Slashdot Mirror
Sci-Fi Writers of the Past Predict Life In 2012
cylonlover writes "As part of the L, Ron Hubbard Writers of the Future award in 1987, a group of science fiction luminaries put together a text 'time capsule' of their predictions about life in the far off year of 2012. Including such names as Orson Scott Card, Robert Silverberg, Jack Williamson, Algis Budrys and Frederik Pohl, it gives us an interesting glimpse into how those living in the age before smartphones, tablets, Wi-Fi and on-demand streaming episodes of Community thought the future might turn out."
I wonder if this is any more accurate than their predictions of the years 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, or 2010
In three years we will all have hoverboards!
They all missed that scientists would build a worldwide, high speed network for the reliable transmission of pornography to all corners of the planet, from Communist China, to the Soviet Union to the Arab world.
So what does Gregory Benford like to drink then?
Oh arse
They probably didn't expect that people could entertain themselves with posting:
FIRST POST !
This is vaguely interesting, but imo, near-term predictions of technological development aren't really what you go to sci-fi for. If you really want an accurate prediction 15 years out, there are more qualified but generally less exciting people to get it from than sci-fi authors: that's near enough that you really just need people with a good amount of historical knowledge, extensive information about current developments, and perhaps especially, accurate knowledge of current research progress, prospects, and bottlenecks. And a decent ability to synthesize and evaluate all those variables.
Sci-fi's strengths are, instead, more about what-if than what-is-likely. One kind is technological what-ifs, imagining (at least in hard sci-fi) conceptually plausible but not anywhere near buildable technologies and their results and implications; and ethical/political/etc. what-ifs, analyzing how future societies might operate (often in either dystopian or utopian visions).
At least, that's what I go to sci-fi for.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
No serious science fiction writer in their right mind seriously thinks they can accurately predict the future. The good science fiction writers merely use the future to explore the issues of the present and their implications (and perhaps offer admonishment, with a glimpse of what could go wrong if a particular path is followed).
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
No serious science fiction writer in their right mind seriously thinks they can accurately predict the future. The good science fiction writers merely use the future to explore the issues of the present and their implications (and perhaps offer admonishment, with a glimpse of what could go wrong if a particular path is followed).
I didn't get the impression that any of them seriously thought their predictions might be correct, but it's still an interesting read.
Curiously, in an article containing L. Ron Hubbard, your sig was the first mention of scientology!
Counting through the predictions I'd say 10-20% of those accurate with maybe 50% pointing to trends that may happen (and probably where started before 1987 anyway like credit cards leading the way for cashless society).
Pretty crappy performance really - and generally over-estimating the rate of progress. But I think that is well known phenomenon where people over-estimate progress over 10-30 years but substantially fall short on predictions for 50-100 years. Interesting paradox !!!
With a straight face?
Money trying to buy a reputation does not turn a crappy SF writer into a good one.
Hubbard likely never thought he could predict the future, but his followers certainly thought he could do that and more. Of course, they believe that Scientology can make the gay go away too.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Arthur C. Clark's 2001 A Space Odyssey predicted the iPad in 1968. He called it a "Newspad" and it connected to all major newspapers over the "ether". In the book, Heywood Floyd reads it on his way to the space station. In the movie, you can see Bowman and Poole watching the news on them during the first scenes on Discovery.
:wq
some do, but they just don't predict stupid things if they want to sound like they're predicting actual future.
for example, shouldn't it be obvious that it's easier to build a machine to win in chess than to write good books? yet that's what one of the guys(neverheard of him) predicted.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
While nobody can accurately predict the future, it's sometimes fun to try extrapolating where society will go based on our past/present and then see just how wrong we were.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Come on, Battlefield Earth was pretty good (though the movie was a lot better than the book).
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
I predict more of the same. I also predict that people 25 years from now will still be making inaccurate predictions.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
you sure you don't life in the fifties? or sixties? or seventies? or eighties? or nineties? or 00's?
that's exactly the prediction all those guys got wrong pretty much.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Wi-Fi Users of The Past - Get A Life In 2102
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0zt4opqL18
So, why read Sci-Fi when real-life in early 21st Century nearly beats the fiction?
