship. Make it happen. Technically, that would be The City of the Past.
      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    2. Re:Uh-huh by Ruie · · Score: 1

      Ancient city ship. Make it happen.

      Here are the plans from the 60's. Enjoy !

  28. Re:We are Borg. Resistance is futile ! by SetupWeasel · · Score: 1

    Funny, I think we will try nano-bots. The initial results on test animals will probably be too horrific to guarantee future funding, but it won't matter, because the knowledge of the human machine will outpace the need for such devices.

  29. View of New York in 100 years by earthforce_1 · · Score: 1, Insightful


    Very good multimedia presentation of what New York will look like in the near and far future if we would just leave it alone.

    http://www.worldwithoutus.com/multimedia.html

    --
    My rights don't need management.
    1. Re:View of New York in 100 years by Typoboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Or just go see I Am Legend

  30. Re:My view of a city of the future... by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 1

    I think that is the most relevant/topical myminicity link yet. I was just about to make a Budgieton joke myself.

  31. [OT] judging from slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tinyurl redirects to minicities are the city of the future

  32. In 1908 they said we MIGHT be flying???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We may have aeroplanes winging the once inconquerable air"

    The Wright brothers flew four years earlier (December 1903), so if they publish something in January 1908, I'd think they'd know about it. Or were the brothers keeping it secret?

  33. Re:They've mastered teleportation.... sorta by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Eat shit and get pounded up the ass. You sir are an ASSCUNT!

  34. A forgotten city by dorpus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Will it become a place where Latin American and African Christians live in tense coexistence with Moslems, while absentee landlords from Asia own everything? Will whites become so rare that New Yorkers will stare in fascination at white people? Jews will have long since have converted to Buddhism or intermarried with others, that they are a regarded as a mysterious ancient people like the Druids or Manicheans. The world's economic center of gravity will have long since shifted South and East, so New York will be a historical curiosity like Philadelphia or Pittsburgh today. (In their time, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh were the apex of American culture and technology.) At the request of France's Islamic government, the Statue of Liberty will be replaced with a statue of Sayyid Qutb, every schoolkid will take museum trips to the "Palestinian Holocaust Museum", Chinese financiers will turn Central Park into a replica of the Forbidden City, while trendy New Yorkers will receive cosmetic gene therapy to look more Arab, African, or Hispanic.

    1. Re:A forgotten city by Dr.+Cody · · Score: 1

      Or, in other words...

      Vote Ron Paul 2008: When the fleet-footed ones come, will you be ready?

    2. Re:A forgotten city by moosesocks · · Score: 2, Insightful

      1) The parent poster needs to chill out, and drop the racist undertones before I have to invoke Godwin's Law.

      2) A truly "global" society probably will cause most of the major races will blend together. Because of the current population distribution, and the way in which skin pigmentation genes work, this will probably result in the end of your beloved aryan race. All in all, we'll sunburn less easily..... and that's about it. It'll take hundreds of years, and really.... who cares?

      3) If the economic center of the world shifts to the southeast, I wouldn't be particularly surprised. The world's population is densest there, and Asia is rapidly industrializing. The tiny island of Great Britain is no longer the economic center of the world, although they seem to do pretty well for themselves these days nevertheless. The emergence of southeast-asian markets doesn't necessarily have to occur at the expense of western economies.

      4) Europe's learned its lesson about religious governments many times over, especially France. I hate to make generalizations, but the people of France tend to be some of the most politically active and aware people on the planet. An Islamic (or Christian, Buddhist, etc.....) government is not going to emerge in France. The people simply won't allow it.

      5) Sayyid Qutb isn't exactly well-respected in many Islamic circles (although many Americans would like to see all Muslims as carbon-copies of Qutb in order to justify their war). If you want a different perspective on Islam by a respected scholar, read up on Tariq Ramadan. If you want to try a conspiracy theory on for size, read up on his US Visa troubles.

      6) What's wrong with Buddhists? Buddhism has easily got to be the single most inoffensive religion on the planet.

      7) Israel/Palestine is an incredibly complicated issue, mainly because it's been carried over across several generations, and both sides are guilty of essentially the same crimes. However, whether you like it or not, Palestine was there first.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    3. Re:A forgotten city by Latinhypercube · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a utopia. We can only hope.

    4. Re:A forgotten city by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1

      Jews will have long since have converted to Buddhism or intermarried with others, that they are a regarded as a mysterious ancient people like the Druids or Manicheans. "Long since"? It's a century, not a millenium.

      100 years means five generations, tops, although it's closer to three when you consider that already many urbanites don't have children until they're 30 or so.

      - RG>
      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    5. Re:A forgotten city by dorpus · · Score: 0, Troll

      #2 and #4 are having it both ways. If the Aryan race goes extinct, then the beliefs of present-day French Aryans will have no more relevance to the future residents of Frankistan than the beliefs of the Anasazi or Yavapai people have relevance to Americans today. The present-day French will just be a minor footnote in history textbooks: "Ancient Frankistan was once populated by a violent race of cannibal Gauls, who later converted to Christianity, but lost their Christian identity and went extinct".

      6) What's wrong with Buddhists? Buddhism has easily got to be the single most inoffensive religion on the planet.

      A look at the history of Buddhist countries will reveal them to be every bit as violent as European or Middle Eastern countries.

      p.s. I am not white.

    6. Re:A forgotten city by Gorimek · · Score: 2, Funny

      The parent didn't say the white "race" will go extinct, only that it will be mixed. So instead of France being populated by (made up numbers) 80% white people and 20% black people, it will over time converge to every person having 80% white ancestry and 20% black ancestry. Not through anyone being killed, just through friendly fraternization between the "races".

      Cheer up, it's a nice future!

      No beliefs would have to disappear along the way. Beliefs are not encoded in genes.

    7. Re:A forgotten city by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      Israel/Palestine is an incredibly complicated issue, mainly because it's been carried over across several generations, and both sides are guilty of essentially the same crimes. However, whether you like it or not, Palestine was there first.

      ...for shorter-term values of the term "first".

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    8. Re:A forgotten city by ultranova · · Score: 1

      The parent didn't say the white "race" will go extinct, only that it will be mixed. So instead of France being populated by (made up numbers) 80% white people and 20% black people, it will over time converge to every person having 80% white ancestry and 20% black ancestry. Not through anyone being killed, just through friendly fraternization between the "races".

      I've never been to France, but judging from Finland, I'd say that we're far more likely to merge with asians than africans. Makes sense, I suppose, with them being the most populous race on Earth.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    9. Re:A forgotten city by One+Childish+N00b · · Score: 1

      Your predictions are a little far-fetched for just a century from now, and some are true already. I'm going to dissect a few largely because I'm bored.

      Will it become a place where Latin American and African Christians live in tense coexistence with Moslems

      Probably, as that's the case now and so in 100 years will probably still be the case. The current tense stand-off between Islam and the rest of the world is not going to go away overnight, and we're currently still in a tailspin of distrust and hatred that shows no signs of stopping.

      Will whites become so rare that New Yorkers will stare in fascination at white people?

      In 100 years? I sincerely doubt it. That's not too far away when you think of it in generations - only around 5 or so. With the amount of big dumb white people that still exist in New York, and with the social elite of the city being largely white (no offence intended, but the majority of rich people in New York, who usually only marry other rich people in New York, are white) I sincerely doubt the strange notion people seem to have of "a coffee-coloured race of people with no racism or hatred" will come true, and definately not in the next 100 years.

      Jews will have long since have converted to Buddhism or intermarried with others, that they are a regarded as a mysterious ancient people like the Druids or Manicheans.

