Slashdot Mirror


The World Fair of 2014 According To Asimov (From 1964)

Esther Schindler writes "If you ever needed evidence that Isaac Asimov was a genius at extrapolating future technology from limited data, you'll enjoy this 1964 article in which he predicts what we'll see at the 2014 world's fair. For instance: "Robots will neither be common nor very good in 2014, but they will be in existence. The I.B.M. exhibit at the present fair has no robots but it is dedicated to computers, which are shown in all their amazing complexity, notably in the task of translating Russian into English. If machines are that smart today, what may not be in the works 50 years hence? It will be such computers, much miniaturized, that will serve as the "brains" of robots. In fact, the I.B.M. building at the 2014 World's Fair may have, as one of its prime exhibits, a robot housemaid*large, clumsy, slow- moving but capable of general picking-up, arranging, cleaning and manipulation of various appliances. It will undoubtedly amuse the fairgoers to scatter debris over the floor in order to see the robot lumberingly remove it and classify it into 'throw away' and 'set aside.' (Robots for gardening work will also have made their appearance.)" It's really fun (and sometimes sigh-inducing) to see where he was accurate and where he wasn't. And, of course, the whole notion that we'd have a world's fair is among the inaccurate predictions."

352 comments

  1. One thing is for certain... by bmo · · Score: 5, Funny

    In the 47 years I have spent on this rock, I have yet to see a futurist reliably predict the future.

    Where the fuck is my flying car?

    --
    BMO

    1. Re:One thing is for certain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a Space Nutter, aren't you? The dog-whistle "this rock" gave you away.

    2. Re:One thing is for certain... by phantomfive · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You're a Space Nutter, aren't you? The dog-whistle "this rock" gave you away.

      Technically, if that is a dog whistle, it means you are also a Space Nutter (whatever that is), since you were able to hear it as well. One space nutter to another.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:One thing is for certain... by lkernan · · Score: 2

      Technically, if that is a dog whistle, it means you are also a Space Nutter (whatever that is), since you were able to hear it as well.

      Maybe he just has a lot of space between his ears.

    4. Re:One thing is for certain... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Arguably the most important trait for a futurist is to write well (or other method of self-promotion). Accurate prediction not required.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:One thing is for certain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I hope not, I'd have you loons trying to colonize it.

    6. Re:One thing is for certain... by bmo · · Score: 2

      Which is why people like Ray Kurzweil can still get away with the nonsense they write.

      The singularity is bunk.

      --
      BMO - I'm turning into my maternal grandfather.

    7. Re:One thing is for certain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In 50 years, I predict that most futurists of today will have gotten much of what they are predicting wrong. Also, there will be strife and unrest in the Middle East.

    8. Re:One thing is for certain... by bmo · · Score: 2

      RE: Your Sig.

      I'm looking for examples of beautiful open source code in every language. If you know of any, please let me know.

      A programmer version of Diogenes, looking for "one honest man" finding none?

      http://www.harkavagrant.com/index.php?id=181

      --
      BMO

    9. Re:One thing is for certain... by binarylarry · · Score: 1, Funny

      Someone needs to petition Elon Musk to create a Tesla Air series car.

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    10. Re: One thing is for certain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Predicting the future is the same as voting- it should be done early and often.

    11. Re:One thing is for certain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Robocop was the closest prediction for me.

    12. Re:One thing is for certain... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      lol sadly, no one has responded with any code examples, but that's ok.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    13. Re:One thing is for certain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the 47 years I have spent on this rock, I have yet to see a futurist reliably predict the future.

      Where the fuck is my flying car?

      --
      BMO

      Wait 47 years and it still surprises you that fortune tellers can't tell the future? "Futurist" is a BS word.

    14. Re:One thing is for certain... by jonwil · · Score: 1

      http://www.terrafugia.com/aircraft/transitionR
      Its not quite something you can buy today but you can put down a deposit and they have already passed all the regulatory hurdles and are soon to start production.
      And yes it IS a car that flies. (although if you want to fly in it, you need to find a runway)

    15. Re:One thing is for certain... by Jiro · · Score: 5, Informative

      Search for AT&T's "you will" commercials from 20 years ago. They predicted the future to an astonishing degree. Except, of course, that the companies that brought you all those things weren't AT&T.