Nah, I still like Sci-Fi, but these authors, Orson Scott Card, Robert Silverberg, Jack Williamson, Algis Budrys or Frederik Pohl did NOT predict the clueless.
Well, he is pretty popular -- his sci fi series has a devoted fan base who keep trying to introduce others to his prose...
Palm trees and 8
Yay! More geek angst. Who's awesome? You're awesome, emo kid!
Education: I hope you are wrong about less educated, but given how USiA has been so bad about eduction these last couple generations, i cant help but acknowledge you may be right, which saddens me. I do believe those who are educated will be MORE educated than we are, on the whole, it'll be more boob tubers.
"Where do you see yourself in 5 years?"
My usual answer is "I used to have a great answer for this, and then five years went by."
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
Forest Whitaker's finest film, if you ask me.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Whatever happens, I can predict one thing: the world tomorrow will be uglier, more crowded and less educated that the world today.
That's true, and one doesn't even have to touch upon the more controversial (not for me) things such as AGW.
For intance, there was a time when eating salmon and other large fish was unambiguously healthy. Not anymore: the concentration of mercury in the oceans (because of coal-fired plants) has been steadily increasing, and with it, mercury in the fish. Now you have to weight the pros and the cons of eating it.
Population has been steadily increasing as well.
And there is a clear trend of unethical business practices, quarter-to-quarter, short term thinking and screwing the customer.
Many more trends like these. Yes, it's getting worse.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Please, please, please tell me you are joking... I am an avid reader of science fiction from William Gibson/Neal Stephenson to Robert Heinlein/Isaac Asimov and around to John Varley and Spider Robinson. In my much younger years (call it late teens), I tried to read Battlefield Earth and then the Mission Earth series (I had the first 5 volumes in hard cover for some reason). I quit reading Battlefield after 60 or so pages. I quit reading the first book in the Mission Earth after 20 pages or so. I do not mind technical detail in my books but gah!, those books bored me to tears with their writing style and the details included. I love some good pulp fiction but those don't cut it. I was hoping for fantastic considering the series was 10 books. What I received instead was drivel and 4.9 unread volumes (5+ if you count Battlefield).
Oh, yeah, the movie was such a large pile of shit that we could fertilize the mid-west with it for 20 years or so. To be fair, I might give the books another go. It has been a while.
Dream as if you'll live forever.
Live as if you'll die tomorrow.
~Anonymous~
One has to admit that going by the fanaticism of his fandom, he beats out every modern writer.
...is where is my motherfucking flying car?
I've only read Ender's Game, so I'm not working from a big sample size, but as far as that one goes I thought it was superb, intelligent, insightful and subtle. He compares favourably with Asimov and Baxter as far as I'm concerned (although a bit soft to draw comparisons with Clarke).
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
I knew someone was gonna say that.
Karma: NaN
L Ron Hubbard was a popular SF writer before he went nuts. (Or more (or less?) charitably speaking, before he figured he could accumulate wealth and power by inventing a religion.) A lot of writers go a bit weird in their old age (more specifically a lot of people go weird in their old age, but authors are in a pretty good position to publicize their own weirdness) but very few manage to go so far as to taint everything they've done before. Heinlein, James P Hogan, Terry Goodkind, Orson Scott Card, they all went a bit off the deep end later, but you can still admit to liking their earlier stuff and recommend that other people check it out without shame. (Well, except maybe for Orson Scott Card. I'll admit to liking his old stuff, but i'd be hesitant to suggest anyone actually support him by paying money for any of his books, even the older ones.)
For L Ron Hubbard though, Scientology has overshadowed everything else he ever did.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
"While nobody can accurately predict the future,..."
When I read the news I even doubt that most people can predict the past.
Heck I don't even know we are in the end of cheap energy. Fracking seems to be giving us a real surge of cheap energy. At the same time solar efficiency as gone from 10 years output to 3.5 years output to build a panel. Which means its viable. Wind turbines now work really well so that technology can spread. Be careful with predictions we may very well have been through a trough of expensive energy.
As far as education.... the last decade has been bad. The last century has been amazing.
Can we invalidate some patents with prior art now?