      Full disclosure, I'm a practicing Jew. Again, 100 years? Pfft, not happening. 1000 years? Still probably not. Judaism has been a relatively small religion for most if not all of the thousands of years of it's existence. It's not going to vanish within a century, especially as Judaism places a much stronger emphasis on marrying other members of the community than, say, Christianity in terms of religion and the Big Dumb White People I covered in the previous entry in terms of race. I'm going to be around for the majority of the next century, hopefully, and with the way medical advancements are going, my kids - who will be raised Jewish - have every probability of making it to the end. If they in turn raise their children to be Jewish, which admittedly is not a 100% chance, those children will almost definately make it to 2108 as proud Jews. Like I said, I think 100 years is a much shorter time than you think it is.

      The world's economic center of gravity will have long since shifted South and East, so New York will be a historical curiosity like Philadelphia or Pittsburgh today.

      This, however, is highly possible. The chances of the economy shifting to developing nations like India and China once they have finished their development is very high - their sheer strength of numbers as a workforce will become truly intimidating on the global stage once they have the technology to keep up with their American cousins, especially as they tend to have a much higher work ethic and place a lot more pride in what they do than the average Westerner. That's not a criticism of either, merely a statement of fact.

      At the request of France's Islamic government, the Statue of Liberty will be replaced with a statue of Sayyid Qutb

      The chances of France getting an Islamic government within 100 years is very small, largely because, as I pointed out with New York, the social elite in France is largely white and only the poor people tend to be Muslims, and as we know with elections in America, democracy means choosing between two rich white people. Revolution? They already had one of those, and the cultural problems France is having with it's 'ghettos' are being so overblown by the media as to be completely rediculous. Also, if the chances of France having an Islamic government are low, even lower are the chances that, if they do, with the tense standoff I've already covered between Islam and the West, and especially America, can you really see our foreign relations with them being good enough for them to request anything? Especially the replacement of an iconic American symbol with som

      --
      Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.
  35. Re:We are Borg. Resistance is futile ! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    More likely enlarge an existing appendage

    The appendix being a natural candidate for enlargement -- especially if you don't pay your taxes on time!

  36. Escape from New York by LordHuggington · · Score: 3, Funny

    I expect a huge statue to be erected in honor of Snake Plisken in the New York of the future. Fictitious character or not, it's the only decent thing to do.

    1. Re:Escape from New York by DarrenBaker · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hell yes.

      And the carved quote would read, "President of what?" or possibly, "What did you do to me asshole?"

  37. Already wrong by mcrbids · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Technology is the wild card that throws predictions to the wind. It's what differentiates modern civilization from the ancient Greeks, Romans, Sumerians, and every other now-dead civilization.

    The cheapest form of Energy widely available today is coal, providing the majority of electrical power in the United States. It produces power as cheaply as $0.05 per watt, a rate that has now been matched by Solar power. Nicely enough, solar power is at its peak right at the same time that energy use is at its peak, (during hot, sunny days!) so the usual complaints about "peak load" are largely mitigated.

    Combine that with our improved efficiencies of everything from lights to household heating, and the effect is magnified.

    I predict that energy will be cheaper in 2050 per KWH than today. Nonetheless, technologies that save power will be in far greater use than they are today, simply because the cost of being efficient is also dropping. We're moving from an economy of scarcity to an economy of plenty, and one of the first industries to be hit by this is the recording industry.

    Technology is advancing, and is continuing to advance, driven by the combination of cheap resources, a highly refined economic / capital investment system, and a generally well-educated population. Now, the interconnectedness of internet-based technologies takes the whole dynamic of education and technology and kicks it into hyperdrive.

    There will be many challenges, of that I am certain. But I'm equally certain that we'll face the challenges faster than they accumulate. Technology continues to advance the power of the able, and meet the needs of the weak.

    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    1. Re:Already wrong by MtViewGuy · · Score: 2

      Thanks to the nanotechnology revolution, things that would have been far-fetched today in terms of energy production would be commonplace as early as 20 years from now.

      Imagine by 2028 every stand-alone house or condominium complex having large-scale electric solar cell arrays on the roof, with excess energy storage using carbon-nanotube supercapacitor "battery packs." Because all the solar power generation is connected by distributed power generation, any excess of power generated during the daytime can be distributed to users who really need the power. That supercapacitor technology will also make it finally feasible for true electric cars that will have a range of around 400 km (248 miles), but with recharge times about the same as refilling a 20-gallon gas tank at a gas station! :-) With electric cars, we can eliminate the space-wasting engine compartment, so the electric car of 2028 could seat 4-5 passengers comfortably but will be physically smaller than today's automobiles.

      Also, by 2028 instead of using petroleum to produce fuels and plastics, we will "grow" oil-laden algae on a HUGE scale to do the same thing. Because algae can be "grown" almost anywhere, this also alleviates the issue of having to make the choice between growing more plants for fuel or for foodstuffs.

    2. Re:Already wrong by Junta · · Score: 1

      energy use is at its peak, (during hot, sunny days!) However, energy use also peaks at times of extreme cold. In milder climates, sure, this isn't much of a concern, but I think people in Alaska would disagree with that assertion (but then again, who knows what climate change will occur). Of course, some environments may benefit from a mix of photovoltaic and solar-heated water, but in any event, photovoltaics isn't the universal answer.

      And to characterize solar as *currently* being cheap as coal ignores many factors. For one, I don't know what the efficiency of those solar panels, so the surface area needed to be dedicated to power collection/translation is potentially huge. In order to have decentralized power, every family would need a huge house inefficiently using land. The reality is that many apartment buildings and the like exist that could not possibly provide their own energy even if covered in 'dollar-per-watt' photovoltaic cells as things exist today.

      Now, advance technology to ubiquitous 40% or better solar panels, have an electrical storage medium with good characteristics of duty cycle to get you through the nights and inclement weather, and have every last technology go to the highly efficient end of the spectrum (i.e. LED lighting), and things will be interesting.

      I do agree that a shift will occur from fossil fuels toward nuclear and photovoltaics will happen (hopefully stressing photovoltaics and meeting our needs through a medium that by definition won't be exhausted for earth until earth has much much bigger problems), but if solar power were already that cheap and easy today, it would have already experienced sudden massive deployments.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    3. Re:Already wrong by little1973 · · Score: 1

      Then you have never heard of Jevons paradox which states as technological improvements increase the efficiency with which a resource is used, total consumption of that resource may increase, rather than decrease.

      So, technology itself cannot save us from an energy crisis. And energy crisis means food crisis, too.

      As for solar power, we cannot harvest it efficiently let alone store it. Fossil fuels were produced and stored for us by Nature that's why it is so cheap. If energy has to be produced (let it be solar, wind or water) and stored by us it will be no longer cheap. IMHO, storage is the bigger problem.

      Have you heard of EROEI (Energy Return On Energy Invested)? There was a time when it was 100:1 in case of oil. That means you could produce 100 barrels of oil with the energy of 1 barrel of oil. Nowadays, it is somewhere between 5 and 10, but this is far better than biomass which is between 1 and 2.

      Energy consumption and world population have a close correlation. If energy consumption drops so will world population. And believe me, people won't die peacefully.

      --
      Government cannot make man richer, but it can make him poorer. - Ludwig von Mises
    4. Re:Already wrong by mcrbids · · Score: 1

      However, energy use also peaks at times of extreme cold. In milder climates, sure, this isn't much of a concern, but I think people in Alaska would disagree with that assertion (but then again, who knows what climate change will occur). Of course, some environments may benefit from a mix of photovoltaic and solar-heated water, but in any event, photovoltaics isn't the universal answer.