    16. Re:One thing is for certain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Science and technolgy are driven by demand and the economy. We could have flying cars, robots in every house, total control of devices around us though small muscle or eye movements etc. The technology is there but not at a price that people are willing to pay for it yet. Having a $5 broom and a $1 dustpan and using them for 2 minutes to sweep up your floor is still a perfectly acceptable way for most people to clean up a mess. I still use a manual can opener. It works every time and takes up very little space compared to something mounted under your cabinet or a battery operated one that may or may not be charged up. .

    17. Re:One thing is for certain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It will fly through a series of tubes.

    18. Re:One thing is for certain... by meerling · · Score: 2

      SciFi writers have made many accurate predictions based on extrapolations of technological development.
      They've also made many errors, but then again, they usually aren't trying to predict what will be, just write stories about what could be.
      As to getting the dates right, nobody seems to get that past the 3 year mark, unless it's already got marketing pushing for a release date, but that's not really a prediction either.

    19. Re:One thing is for certain... by arth1 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Which is why people like Ray Kurzweil can still get away with the nonsense they write.

      I was going to say St, John and the revelation, but okay.

      My predictions for 50 years from now:
      - No human has returned to the moon.
      - NovartoGlaxoSmithKline announcing the first pharmceutical cure for religion causes widespread riots in Pakistan and Alabama.
      - In Europe and Canada, the banning of driver controlled cars on public roads go into effect.
      - Texas becomes the last industrialized country to abolish paper money.
      - The Sino-American war winds down. With neither side wiling to risk their mainland, it was fought in Korea, which is now in ruins, and Japan, which has become a Chinese protectorate.
      - Coca-Cola reintroduces Cola with Coca extract.
      - I am dead.

    20. Re:One thing is for certain... by Ryanrule · · Score: 2

      Well, not in name, but the money behind the scenes is pretty much the same.

    21. Re:One thing is for certain... by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 5, Interesting

      He did mention flying cars, but he got a lot of stuff right, too! Here's a tally.

      Yes:

      Photosensitive windows that block out extreme light levels (well, usually sunglasses)
      Automatically prepared meals (sort of, in microwave dinners; there's no standard for automated scanning of cooking times yet)
      Machine language translation (this is still a big thing; Microsoft had a pretty big demo just a year or two ago—but, of course, the game's all about Chinese now)
      Large solar arrays
      Heavy dependence on nuclear (although not as much as he hoped)
      Automated driving (definitely show-off material, if not on the market much)
      Video calls (still not as popular as futurists want them to be)
      Satellite networking
      Mostly-automated road construction
      Still no manned missions to Mars
      Optical networking (although he thought it'd be through pipes and not glass fibres)
      Bus rapid transit (special lanes on highways)
      Earth's population over 6.5 billion
      US population around 350 million (actually 319)
      Less developed areas will have slipped further behind the well-developed ones (although he didn't realise that some of them would actually fall backward)
      Life expectancies around 85 in some countries (82.59 in Japan)
      Slowing population growth (it peaked in the 60s)
      Creative industries amongst the most valued ("The lucky few who can be involved in creative work of any sort will be the true elite of mankind, for they alone will do more than serve a machine.")