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a reference to Godwin's Law approaches 1
Nonsense everyone is an agreement about what's good and what's bad about energy:
1) Cheap
2) Safe / Clean
3) Reliably priced / reliable availability
4) Domestic
Where there is disagreement is what to do about the tradeoffs between those 4 objectives. Not addressing legitimate concerns about safe / clean has created mistrust. The way to handle that is an effective outside audit i.e. regulation.
NOBODY in their right mind seriously thinks they can accurately predict the future. That said, it should be possible to extrapolate the future from present trends. A good sci-fi writer wouldn't have predicted flying cars because they're either so damn impractical or if possible engineering-wise indistinguishable from airplanes.
Reading near-future hard sci-fi, it's also important to keep in mind cultural and political differences. Heinlein's Libertarian vision of robber barons on the Moon differs markedly from Clarke's vision of continued government-sponsored space exploration, influenced no doubt by the British Empire's own exploratory conquests of the New World and Australia. Each is as likely or unlikely as the other. The decisive factor isn't technology but future political developments.
How do you figure they got it wrong?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
That prediction was of course WAY off the mark...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16409664
Seriously, sometimes you Americans do scare the living crap out of us rest-of-the-worlders..
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
You're on to something, but I think it's simply a case of chronological proximity bias. The problems we face today always *feel* like the most severe problems ever faced, but that is probably often just because they are the most prominent in our minds. I mean, look how many writers from the last century predicted widespread famine, because when you ran the numbers it just didn't seem possible. They thought it was the biggest problem humanity ever faced. Eventually we managed to overcome it and now it feels like a big nothing. Instead we have our own, new, biggest problems humanity has ever faced. Except they're not, not really. They just seem that way because we know that the other ones got solved, and we don't know yet how to solve the unsolved ones. And those writers, in turn, were probably overestimating the relative severity of that problem compared to other historical problems.
It's the same perspective problem that causes doomsdayism.
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
Unfortunately, the series goes off a cliff not too long after that. Speaker for the Dead is also good, as is most of Xenocide. He completely failed at coming up with a solution to the story in Xenocide, though, and the ending made me refuse to read any more of his books. It ranks only slightly above the last episode of Voyager.
I suspect the article is wrong about hunger. Compared to the 80's, the world has fewer famines. The absolute number of hungry people may be up, but as a percentage of the global population, it's probably lower than in the 80's.
Beetle B.
Ender's Game is like a third grade reading level, and Orson Scott Card went on a tirade against all his critics claiming that writing prose isn't really important. In his book about Characters and Viewpoint, he even makes a different argument: if you don't write well, nobody is going to figure out what the hell story you're trying to tell.
Ender's Game had a well-developed story, but it was poorly executed. It was like reading a kid's story.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
All of Card's books, from what I understand, have no real solution. Ender's Game was terrible: there was no sane way to approach the problem at hand, and the books further down the line play on the whole mess. For example, Ender is immortalized as a horrible genocidal maniac who exterminates an entire alien culture... after being tricked into thinking he's playing a computer game, by a race of people who believe the aliens are coming to destroy them, and of course immediately take over all the planets these now-dead aliens had inhabited once they've tricked a small boy into murdering the lot of them. Speaker for the Dead has a lot of strangeness in it but nothing quite so complex, although due to an unstoppable disease they have to cripple a burgeoning culture that they've interfered with. Due to the volatile nature of all this, wouldn't it make sense to nuke the whole planet anyway a la the ending of Ender's Game? Is murder still an option?
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Yes, believe it or not, L.Ron Hubbard could write science fiction, or at least fiction. Just look at all of the $cientologists that have bought into his sceme.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein
and contrary to what they want you to know, L.Ron was taking a LOT of pain medications (so I've read).
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein
Wind Turbines are being fought by hippies because they kill eagles. Within 5 years, I expect the ELA (Eagle Liberation Army) to be formed, and in 25 they are a well known terror group that destroys wind turbines in such numbers that military protection is necessary, making them largely uneconomical. Solar efficiency becomes much better, but only in China because the US government collapses under its "far worse than Greece" debt after the Renminbi becomes the world bank currency and they are no longer able to just print money to pay their debt (seriously, this is happening already - it may be 5 years, but the renminbi needs to be deregulated first). After the US currency collapse, Social Security follows suit, because it also is a big Ponzi waiting to collapse. After getting bailed out by China and a minor revolution that is put down by declaring martial law, and fortifying the rich into enclaves like the Hamptons and abandoning the poor to fend for themselves, the US reverts to feudalism where the rich protect the poor in exchange for services.