      Electricity is the "universal solvent". It can be easily converted into many other forms. We can use it to split water into Hydrogen and Oxygen, to be recombined later for power. We can charge a battery. We can pump water uphill, (and let it out again to generate power on demand) compress air (and let the air out when we want to use its power) and it can be moved fairly cheaply over long(ish) distances.

      Is solar the 100% answer? No. But it's a damned good start. If we covered 1/16 of the American Southwest with these dollar-a-watt solar cells, we have all the power we need to supply the US electricity and transportation bills. Since we can now do this at prices close to what the very cheapest source of electrical power (coal) can, simple economics indicates that this puts an upper bound on the cost of energy.

      In short, we've already locked in electricity at prices not much more expensive than the very cheapest form of energy around.

      And those guys in Alaska can use something a bit more exotic if they want. The point really is this: the energy crises is all but gone. Already. Peak oil will come and go, (if it hasn't already) and we will barely notice it. It will be an inconvenience, and may entail people replacing their cars with newer, more reliable, electrical cars when their old one dies. Like people in California soon will by law, switching from old-style light bulbs to CFLs will cut power usage dramatically without any noticeable loss in the "quality" of life. (other than a mild increase in disposable income)

      Whoopdeedoo.

      The future is (potentially) rosier than we ever thought. Peak oil is a reality, but it doesn't mean the end of much of anything but oil. And those religious whack jobs in the middle east that want to blow up buildings with their carcasses? They can pound sand for all I care, since their oil (and power) will be gone, and with global warming hitting them the hardest, that's all they'll have left.

      Hopefully, they'll be smart enough to cover their deserts with solar panels and create some wealth with them. I'm hopeful, but I'm sure not holding my breath. In any event, their power/wealth will be largely mitigated by the simple forces of technology and economics.

      if solar power were already that cheap and easy today, it would have already experienced sudden massive deployments.

      Edison Electric, in southern California, recently signed on a contract for the largest single deployment of solar power IN THE WORLD. Over the next several years, they'll be building more solar power capacity than exists in the United States previously. All without any tax incentives, or any government funding of any kind, and profitably, simply because solar power provides the power that's needed at competitive rates at the time it's most needed.

      Changes this big do take time. But they are already happening. The trend is real, and accelerating.

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    5. Re:Already wrong by ultranova · · Score: 1

      That supercapacitor technology will also make it finally feasible for true electric cars that will have a range of around 400 km (248 miles), but with recharge times about the same as refilling a 20-gallon gas tank at a gas station! :-)

      Of course, if you coat the car with solar panels, you don't neccessarily need to recharge it at all; just leave it outside for the weekend.

      With electric cars, we can eliminate the space-wasting engine compartment, so the electric car of 2028 could seat 4-5 passengers comfortably but will be physically smaller than today's automobiles.

      The engine compartment not only houses the engine, but it also acts as a shock absorber in the case of a head-on collision. Having it collapse in a controlled fashion means that the car comes to a stop in half a meter, rather than half a centimeter, making the G-forces significantly smaller than they would be without it. So no, I don't think that it can be eliminated safely.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    6. Re:Already wrong by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      The engine compartment not only houses the engine, but it also acts as a shock absorber in the case of a head-on collision. Having it collapse in a controlled fashion means that the car comes to a stop in half a meter, rather than half a centimeter, making the G-forces significantly smaller than they would be without it. So no, I don't think that it can be eliminated safely.

      Well, it could be eliminated, but it wouldn't be safe. But don't expect that to stop anyone; I'm sure automakers in some countries will convince legislators to eliminate that particular safety requirement because it increases their cost.

    7. Re:Already wrong by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      As for solar power, we cannot harvest it efficiently let alone store it.

      Don't overlook the fact that solar panels have been increasing greatly in efficiency in recent years. Storage isn't that much of a problem in most places because the peak usage is during the daytime, when solar is producing the most power. It's not a total replacement for other power sources, but it's a great supplement, especially in sunny climates.

      Of course, Jevon's Paradox is a real possibility. I'm not sure exactly true it really is for residences, but it's undeniably true for vehicles; people (at least in the USA) only want to drive smaller cars when fuel gets expensive. When fuel's cheap, they all flock to enormous cars and trucks. I'm surprised no one made an SUV based on a tractor-trailer.

      Energy consumption and world population have a close correlation. If energy consumption drops so will world population. And believe me, people won't die peacefully.

      That's right, and that's why it's a good idea to stock up on guns and ammo.

  38. It's been done already! by solitas · · Score: 1

    Futurama? New New York? Ain't youse guys been watchin' it?

    --
    "It's time to take life by the cans." ~ Bender ("Bendin' in the Wind", ep. 3-13)
    1. Re:It's been done already! by hawaiian717 · · Score: 1

      Futurama's New New York is a thousand years in the future. This article is rather short-sighted, looking only a hundred years in the future.

      --
      End of Line.
  39. My Prediction by $0.02 · · Score: 1

    One hundred years from now New York Times will ask its reader to imagine how NYC will look like in the year 2208.

    --
    If enithin kan gow rong it whil. (Murfey)
  40. Old NY and New NY by NASA+NERD · · Score: 1

    New New York rocks! NYC will look like what Old New York loks like in futurama!

    --
    Scotty thats not funny! Beam down my clothes RIGHT NOW!-Capt. Kirk
  41. Re:We are Borg. Resistance is futile ! by SmurfButcher+Bob · · Score: 1

    under one's direct control...

    Yes and no. Yes, they'll do what we want them to (in a sense). No, because they'll be running MS Windows 2112 with "RIAA & MPAA & Disney compliance enforcement kits". So, between the daily reboots, the slowing to a crawl as you try to cross a busy street, and having your body force you to turn yourself in to the IP Police every time you mention a trademarked or copyrighted word without a license... yes, there should still be a few seconds remaining each day for the bots to do what you want (assuming you have a proper subscription for the thing you wish them to do).

    --

    help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am

  42. Re:We are Borg. Resistance is futile ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    **WHOOSH**

  43. Re:They've mastered teleportation.... sorta by jacquesm · · Score: 1

    I'm working on a little surprise for the minicity jerks.
    stay tuned.

  44. Re:They've mastered teleportation.... sorta by Faylone · · Score: 1

    can it involve dynamite? please let it involve dynamite.

  45. Re:We are Borg. Resistance is futile ! by darthgnu · · Score: 1

    Makes me wonder if I would get a noodly appendage...

    --
    Freedom is strength, Ignorance is peace, War is slavery.
  46. Some "futures" that DID come to pass by dpbsmith · · Score: 3, Interesting

    1) A moderately frequent detail in science-fiction stories was lights that would automatically turn themselves on when someone entered a room and turn themselves off when there was nobody in it.

    I remember thinking this was utter nonsense, because, based on the price of photocells, relays, iconoscope tubes, or whatever it would have taken to do this circa 1950 or 1960, it didn't seem within the range of credibility that this would be economically feasible... especially given the low cost of electricity (and the expectation that nuclear power plants would soon make electricity "too cheap to meter.")

    2) Google is not really equivalent to Isaac Asimov's Multivac, but it is a recognizable approximation. You do type in questions... in natural language if you like, Google is smart enough to ignore the extra words!--and it does draw on a huge worldwide base of human knowledge and present "answers" in direct, human readable form.

    3) Flat TV you can hang on a wall. For a good five decades, Popular Science and the like were trumpeting invention after invention that was going to make it possible to have "flat TV you can hang on a wall." (One was a very shallow CRT, only a few inches deep, with an electron gun that fired in from the side and electromagnetic fields that deflected the beam toward the phosphor...) This hung fire for so long I thought I would never see it in my lifetime.