      No:

      Windows will be archaic replaced with ubiquitous light panels (apparently scenery had no appeal in 1964)
      Cities will move underground so that the surface can be parks and farms.
      Automatically prepared meals (he gave the example of ordering bacon, eggs, and coffee prepared in the usual manner)
      Clumsy robot housekeepers (long live the Roomba—although the general spirit of the robot obsession is going strong in Japan, a land apparently unravaged by the Terminator franchise)
      3D movies (on holographic cube TVs)
      Radioisotope batteries in consumer electronics
      FLYING CARS (well, actually hovering ones—but seriously, why?)
      Outdoor moving sidewalks in cities
      Heavy use of compressed air tubes for postal mail (these remain only used in special settings like moving samples around hospitals, although my supermarket has one for money, weirdly)
      No parking on the street (well, except on big mainstreets, but that was common even in his day)
      MOON COLONIES
      Line-of-sight laser communications would be preferable to cable conduits (?!)
      Boston and Washington DC will have merged into a giant city with 40 million inhabitants
      Higher population in deserts and the Arctic due to population explosion (high-rises were apparently unanticipated)
      Underwater housing
      Attempts to sell yeast and algae as food sources (we have real tubesteak now, thank you very much)
      Widespread birth control efforts (only in China, I think?)
      All high school students will be able to program
      Automation of all automatable jobs (going so far as to eliminate classroom teaching, apparently)
      Psychiatry the most important medical specialty (due to boredom caused by automation—apparently we'll all be unemployed in about four months)

      And I'm not really sure how to classify this one:

      Indeed, the most somber speculation I can make about A.D. 2014 is that in a society of enforced leisure, the most glorious single word in the vocabulary will have become work!

      So on the whole, about 50-50, mostly small things. There are some items in there that I thought were rather unexpectedly good (no manned Mars visits), but for the most part it seems we'll have to file this batch of Asimov's predictions as over-optimistic, with most other futurist forecasts.

      As someone who didn't grow up being promised flying cars, I have to wonder why (other than "because they're cool" and/or

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    22. Re:One thing is for certain... by styrotech · · Score: 2

      Maybe if you asked for examples in "any language" rather than "every language"?

    23. Re:One thing is for certain... by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      ...by "birth control efforts" I meant "birth rate control policies," i.e. China's One-child policy, not merely the existence of, distribution of, and education regarding contraceptives.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    24. Re:One thing is for certain... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      ok

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    25. Re:One thing is for certain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the 47 years I have spent on this rock, I have yet to see a futurist reliably predict the future.

      Somewhere between 1983 and 1985 I saw my first "mobile" phone when we hired one for site use. It had a traditional dial and handset placed on a battery about the size of three housebricks. I said to my colleague, "In the future these will be miniaturised and absolutely everybody will carry one around with them all the time. If you don't have one you'll be the kind of outcast that doesn't have a TV now." He looked at me as though I was from Mars. Not my only good call, btw, maybe I ought to have been a professional futurist, just for your sakes. :) I should have bought Motorola shares (and later sold them for Nokia -> Apple -> Samsung), for sure.

      Now it's one thing to make a call like that 10-15 years into the future with a relatively predictable piece of tech like that. I'm actually super impressed that Asimov was so damned accurate 50 years ago. You don't ask for much, do you?

      Flying cars have existed for some time now. But you have to live in a place with a runway leading into your garage.

    26. Re:One thing is for certain... by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Use a plane?

    27. Re:One thing is for certain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1, Follows Directions Well.
      FWIW, I second the GP's comment. Any is a better wording than every.

    28. Re:One thing is for certain... by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 1

      "Where the fuck is my flying car?"

      It's here. We have just gone way beyond flying cars and you missed it.
      http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1qCA_om_CTY/UYgoajU-iAI/AAAAAAAAHtE/lTI2XEPveQw/s1600/coolcar.jpg

      I will say, however, that Asimov pretty much described the Google car.

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    29. Re:One thing is for certain... by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      Where the fuck is my flying car?

      Wisconsin?

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    30. Re:One thing is for certain... by xenobyte · · Score: 1

      My predictions for 50 years from now:
      - No human has returned to the moon.

      Wrong. I'm fairly certain that in 50 years there would be a small colony of people living on the moon. Humans will also have visited Mars.

      - NovartoGlaxoSmithKline announcing the first pharmceutical cure for religion causes widespread riots in Pakistan and Alabama.

      Fun! - But I doubt that religion can be cured pharmaceutically. It isn't a medical condition and the general stupidity usually behind it cannot be cured, although less inbreeding will help.