Education of the poor utterly fails in America as they become armed rabble frequently shot by troops. Education of the rich continues as normal. The world has a minor recession, but nothing like the horror in the Americas.
That future is entirely preventable, but the US needs to drastically reduce its debt, and soon.
No credit to the original paranoic who foresaw living in a police state where corporations control everything and all aspects of our lives are monitored constantly for signs of deviancy?
We can't even predict the stock market a year in advance, or the results of political forces, so we can't possibility predict rates and the timing of endpoints that are based on such factors...
There, fixed that for you.
Science fiction keeps getting put up on some kind of pedestal, and people keep forgetting that it's primary goal is to be entertaining enough to induce people to part with their hard earned cash. Science fiction authors are neither mystics nor prophets, they're entertainers.
Not to mention, they've missed far more often than they hit.
Fracking for natural gas -- one of the cheapest, cleanest, safest, and most reliable domestic energy sources -- has been made illegal in some states. Environmentalists oppose fracking for natural gas because they don't want us to have cheap energy.
The only state in which fracking is illegal to the best of my knowledge is Vermont and they don't have any natural gas, so it is symbolic. If someone discovered natural gas reserves in Vermont symbolism be damned they'd be fracking. Now the real issue with fracking is:
1) It looks to be an incredible source of cheap energy
2) Fracking fluids are not be subject to regulation because they are considered trade secrets. And that's a problem for environmentalists.
3) Nobody has any idea of what happens when you push millions of billions of tons of pressurized liquids into rock. No one knows. There is a lot of risk there potentially.
4) There have been some problems.
That being said, the US and Canada are aggressively expanding fracking. So its just not true its not happening.
As far as oil of east, west and Alaska. That's not enough oil to do much of anything. East and West coastal drilling has more to do with the tremendous value of US coastal vacation areas and the rather low value of those oil reserves. That's a business choice between competing interests. I know when I lived in LA the Long Beach oil / tar would leak up and ruin the beach experience. As far as Alaska... most of Alaska is producing except wilderness reserve and mainly because no one has been able to answer basic questions about pipe safety.
You can't have it both ways. US debt is denominated in dollars. If the dollar crashes the US doesn't have a serious debt problem anymore.
I predict that, 25 years from now, this prediction will be proven inaccurate.
Carol vs. Ghost
"No one has any idea", so let's obstruct.
"No one has been able to answer",so shut it down forever.
"That's a problem", so don't produce any energy.
"No one knows", so stop doing anything until everyone knows all possible outcomes.
"There is a lot of risk there potentially" and no risk can ever be tolerated.
"There have been some problems" and no one in the world has ever had problems before, so let's not start doing this problematic energy production.
There's "not enough oil" and therefore it's impossible to discover any. We shouldn't even look.
I think I got maybe a quarter through the first Mission Earth book before dropping it. All I can remember was a desperate and dishonest main character doing increasingly desperate and dishonest things and digging himself deeper into a hole while trying and failing to get the better of the "good guy". The only thing I found vaguely interesting was wondering whether the good guy was completely dumb and oblivious as he foiled the MC's plots, or just played dumb and oblivious while being superior to the plots. In the end I decided I didn't care.
Mostly it reminded me of the Looney Tunes adaptation of the Tortoise and the Hare story, where if the hare just ran he'd win easily, but the hare irrationally spends all his time trying to cheat instead, botches everything repeatedly, and through his own idiocy eventually loses the race to the oblivious, plodding tortoise.
The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
In Heinlein's Future History series from the 1950s, there is a time line chart. This chart shows a "false dawn" in space travel - initial success around 1970, then a long hiatus.
In Heinlein's "The Man who Sold The Moon", the problem is made clear - fuel. A chemically powered rocket can just barely make it to the moon, with severe weight restrictions. Nuclear rockets are too dangerous. And so, the first lunar landing is a publicity stunt.