    1. Re:Some "futures" that DID come to pass by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Interesting

      4) High density solid state storage: 8 gigs on a SD card the size of my thumbnail

      5) Mobile phones. Talk to anyone from just about anywhere, whenever you want

      6) LED lighting. Christmas lights this year were totally over the top. The lights you can attach to your person or your home are no longer limited by light globe technology or cost

      re 2) The web really goes beyond anything projected for IT in the past. Few writers envisaged a situation where anybody could publish pretty much any media from pretty much anywhere and have any other person access it. Consider teenagers and myspace as a simple example. The forecasts from 1950 talked about ordering more milk from the supermarket computer, but nothing as emergent as what we have today.

    2. Re:Some "futures" that DID come to pass by dpbsmith · · Score: 1

      "2) The web really goes beyond anything projected for IT in the past. Few writers envisaged a situation where anybody could publish pretty much any media from pretty much anywhere and have any other person access it. Consider teenagers and myspace as a simple example. The forecasts from 1950 talked about ordering more milk from the supermarket computer, but nothing as emergent as what we have today."

      I think H. G. Wells' 1938 book World Brain had a few flashes of partial anticipation of the Internet in general, and Wikipedia in particular. It was indeed a proposal for a distributed global encyclopedia project in which the encyclopedists, at least, could "publish pretty much any media from pretty much anywhere and have any other person access it."

      However, it was conceived of as a dignified, high-minded intellectual enterprise. (Much as early writers heralded Edison's invention of the phonograph as something that would preserve and propagate the great speeches of statesmen, and bring grand opera to the masses...)

    3. Re:Some "futures" that DID come to pass by jonwil · · Score: 1

      Ironically being able to order groceries from home and have them home delivered is one of the things that the internet is still yet to do in a way that replaces the alternatives.

    4. Re:Some "futures" that DID come to pass by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Yeah its a bit like the flying cars. Trying to solve problems with solutions which sound cool but which don't really make sense in the real world.

    5. Re:Some "futures" that DID come to pass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ... Google is smart enough to ignore the extra words!

      Google ignoring "extra" words is a pain in the ass. The advanced search doesn't seem to fix this. Anybody know of the best search engines out there that won't second guess a search string?

    6. Re:Some "futures" that DID come to pass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> ...Google is smart enough to ignore the extra words!...

      Yeah, and sometimes google ignores the important words, or changes their case, or changes their spelling. REAL f**king handy, that is.

    7. Re:Some "futures" that DID come to pass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  47. Re:We are Borg. Resistance is futile ! by Nocterro · · Score: 1

    Why go to such lengths as nano-tech? Contact lenses, man! (Credit to Rainbows End, by Vernor Vinge)

    --
    [clever sig]
  48. Re:They've mastered teleportation.... sorta by jcaldwel · · Score: 1

    Or Godzilla! That would be fun!

  49. A Vast Virtual World by nilbog · · Score: 1

    I agree that we will probably see at some point a virtual world overlaid on the real one. You will wear something that let's you see the virtual layer, and by so doing allow the virtual layer to see you. People will be able to walk through the city from their computers (or whatever they have) and interact with other virtual people or with real life people who are wearing the device that lets them see the virtual world.

    Everybody will absolutely be connected to everything at all times. You think the cell phone is neat? You think it's cool that I can hop on my phone and access the internet? This is only the beginning. Connectivity will become as ubiquitous as air. Information that is at our fingertips today will be readily and instantly accessible by our brains in the future.

    If we don't blow ourselves up by then.

    --
    or else!
  50. Trends change by nido · · Score: 1

    None of these points is really arguable. Except that trends to change, and often rather suddenly.

    For example, the United States is now entering the most severe recession since the Great Depression. Hispanics migrants never really wanted to leave their home countries; economic necessity made them head north. Due to the recession there's less work, they're sending less money home, and a few have started heading back to where they came from.

    Mexicans sending less money home, studies find
    More indications that money flow slowing to Mexico
    Mexicans Miss Money From Relatives Up North: "Like Mr. Rivera, some of the men who went to work in the United States illegally have returned discouraged. And less work means less money to send home -- particularly from the southern United States and other areas where Mexican migrants are a more recent presence."

    You're right about the military being 'a small shadow of its former self', though.
    --
    Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
    www.teslabox.com
    1. Re:Trends change by LaughingCoder · · Score: 1

      You are correct that trends change. However, the trends I cited all have persisted for decades. The military is in a 60 year decline (both in cost as a percent of GDP and enlistment as a percent of population). As regards the possibility that a recession will reduce Latino immigration, the source I cited shows a dramatically higher birthrate among Latinos in the US which, even without immigration, will quickly expand the Spanish-speaking portion of the population. I do not know if one projects the birthrates out 100 years what the mix will be, but I would not be surprised if, still, Spanish-speaking people were the majority a century from now.

      --
      The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
    2. Re:Trends change by j79zlr · · Score: 1

      You left out the word "housing" in your alarmist "most severe recession since the Great Depression" comment. All housing is doing is recorrecting. It doesn't matter much when housing, which was artificially rising because of cheap money, is falling back to reality. This is much less of a bubble bursting than the dot com bubble and the recession we were facing 7 years ago. The subprime mortgages account for about half of one percent of total mortgages. Housing accounts for about five percent of our total economy. This "most severe recession since the Great Depression" accounts for at most one tenth of one percent of our economy.

      --
      I'm not not licking toads.
    3. Re:Trends change by nido · · Score: 1
      You are correct that the page I linked to was about housing. The previous page in the same blog's feed concluded with these lines:

      It is thus pretty clear that the balance of the macro and financial news is strongly bearish. Thus, the most likely scenario is one of a serious US recession in 2008; the main issue now is not whether we will have a recession or not but rather how mild or severe such a recession will be.

      The Latest Macro and Financial News Strongly Signal Recession Ahead(emphasis added)


      The housing bubble is much, much worse than the dot-com bubble, because a lot more people own a house than owned tech stocks. Millions of people are underwater on their houses, even those with stellar credit. And some of those 'prime' borrowers are starting to walk away from their homes.

      Anyhow, thanks for holding my feet to the fire - that was sloppy, and I'm supposed to do better.
      --
      Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
      www.teslabox.com
    4. Re:Trends change by tricorn · · Score: 1

      Spending as a percent of GDP and enlistment as a percent of population are both useless statistics when claiming that the military is "in decline". My food costs and the number of siblings and parents I have are also "in decline" by that standard (and none of them have died, and I'm not starving).

    5. Re:Trends change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can you claim the military is a shadow of itself? I contend that the military is as strong as it ever was. Today we have a large portion of our military budget being spent on work done by independent contractors. In fact, a lot of military technology is being developed privately and this is a good thing. This allows the military to focus on what it does best, protect our country and train soldiers in the best way it knows how.

      With all the new technology making its way into the military they can do more with a lot less people in harms way and I think that's a very good thing.

    6. Re:Trends change by j79zlr · · Score: 1

      Yes many more people own homes than tech stocks, yet many people are also long in the housing market. Unless the market continues on a downtrend for say oh another five years and it wont, this is nothing but a blip. Overall home prices are still up around 20 percent from five or so years ago, they just aren't increasing at a 50 percent per year rate, which everyone knew couldn't continue. There are three groups really affected by this: those who bought a home way outside of their budget via a bad ARM; those who were speculators; those who were forced to move in the middle of this, e.g. job relocation. It really is not as bad as everyone is making it out to be. Six months to a year and it will begin to turn around. Builders over saturated the market, simple supply and demand.

      --
      I'm not not licking toads.
  51. No ads and all on one page by ebs16 · · Score: 1

    Kudos for linking to the printer version...