      - In Europe and Canada, the banning of driver controlled cars on public roads go into effect.

      It think this will happen sooner.

      - Texas becomes the last industrialized country to abolish paper money.

      ...and this will happen after having used their own Lone Star Dollars for two decades.

      - The Sino-American war winds down. With neither side wiling to risk their mainland, it was fought in Korea, which is now in ruins, and Japan, which has become a Chinese protectorate.

      Not that unlikely. I think North Korea would have helped creating the Korean wasteland.

      - Coca-Cola reintroduces Cola with Coca extract.

      Would be fun.

      - I am dead.

      So am I.

      --
      "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
    31. Re:One thing is for certain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of things on your 'no' list is actually still a yes, albeit slightly different.

      * Prepared meals - people put them in a microwave
      * House cleaning robots - you can order a robot vacuum cleaner online for $150. Most households have a dishing wash machine.
      * 3D movies - you can watch them in cinema _and_ on your home TV if you wish.
      * Radioisotope batteries - the performance of a Li-ion battery is far greater than ever expected. Besides that, fuel cells on methane, alcohol or hydrogen exists, just indeed not in consumer goods - our batteries do well enough keeping our phones and pads powered
      * No parking in the street - people are forced to park at (payed) parking spots.
      * Laser communications - admittingly they prefer glass fiber and radiowaves. Light trough the atmosphere is inconvenient due to atmospheric influences.
      * Eating yeast and algea - indeed. And 'meat' products based on fungi - available in every supermarket around your corner. Yeast is also used to produce medicins, food flavoring etc.
      * Teaching - Kids and students do learn to use a computer. Maybe not 'program' in the narrow sense of the word, but they surely learn to operate them.
      * Automation of automatable jobs - when was the last time you phoned a big company and a real person picked up the phone immediately? When was last time you got a hand written bill? Which was your last car build by human hands, not aided by a robotic factory? Automation is all over the place.

      So i'm sorry to notice your 'no' list should be almost exclusively reduced to the 'flying cars'. And ow, they exist, just no-one uses them for obvious safety reasons and fuel use - we can build them just they are not economic.

    32. Re:One thing is for certain... by wienerschnizzel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Then there's a list of big things that he did not see coming at all:

      - the internet!
      - computers thousand times stronger than anything in 1964 - the size of your palm - in everybody's pocket
      - advances in medical science - stem cells, 3d printing of tissue etc. and in medical technology - scanners creating a 3d model of your body (including the inside)
      - detection and photography of extrasolar planets
      - a man made probe exiting the solar system
      - despite the overpopulation, abundance of food for everybody
      etc.

    33. Re:One thing is for certain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also used by those of us that realize we live here and will die here, no matter what we do, so we should try to make it a nice place, since the phrase is just a common idiom reminding we're all stuck in the same place. But don't let that get in the way of your paranoid delusions.

    34. Re:One thing is for certain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My predictions for 50 years from now:
      - No human has returned to the moon.

      True. All those who have been on the moon will be too old for new missions. Others will be chosen for the new moon missions.

      - NovartoGlaxoSmithKline announcing the first pharmceutical cure for religion causes widespread riots in Pakistan and Alabama.

      Pharmaceutical cure for religion? Are you serious? Short of destroying the mind, this cannot be possible. Religion is not a physical condition, religion is a set of believes. Note that without some set of believes you cannot go through life; it's just that some sets are more rational than others.

      For example, I have the firm believe that the world around me actually exists, and is not just an illusion coming from my imagination. And I do so despite knowing that Solipsism cannot be logically disproved. Thus the believe in reality is no more an unfounded believe than the believe in a god. So any pharmaceutical "cure" for religion would probably also "cure" me from this irrational belief that there exists a real world. I doubt the consequences would be of advantage, especially for others.

      But I agree that if such a "cure" were forcefully applied, this would most likely cause widespread riots.