Heinlein could do the math. Space travel with chemical rockets is just barely feasible and hugely expensive. Nuclear rocket engines were built and successfully tested in the 1950s, but are too dangerous to use. Fusion isn't even close to working. So we're stuck.
Where is that coming from? I would suggest you start reading actual environmentalists and not FOXNews' version of environmental debates. Sheila Jackson gives speeches on these topics all the time. Pull some of the transcripts.
Whatever happens, I can predict one thing: the world tomorrow will be uglier, more crowded and less educated that the world today.
Harry Harrison beat you to that prediction a while ago:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Make_Room!_Make_Room!
I didn't say anything about shutting down fracking forever. The only person whose been talking about shutting down fracking is you. If you want my actual proposals:
1) That fracking chemicals no longer be consider trade secrets and instead are matters of public record, subject to regulation
2) That a permanent geological group be established in the EPA to evaluate effects of fracking with budget to conduct and fund research
3) Other than that I'd like to encourage the US to move as quickly to as much fracking as possible starting now, despite the risks.
David Brin is not included in these predictions, but he started writing a book called "Earth" in 1987 that had some interesting predictions of its own for the near future (2038, in his case).
-Networked computing connects all the people on the globe, and becomes the dominant way people access news and information.
-Computers shrink to the point where they become wearable, and people carry them around with them at all time.
-It becomes common for people to carry around small personal video cameras so they can record every moment of their lives. They then go home and upload portions of the video onto this computer network, sharing the videos for people around the world to see.
He later said of those predictions in particular. "... but I think the ideas were already latent -- almost obvious -- when I started writing the book...".
I'm not ashamed to admit I liked Battlefield Earth, the book.
For one thing, it is a masterpiece of plotting. Before the end of the over 1,000 pages there are dozens and dozens of loose plot threads, and yet by the end every single one is neatly tied up.
3) Other than that I'd like to encourage the US to move as quickly to as much fracking as possible starting now, despite the risks.
That's not a view consistent with modern environmental orthodoxy. Most environmentalist leaders would consider you a right wing extremist tool of the oil and gas industries.
However, the collapse of the Soviet Union, which even the CIA missed predicting, made the whole U.N. running the world to avoid nuclear war thing moot. Meanwhile, the current situation in Syria and the ineffectiveness of the U.N. in dealing with it only illustrates how far off the mark he was in predicting a world at peace.
Au contraire, with India and Pakistan in possession of nukes, and the technology in increasing danger of falling into the wrong hands, I would say that international bodies like the UN are needed more than ever. The UN was never intended to "run the world" anyway, that's just redneck paranoia. The UN is about providing a forum and framework in which nations can discuss their concerns and make them known without resorting to conflict as the first option. There's nothing "moot" about the threat of nuclear annihilation.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
No actually that is the mainstream opinion.
Let me quote the President BLM: http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&pageid=293917
Which basically summarized is, fracking is a huge economic benefit and the we need to evaluate safety procedures in terms of their costs to keep them down for the oil and gas industry while protecting the long term viability of fracking as an energy source. Both parties are pro-fracking. The debate is over the amount of regulation ranging from the Republican position of almost none to the Democratic position of some but not enough to threaten the growth of this process.
Even the Sierra Club is pushing for more regulation not a halt to the process: http://www.sierraclub.org/naturalgas/rulemaking/
FoxNews is not reality. No one (in any large measure) is against this.
people keep forgetting that it's primary goal is to be entertaining enough to induce people to part with their hard earned cash.
So, you are saying that Picasso only ever painted pictures to make cash?
That Michael Jackson only danced to make money?
That Mary Shelly only wrote Frankenstein to make a few extra notes?
I can assure you many people are driven by more than money......
I mean, have you ever wondered why kids climb trees?
Hmmmmm
I don't suppose by any chance, you vote republican?
Anyone quoted by a reporter knows how little they understand
Don't believe what you read is the truth.
OSC was pretty crazy even in his youth, though I will admit it's gotten worse. Still, if you buy books used, the money doesn't actually end up with the author, which is usually a bad thing, but in this case...