  52. Hammer is the greatest tool -- EVER! by denzacar · · Score: 0, Troll

    Other than KIM HASTREITER (Co-founder and co-editor of Paper magazine) who is just fuckin' around, CAROL WILLIS (Founder and director of the Skyscraper Museum; curator of the exhibition "Future City") who is showing some common sense, KATE KAPLAN (Seventh grader, School of the Future, a New York City public school near Gramercy Park) who actually has some intriguing ideas (Portable chip toilets? How would that work?) - other predictions are just a case of "Have hammer - will nail everything."

    PAUL NURSE (President of Rockefeller University) is also nailing things with his hammer but at least he is using some common sense not to nail jello to the wall.

    Only rich will live in New York? Who will serve them? Robots? Then how come there are poor if robots do our work?
    And if you think that the point of being served is to get things handed to you so you don't have to get up...
    Serving is about commanding other humans.
    Robot that says "How high Sir?" when you tell it to jump just ain't all that fun.

    $200-300 barrels of oil? Conservative...
    Wasn't there some mention of about only 50 more years of oil? And with dollar going so far down... Why not $200.000-300.000 a barrel?
    Detaching oil from dollars and all those dollar bills in the world used by countries solely to trade for oil "coming back home" - what else besides guns in people's faces will make them use your printed paper instead of someone else's to trade in valuables?
    Now... Germans seem to have learned their lesson in forcing the world to do stuff they want of it - by using guns.
    It took them only 2 world wars and 40 years of the country divided by other people's cold war.

    So far, Americans don't seem to be catching on.
    I sure do hope that they do. And soon. Or we all as a species might be fucked.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  53. NYC in 100 years will be similar but different by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 3, Interesting
    It will still be a huge city, but a much poorer city. Think something more like Rio or Lagos. there will be very rich areas, but many incredibley poor areas. The sky scrapers will be largely empty, as no one is willing to climb more than 10 stories. The trains will have stopped running some 10 years earlier. The exurbs in Jersey were plowed back into farmland in the 2070s, and the Satellite cities are filled with industrial mire. Many of the residents will have left to Pennsylvania and Maryland and New Jersey to engage as farmers. The natural gas gave out decades ago, so heating is done with wood and what little coal is left. There is some electricity that comes from some few solar panels and a light water breeder reactor (one of the few that was built before the collapse and depression of the 2020s and 2030s). America pissed its wealth away on bullshit back in the late 20th and early 21st century, and in the 22nd century it no longer has the resources to feed itself much less build gyroscopic trains.

    This doesn't mean disaster - it just means "poorer" by our standards. People will still live rich colourful lives. But they'll do it on 2000 calories a day, if that.

    RS

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    1. Re:NYC in 100 years will be similar but different by Latinhypercube · · Score: 1

      Word. This is the closest to the real future I have read.

    2. Re:NYC in 100 years will be similar but different by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 1
      Thanks. Too bad the techno-fix blinkered mods here rated me flamebait. Too many people here think technology is everything. IT's important, but it's transient, ad it's that transience that freaks them out, so when some one says "the emperor has no clothes" they get moded flamebait or overrated or something equally nasty. Too bad. A sure sign of group think.

      RS

      --
      Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    3. Re:NYC in 100 years will be similar but different by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've bookmarked your post for the next time I get mod points. +1 insightful from me.

    4. Re:NYC in 100 years will be similar but different by owlstead · · Score: 1

      Calories? You think *calories* are the problem? Healthy food is the problem. Calories are wide and rich. Fortunately, we'll have plenty of pills to choose from, lets hope they contain the spectrum we really need, and that they will be accepted by our bodies at the right time.

    5. Re:NYC in 100 years will be similar but different by milatchi · · Score: 0

      Yeah, Slashdot has been this way for a few years. If you don't spread FUD, participate in unwarranted Microsoft bashing, worship Apple/Steve Jobs, praise Linux, and claim that being a Libertarian will instantly solve all political probelms you are modded troll or flamebait on Slashdot. It's almost as if society's drastic political correctness and seeming decline is mirrored on Slashdot.

      --
      Slashdot = -1 Redundant, Asperger, kdawson FUD, Libertarian, and Linux
    6. Re:NYC in 100 years will be similar but different by JBaustian · · Score: 1

      Unless the politicians screw it up, NYC will always be a place too expensive for really poor people to live. Yes, for a couple decades various state and municipal governments made it easier for folks to live on the dole in rat-infested tenements, but property is too valuable to allow this in the future.

  54. Re:We are Borg. Resistance is futile ! by grumling · · Score: 1

    And that will piss us all off enough to construct a giant cube shaped ship and destroy (oops, I mean assimilate) other cultures and planets.

    --
    "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
  55. Jim Cramer is a lunatic, but probably right by acvh · · Score: 5, Funny

    The big NYC financial houses are already selling themselves to Arab and Chinese investors. This trend will continue. NYC will become a UN of finance, a place where the various world financial powers can meet and make deals. There will be no middle class in NYC. The population will be the uber-wealthy and the low paid service workers they employ. America will still be the place where the rest of the world sells their stuff, but they won't be selling it for US dollars. Americans will be on the dole or working in foreign owned sweatshops, and buying shit on credit. You won't retire, you'll work till you die, if you work at all.

    Ex-president Chelsea Clinton's granddaughter will be running for president against a Saudi prince whose last name is Bush. American Idol will still have more voters and generate more interest than the presidential election. Canada and Mexico will complain about US citizens illegaly immigrating to their countries.

    The New England Patriots will be working on a 1900 game winning streak, and Bill Belichek's head will be in a jar on the sidelines. Athletes will be grown in axoltl tanks. A new Slashdot ID will be a very large number. Windows 2108 will be late, bloated and buggy. The Linux kernel will still be licensed as GPL v2, and will be at version 2.6.something.

    Apple will issue an update to the iPhone that breaks the hacks that let people install third party applications. Time Machine will let you restore files you haven't created yet. My iMac will be getting its 2000th logic board replacement.

    This post will have been moderated into oblivion, but my clone will still think it was funny.

    1. Re:Jim Cramer is a lunatic, but probably right by j-pimp · · Score: 1

      Ex-president Chelsea Clinton's granddaughter will be running for president against a Saudi prince whose last name is Bush. American Idol will still have more voters and generate more interest than the presidential election. Canada and Mexico will complain about US citizens illegaly immigrating to their countries.

      Actually, Chelsea Clinton's granddaughter might be a Saudi Princess thats also part Mexican. While things do come full circle, there is a bit of entanglement along the way. Remember that Carter was our Evangelical Christian President. Once global warming becomes tangible, the right will do something about it. Also expect the republican party to take a strong stand on states rights, once a middle eastern owned New York starts imperializing the other states.

      Also, don't forget that once we are no longer number one a few things will happen. First, we will take Canada down with us. The three North American Countries will reach equilibrium. India will become a super power, and due to their proximity with China, will have a large trouble keeping their wars cold.

      Take into account that all these rich Arab Merchants will want to get the hell out of Arabia once the oil runs out. Some will come to NY, and the rest will go to India and East Asia, reheating up Muslim/Hindu tensions.

      --
      --- Justin Dearing http://www.justaprogrammer.net/ We're just programmers.
  56. Re:They've mastered teleportation.... sorta by jacquesm · · Score: 1

    no, I'm going to 'help' them a bit and get them kicked off minicity. The weak point is they give us a link... so the beneficiary is known, even if not by name. It seems they're desperate to get some traffic to those links, ok, I'm game.

  57. Don't universally agree. by Junta · · Score: 1

    everyone's eyes will be implanted with tiny displays While I agree that ubiquitous HUD is not an unlikely thing, I personally doubt implantation would be the path. If you can implant it, I would wager a more popular and equally effective method would be contact lens display or glasses. The only possible advantage of implantation would be greater flexibility with respect to power delivery, but power consumption/storage technology would probably make it a moot concern, with lenses charging quickly for up to many-day concurrent usage.

    I also doubt you'd be looking at any newspaper if technology were at that level (it's already getting fairly rare where I live). That sort of prediction reminds me of the person who creating an automobile that looked like a carriage, complete with a fake horse head thinking of using technology to advance something not overly different to today.. I also wonder about the necessary intervention between the senses and reality that would be required for real time audio conversations, I think it more likely that two people coming face to face without a common language would use some sort of text input to converse, but I wonder to what extent the possibility of no absolutely ubiquitous language would still be there.

    They will be heroes because people will recognize how sanitation workers are keeping the city alive. I doubt sanitation workers would be recognized as heroes, despite the fact that reality will match what was described (reuse to the nth degree). I don't know if an archaeological dig would be seen as informative about their past (our current age). After all, in our age, we don't need to resort to such methods to understand the world of the 1800s, and our record keeping is as meticulous as it ever were. I know about the Ford Model-T, without ever having seen one in person, I know about the emergence of repeat-fire rifles in the 1860s, that the weapons commonly in use in the 1700s were not rifled. I know about the beginnings of heavier-than-air flight in the early 20th century. Archeology doesn't come into play until record/artifact keeping is poor or inhibited by the collapse of a civilization. To say they will study our current age through archaeological means to me implies a really dramatically bad set of circumstances between now and then.

    Mostly they keep to realistic projections, a lot of dystopian features abound, and it's hard to say without knowing the external forces whether the optimists or pessimists will be right.

    I think the seventh grader is the most insightful (well, except the Jetson's style toilet..) "The Empire State Building will no longer be New York's largest building; it will probably be replaced by a giant Starbucks." Yeah, that about sums it up...

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    1. Re:Don't universally agree. by grumbel · · Score: 1

      ### While I agree that ubiquitous HUD is not an unlikely thing, I personally doubt implantation would be the path. If you can implant it, I would wager a more popular and equally effective method would be contact lens display or glasses.

      People already fix their eyes by laser today so that they don't have to wear glasses anymore. So I doubt that glasses will be very popular by 2108 when there is an easy way to do an implant instead. By then however I am not so sure if a HUD will even be needed. What about a direct-to-brain interface? Human brain seem to be pretty adoptable, so what happens when you take a child and stick another sensory input to its brain? Will its brain learn to handle it? Be able to access the Internet or whatever directly without making a trip through the eyeball?

      Overall I think implants will play a major role in human 'evolution', we are at a point where we can replace quite a few parts in the body. We are not yet past the point where they can perform better then the original, but we aren't far away either. And since many people don't seem to have a problem with useless implants (see breast-implants, tattoos, piercings, etc.) I bet they will become quite popular, when they don't only enhance the look, but also function for something. This isn't even a 2108 thing, I wouldn't be supprised seeing it in the next 10 or 20 years.

    2. Re:Don't universally agree. by Junta · · Score: 1

      I think laser eye corrective surgery is a tad different from having a display implanted into your eye. And a far cry from surgical or other means to modify neurology for the sake of interacting with technology. Point taken that people don't find glasses/contacts convenient as they exist today, but biotech may make contact lenses that can be worn for an indefinite period of time (during sleep, less likely to come out, generally more chemically cooperative with the eye). I would guess that would happen before society got anywhere near technologically ready for surgical optical augmentation, or the more severe methods you mention. If you can seamlessly inject data visually, tactilely, aurally, as well as taste/smell at arbitrarily high levels of detail, what's left that our minds are proven capable of grasping? Two motivations I see to this are general discomfort with invasive procedures, and the inability to disconnect without assistance. Who doesn't on occasion intentionally leave their mobile phone in the car when going in somewhere? What if you couldn't honestly claim that you had no power to your devices, or that you left them behind? I know consciously you could achieve the same effect without actually physically leaving it behind, but psychologically, it hasn't panned out that way yet despite the glaringly obvious technical means to cope.

      I don't think many people are eager to get their brain rewired to interact more quickly with technology. Even as surgical procedures become safer and less intrusive, I still see it as being mostly relegated to medical reasons with the exceptions that would fall in line with cosmetic surgery of today. Of the people I know, only one in discussions we've had has said 'oh yeah, hook me up', while the rest don't see how much more can be gained that can't be done using our existing senses and physical capabilities. Theoretical capabilities to process data beyond what can be abstracted to our senses aren't exactly things that can be grasped (our minds have never had such an opportunity, thus describing/imagining at least to me boils down to terms of life experience). If we cannot imagine perception beyond our sensory inputs (even telepathy boils down to visual images and hearing when imagined), then why muck around with our neurology when we can front end everything through our existing senses.

      I know a lot of people steer cleer of tatoos, implants, and piercings, so it's not like saying those things are universally accepted (I know more people without any of those things than with, even including the not uncommon ear piercing). The common piercings and tatoos don't modify anything deeper than the skin, and from the beginning of time people have not been overly concerned with risks to that organ, so it's not like technological advancement can take credit for people willing to mess with their skin. I don't know personally a single person who has opted for more invasive cosmetic surgery. Though in certain circles it may not be uncommon (marketedly entertainment, for obvious reasons), and those circles are so blatant it may seem that cosmetic surgery is more ubiquitous than it is, I think cosmetic surgery is still not something most people are totally comfortable with.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    3. Re:Don't universally agree. by grumbel · · Score: 1

      I think this really is just a matter of generation change. Sure, today we will feel discomfort with sticking something to our brain, but what will the next generation think of it or the generation after that? At the beginning it will of course only be the freaks that do it, but over time things might get safer and cheaper and more and more common place. Sooner or later the freaks are those who don't do it, not the other way around.

      ### I don't know personally a single person who has opted for more invasive cosmetic surgery.

      Neither do I, but that seems to be in large part an issue of lack of money and possible benefit. If a job requires it, things can look quite different very quickly.

      And also lets not forget those peoples with disabilities, if you already lost your arm, eye or leg, there is a lot of benefit replacing the already missing piece with an enhanced implant.

      The change will for sure not happen over night, but the moment you can build those implants there will be people willing to implement them.

    4. Re:Don't universally agree. by ultranova · · Score: 1

      I know about the Ford Model-T, without ever having seen one in person, I know about the emergence of repeat-fire rifles in the 1860s, that the weapons commonly in use in the 1700s were not rifled.

      But do you know about the alien invasion of 1901, repelled by President McKinley, who dueled and singlehandedly killed the Head Tentacle but was shot by a tentacle sympthasizer Leon Czolgoz ? I didn't think so.

      Seriously, listing a few things you know about life and events a century past in no way proves or even suggests that there isn't something very important you don't know about them.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  58. It all depends on energy by Animats · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If we don't find a new energy source to replace fossil fuels, industrial civilization won't last another century.

    Since the Industrial Revolution, there's been a new major power source at least once every fifty years. Until the last fifty.

    Think about it. In 1800, everything was human or animal powered, except for a windmill or waterwheel here and there, and a few wood-burning Newcomen steam engines pumping away. By 1850, the European countries and the United States had substantial railroad systems, and coal and steam powered factories. By 1900, most major cities had electric lights and street cars, and gasoline engine powered cars were starting to appear. By 1950, petroleum powered everything mobile, gas turbines powered aircraft, and nuclear power was just starting to work.