Space Cadet, written in 1948, had a throw-away line about cell phones as well. The protagonist is standing in a line and gets a call from his father. Someone else in the same line notices and asks if it was family calling. When confirmed, the second person claims that he stowed his phone in his luggage to prevent such calls.
When I first read this story as a child, I wondered about how long the phone cord would have to be. It wasn't until several years later, when cell phones did arrive, that I realized how limiting my view was. I assumed that because he used the word "phone" that it was like the old AT&T desk phones that I knew about. Later, when I talked to my brother about this, he claimed that he always pictured a walkie-talkie type of device that happened to be called a "phone."
Heinlein always had some good predictions as well as some strange blind spots about the future. In one book he talks about mag-lev type trains, food dispensers, and space travel, but at the same time, the protagonist cooks on a wood-fire stove, and computers are programmed from a set of paper books by flipping switches.
Great civilizations have lived and died on false theories. Don't mess up mine with a few facts.
I think this prediction is total bullshit. Go to China and ask young people there whether they look forward to a brighter future or not. Over there, things are constantly getting better.
Sure, the sun has set on the American empire, and everything is indeed getting worse here in the so-called "land of the free" where the police have turned into para-military squads, but America is not representative of the whole world.
No that would be the year 0102.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
the world tomorrow will be...less educated that the world today.
World literacy has risen from 77% in 1995 to 82% in 2005. More recently in 2010, 87% of female youth had basic literacy skills, compared to 92% of males.
In China almost all youth are now literate. In Kenya, 93% of youth are literate. Only countries like Ethiopia, Niger, Chad, and Mali have youth literacy rates at or below 50%.
People with college degrees increased to 6.7% of the world population in 2010 from 5.9% in 2000. That is around 50 million new college graduates.
To be fair, I might give the books another go. It has been a while.
Don't. They get worse, not better.
WALSTIB!
Hubbard likely never thought he could predict the future, but his followers certainly thought he could do that and more. Of course, they believe that Scientology can make the gay go away too.
Maybe. He wouldn't be the first spiritual leader to start believing his own lies though.
From his pocket he brought a small black case. A window glowed to reveal an index; Waldo set dials. "here's an example of Vaakstras, it's not obvious music.'"
Because after the 70s oil got cheaper and the USSR collapsed.In the mid 90s oil was at very low historical prices. Uranium mines around the world were closing not from being depleted but because the Russians were selling downgraded nuclear warheads refashioned as fuel rods as part of a nuclear weapons reduction treaty. Oil drilling and recovery methods improved. Presently oil prices are going up because of the embargo on Iran but I wouldn't be surprised if the prices went back down as capacity improves and alternatives are developed.
Great. Now pick any two of these.
Ray Kurzweil still hasn't understood that everyone dies in the end. People have been searching for immortality since like forever. Allegedly the First Emperor of China died because he was taking an immortality "medicine" made by alchemists which contained mercury.
Then there is his singularity. Heck R&D goes in fits and starts. Sometimes there are even steps backward. Just look at aerospace. No civilian supersonic airplanes anymore. No one has gone to the Moon for decades. The US presently has no human space transportation capability (again). I still remember Intel's predictions where we were supposed to have CPUs hitting 10 GHz by now. It did not seem unreasonable at the time to a lot of people. Heck I remember having a CPU with 7 MHz clockspeed and when Intel made that prediction there were CPUs with 1 GHz in the market. Yet it didn't happen. Why? Heat.
So yes things will progressively better just not everything all the time.
Nuclear = excellent on 3 & 4 ao so on 1 & 2
Solar = excellent on 2, 4 good on 3 less good on 1 (depending on where in the USA)
Coal = Excellent on 1,3, 4 terrible on 2
etc...
What ... you mean that his religious woo wasn't enough to let him transcend his agony with god-like disdain as a 14th-level Thetan?
This rumour of the non-perfection of Our Lord LRon must be suppressed by $cientology Inc. The SUV with the blacked-out windows should be pulling up at your door now ; resistance is likely to get you a baton in the kidneys.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
There's an SUV pulling into my driveway right now...
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein
(Signed)Obie.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"