    So what do we have now that we didn't have fifty years ago? Solar cells were demonstrated in 1954. The first commercial nuclear reactor started up in December 1957. Sputnik I had been launched. Megawatt-scale windmills had been tried (1941), but weren't worth the trouble in an era of cheap oil. Oil had been found in the Middle East. Natural gas was being moved through long pipelines. Even ethanol from corn had been tried. Every major energy source we have today was working in 1957. Nothing new and big enough to matter has come along since.

    In the 1970s, there was hope that Government spending via the Department of Energy would yield something. Didn't work. In the 1980s, there was hope that the free market would yield some solution. Didn't happen.

    What's actually happening is that all the old ideas that used to be too expensive are now competitive with oil. There's oil from tar sands. Deep offshore drilling. Ethanol from corn. Wind farms. Solar panels. At $100/bbl, these all look good. But energy is expensive from here on.

    1. Re:It all depends on energy by Pogdranaut · · Score: 1

      Think about it. In 1800, everything was human or animal powered, except for a windmill or waterwheel here and there, and a few wood-burning Newcomen steam engines pumping away. Wrong by about a century. The Newcomen engine was invtented in 1713, and by 1800 was well and truly established. It also ran on coal not wood. James Watts, who made massive improvements to the steam engine, actually retired in 1800.
  59. Asia not a problem, To many young /. is by RandomU · · Score: 1

    I keep seeing people claiming that China will own everything, Or all the cultural center will move to China, In this thread. As an old timer, I was hearing the same thing in the 80's but instead of China it was Japan. The same shrieks of fear of the yellow peril were cried. Americans business was told to learn Japanese. Books on how to emulate the successful Japanese companies were all the rage. People were terrified that the Japanese were buying up all are assets. No I am not making this up. Just watch some of the movies from that time and look at the setting or back drop "Rising Sun", "Die Hard","Gung Ho" to name a few. 1/3 of Shadowrun and RPG that was developed in that time period has Japanese takeover of Corporate America as a major back drop. Everyone was afraid in the 80's that Japan would own everything by the year 2000. (OK they own the Manga and cute Catgirl Market here). The reality is quite a bit different. I predict in 2107 that we will be running around talking about how the Martian colonies are buying everything, and soon we will be just a little backwater country with everything owned by them damn Mars Colonists.

  60. Re:We are Borg. Resistance is futile ! by pravuil · · Score: 1

    You bring up a good point. Nanobot Enlargement Spam...

  61. yep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "seems like progress started to pass the USA by about 30 years ago"..yep, exactly the time period we let the black suited ferengi mercenaries who infest their vulture lairs in the above linked "New York City" high rise cliffs hijack the economy for their purposes. They sold "globalisation" as a pipe dream, a con, a hustle, and it worked-for them. Their entire business model revolves around foreigners doing all the work, yet only getting a pittance for themselves, and somehow this would be sustainable? How long is that viable before these foreigners decide they can keep all the fruits of their labors or trade them for something more substantial then digitally created electrons in a data base table? The answer is "now", right now, this second, year 2008 will be the great unraveling. It's started now, the prologue anyway, they are in panic mode, their only option is to keep dropping zeroes on the ends of digits in how much "money" they say they have. The best thing that could happen for the US right now is to kick NYC out of the union and go back to fair trade, and a balanced and well diversified economy, not their scam "free" trade. They sold off the entire carefully built up manufacturing infrastructure for short range profits and offered everyone "debt" disguised as credit and "paper financial products" which is even beyond an oxymoron, as most of those don't even come in cheap paper form. Useless.

      Now that this roadkill they made is about picked clean, they'll be moving on to other carcasses. They couldn't care less about everyone else in the US, so why should we care about them or their total exploitative parasitic "culture"?

    1. Re:yep by Boronx · · Score: 1

      Now that this roadkill they made is about picked clean, they'll be moving on to other carcasses. They couldn't care less about everyone else in the US, so why should we care about them or their total exploitative parasitic "culture"?

      Exactly. Your first paragraph made it sound like they were going down with the ship they helped to sink, but these guys don't care for America more than any other place, and aren't tied to it anymore than a flea is tied to a dead dog.

      But this story is as old as time: work hard, build up some wealth, then some asshole comes along and takes it, and you should be thankful he doesn't kill you and rape your wife for his trouble.

  62. The real difference between 1908 and 2008 ... by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is unabated pessimism.

    In 1908, the sky seemed the limit and the predictions tended to focus on new, marvelous machines and how they would make life better for all.

    In 2008, it's not so much about the technology or science but about how so few are wealthy and the general feeling is that we are on the edge of a long hard decline. The only upshot beeing that we'll somehow continue to have cutting edge tech.

    Is it just me or are people genuinely very worried, frightened and so deeply unhappy with world affairs to the point that they think it's just crap from here on out and we should welcome an age of mechanized oppression?

    To say no US Citizen would be able to afford to live in NYC while Oil Barons owned entire burroughs is complete and utter BS in my book.
    It reeks of weakness and apathy. The same weakness and apathy that brings us all the people who whine and cry about Bush and his administration yet fail to do anything about it. The same weakness and apathy that has Americans crying about Global Warming, but they all shut their faces about it when they go home to waste several hundred kilowatts watching Survivor and American Idol.

    This was supposed to be a dreamy piece, about "what if" and where "anything" could happen. What do we get? Hit over the head with "FAIL FAIL FAIL" again and again throughout the article. Not one prediciton was positive, each was somehow foreseeing a darker future where we are all worse off except the monied elite. From these predictions, it seems people have given up and the future they are grateful to accept is one where Asia leads and we just consume their tech and get whatever kind of living they give us.

    Pretty sad if you ask me.

    1. Re:The real difference between 1908 and 2008 ... by kawdyr · · Score: 1

      To add to a good point, I feel like the pessimists among us overstate the magnitude of the present day problems. Weren't the problems of the 20th century a lot worse? Tens of MILLIONS of people died in world wars that accomplished nothing. Regimes ruling sizable chunks of the world oppressed their own populaces and killed millions more. We lived with a daily threat of nuclear strikes and nuclear retaliation. Environmental damage, pollution, and resource utilization were widely ignored.

      This stuff is not over but we have made and are making traction. Our quality of life is out-of-control-better than it was 100 years ago - kings would have given their throne to live a modest 21st century lifestyle. It's hard to understand how we can be so pessimistic when our elders were so optimistic in the face of so much death and loss and insanity.

    2. Re:The real difference between 1908 and 2008 ... by captainwisdom · · Score: 1

      Right on l0ungeb0y. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has wondered why almost all movie and book futures (as well as the dreamy piece) are so bleak. It's so obvious that we are far better off in 2008 compared to 1908, 1808, 1708 etc. I can only conclude weakness and self-fear that manifests as pessimism and bleakness. A bunch of self-important lightweights. And a disproportionate amount of these personality types are writing the books and making the movies which helps to shape popular culture. What a shame. By my calculations the US GDP will be 250 trillion in 100 years (assuming 3% growth). If you can't build a happy culture with 250 trillion shame on you. You don't deserve to be happy...

    3. Re:The real difference between 1908 and 2008 ... by wkitchen · · Score: 1

      That's an excellent observation.

      Perhaps, rather than prognosticating about what kind of future we expect, it would be more useful to contemplate what kind of future we want. We are not powerless. We may individually control only a very small part, but collectively, the future is, with the exception of physical laws and natural phenomena, entirely the product of our decisions and actions. The future is not something that just happens to us.

      The future is ours to create. And the sky is no limit.

    4. Re:The real difference between 1908 and 2008 ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      l0ungeb0y, brilliant analysis of things the article that were exemplified but only felt viscerally. Future outlook is indeed clouded by a glum state of current events.

  63. Long lines... by dacut · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... at computer stores as people wait to purchase the first copies of Duke Nukem Forever.

  64. Plenty of pessimism... by Junta · · Score: 1

    There was a common theme of 'global warming will destroy NYC'. There also was society losing all freedom for the sake of security, and pining for the days of freedom. There was even the prediction of the largest building being a Starbucks, for god's sake, how much more pessimism do you need.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  65. Re:They've mastered teleportation.... sorta by pravuil · · Score: 1

    Godzilla sounded fun to me :(

  66. oooh future predictions by partowel · · Score: 0

    Dec 23 2012

    Solar Flare : ALL electronic systems on earth are destroyed.

    Nuclear facilities all over the world become nuclear disasters.

    War, Famine, Plague, and Death once again crush humanity under its feet.

    Humanity in the year 2100 is barely alive. ALL knowledge has been destroyed.

    ALL technology except the most basic [ like hammers ] is destroyed or forgotten.

    Humanity has paid the price for its arrogance and pride. Hedonism and materialism have

    successfully destroyed the people of the 21st Century. Not that anyone knows what year

    it is anymore.

    Mutant lifeforms are taking over the earth. Some mutated homosapiens are becoming dominant.

    Other mutated species are gaining more intelligence. Homosapiens are no longer the

    "dominant" species.

    City of the future is a joke. There are NO cities. The population of the human race is under 100 000.

    The few females/males that can reproduce are rare.

    Goodbye humanity. You had your time. Looks like your idol called "money" has failed you again.

    Your worship of HUMAN has destroyed you. Have a nice day.

    bwah hah hah hah.

    1. Re:oooh future predictions by Boronx · · Score: 1

      You wish!

  67. Sounds like a Sylvester Stallone movie to me... by pravuil · · Score: 1

    If they had the 3 seashells, even your bleak future wouldn't be all that bad. Oh yeah, and Taco Bell wins the war.

  68. Re:They've mastered teleportation.... sorta by jacquesm · · Score: 1

    kinda hard without a physical location, but yes, I agree with you that would be a nicer solution alltogether.

  69. ready by jacquesm · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Ok, myminicity .com assholes. Playtime is over.

    I've really had it with the myminicity.com crowd, and to put a stop to this nonsense I've set up a little website.

    Stop posting your myminicity links here and elsewhere, if myminicity.com wants to grow they can surely find a way to do it without inconveniencing others.

    If you don't then I'm calling on the rest of the audience here to report those links to the site above and if they want to help a little further to place a 1 pixel image tag on their website which will give the myminicity .com people hopefully more traffic than they were bargaining for.

    For starters I've placed a tag on the http://ww.com/ homepage, feel free to come and help.

    This is just another spam wave and if this doesn't get stopped now then it will be seen as a vindication of the principle and before long there will be 100's of sites doing this.

    Rewarding your users for bad behaviour has to be one of the most annoying marketing tactics that has ever been devised.

  70. Re:We are Borg. Resistance is futile ! by pravuil · · Score: 1

    IMHO, the nanobots will only work for a certain type of mentalities. Most of them will go insane, harm themselves or other people because they won't be able to handle it. To manually control aspects of the body using the mind through nanobots means you have to change how the brain processes time and a persons relationship to their body as an object. Today's psychology is very limited. There is a lot of conflict concerning the validity and political motives behind the fields true effectiveness. Nanobubbles, I think that's what they are called, would be a better solution. It's simple, practical and much more realistic. They can contain medicine and can be deployed with extreme precision. It's been on one of those 2050 shows some time back. Nanomachines can be tricky and it will take years, maybe decades for anyone to create a realistic model that will be safe for general human use.

  71. At the rate of the ever expanding person... by tyrione · · Score: 1

    who the hell wants to be alive in 2108? People already are willing to f*** a hole in a stall with their eyes closed and not care whats on the other end, what makes you think they give two s***s about improving the general quality of life for Humanity, now let alone in the future?

  72. holy shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They've modernized the weather in that thar Shanghai!?
    we've got some catching up to do :/

  73. "Imaginary" Property. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why imagine a future city when one can build it using game engines like Oblivion

  74. Fresh Kills a tourist attraction? by bainer · · Score: 1

    Unless they put all the garbage out to sea on a barge, or maybe send it into space on a rocket from the Mafia.

  75. Sheeesh! by denzacar · · Score: 1

    What? You didn't like MY vision of the future but Saudi Arabian New York and underwater New York are OK?
    Or the feudal New York where dance is the king?

    Or did my guess strike too close to home?
    I did base it on current economic and global trends.
    Dollar going down, oil running out, US military spending gajilions of dollars on projects like that energy satellite or MF-in lasers on the MF-in planes.
    Yeah... a regular troll-fest there.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  76. Is this the 1st of april? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean, where are the Duke Nukem forever-jokes?

    Yeah yeah, I know it's actually moving along now; damn those developers killing off our beloved memes.

  77. Multiple Midtowns and fewer cars by Phoenix666 · · Score: 1

    The first big change will be devolution from Manhattan-centricity. No one in the city or state has the political will to upgrade public transportation to accommodate the jump in ridership to work in Manhattan, so people will look to work closer to home. The devolution has already begun, with Jersey City in the lead (yes, technically not part of NYC, but for all practical intents and purposes it is), with Brooklyn not far behind it, and with Queens (Long-Island City) bringing up the rear.

    The second big change will see the decline of automobile use in the city. Bikes will reclaim lanes, and pedestrian-only areas will be created in locations like Times Square, Midtown-east, Herald's Square, and around the WTC site. Also, tolls on the bridges and tunnels and reduction of parking opportunities will make it too expensive and inconvenient for 90% of car commuters.

    The third big change will be an overall increase in greenery in the form of trees, planters, and green roofs. They'll be implemented to reduce energy usage and improve air quality, and consequently bring down the sky-high asthma rates for children in the city.

    --
    Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
  78. Cars Still Won't Fly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cars.

    Still.

    Won't.

    Fly.

    Bills will still take 2 decades to pass, and my decendants will all be working blue collar jobs.
    Oh wait, I won't have any. I don't have a wife, and I don't get laid! Fuck the future then.

  79. Funny.... by SoCalEd · · Score: 1

    None of them mentioned the imminent release of Duke Nukem Forever...

    --
    Insert witty comment *here*. I'm fresh out of wit...
  80. Jews were expelled from Catholic lands... by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    ... in a matter of a couple of generations.

    Palestinians were expelled and colonized in a matter of a few years.

    Jews were almost exterminated in Europe in less than a decade.

    Native Americans in all the American continent were obliterated in 5 generations or less.

    Lots of things can happen in 100 years.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  81. Re:We are Borg. Resistance is futile ! by CriX · · Score: 1

    Bwahaha! I never thought about it but yes, the Borg will most likely be born from angry /. readers of the future.

    --
    Moderation: +1 pwnage
  82. A century from when? by cybergrunt69 · · Score: 1

    Try to imagine a city of the future? A century from now, or a few years from now - either way it doesn't really matter, we won't be here to see it. According to the all-knowing Nostradamus, the Mayan calendar, etc, the world is going to end by Dec 21, 2012.

    See http://www.2012endofdays.org/general/Predictions-for-2012.php

    People are doing their best to make sure that we ruin whatever natural resources we set our grubby little hands on. So even if the world doesn't implode in 2012, there won't be much left to enjoy. Think of the Matrix-esque "Desert of the Real."

    --
    --- "To ignore race and sex is racist and sexist!" -- Jesse Jackson