      - In Europe and Canada, the banning of driver controlled cars on public roads go into effect.
      Not impossible, but unlikely. More likely there will be cars which allow driver-controlled driving, but only within system-enforced limits (like, unability to go over speed, or inability to drive in a way that you might lose control over the car). And possibly automatically taking over in certain situations, to avoid accidents.

      - Texas becomes the last industrialized country to abolish paper money.

      You've not been much outside America, have you? I predict Europe will have paper money long after Texas abandoned it.

    35. Re:One thing is for certain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. I'm fairly certain that in 50 years there would be a small colony of people living on the moon. Humans will also have visited Mars.

      While a mission to Mars would be possible by then if there are no slipping of proposed schedules by some commercial and government operations (which is a big if), even if we stick to current time lines of returning to the moon by the 2030, having a colony, or even a long term occupied base on the moon, seems rather out there by that date. That sounds like the predictions that we would have had a moon base by 1990 based on previous predictions before the 60s.

    36. Re:One thing is for certain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not reading it like Nostradamous

      "Windows will be archaic replaced with ubiquitous light panels (apparently scenery had no appeal in 1964)"

      iPad

    37. Re: One thing is for certain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I predict Ray Kurzweil will continue to make predictions - vague, widely expected, or just lucky predictions.

    38. Re:One thing is for certain... by Kvan · · Score: 1

      Europe varies vastly in the use of paper money. The Nordics, helped in no small part by the lack of a tipping culture, tend to use cash less than the US. Generally the further south you go, the more popular cash is - with the UK as an outlier. Anyway the whole thing is about to change with mobile payments that my only prediction is these will be too disruptive for us to make predictions beyond 10 years.

      --

      "A *person* is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."
      - 'K' in Men in Black.

    39. Re:One thing is for certain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. I'm fairly certain that in 50 years there would be a small colony of people living on the moon. Humans will also have visited Mars.

      Wishful thinking mate. Just not gonna happen, probably not until 2100 or so.

    40. Re:One thing is for certain... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Asimov wasn't a futurist, he was a science fiction (and nonfiction) writer. One of my favorites (a thank you to the submitter), in fact. And most (although not all) of his sci-fi was set way into the future; Foundation" was 20,000 years from now.

      His Sally, (full text here) set in the year 2020, didn't have flying cars but did have self-driving cars using his famous "positronic brains" (computers were often called "electronic brains" back then). He was a little early with it, Sally was an antique so she would have been manufactured before 1995.

      Asimov came close to envisioning the internet with his "Multivac", although Murray Leinster almost nailed it in 1946 with A Logic Named Joe (full text here).

      As to "futurists", hogwash. In what school can I get a degree in futurism?

    41. Re:One thing is for certain... by Megane · · Score: 1

      And even AT&T isn't AT&T now. It's Southwestern Bell, all grown up and swallowed up momma after most of her sisters.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    42. Re:One thing is for certain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's "beliefs" you idiot.

    43. Re:One thing is for certain... by Megane · · Score: 1

      A lot of times their errors are errors of omission. Who in the '50s was predicting the Internet? Asimov went with the "one giant computer to do everything" idea, without any clue of user-generated content being important. Or even how you would wire up every house in the world to Multivac.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    44. Re:One thing is for certain... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Earth's population over 6.5 billion

      But he didn't nail that; in all his stories where the population is 8 billion (which we're pushing now) we all live on yeast.

    45. Re:One thing is for certain... by Megane · · Score: 1

      Nope, Multivac is most definitely not the internet. Multivac is the old-school "humanity will only ever need twenty computers" IBM kind of thinking of the day. Everyone wired up with a direct terminal to one big mega-mainframe (sort of like having a leased line connection to Wikipedia?), and certainly nothing like Bookface/Twatter where user-created content is the focus. The internet is about millions of individual computers connected to each other.

      Obligatory car analogy: the internet is like rush hour traffic with a bunch of convertible cars where you can shout at the driver next to you, but Multivac is like a big strip-mining dump truck where everyone jumps on for a ride and doesn't talk to anybody else.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    46. Re:One thing is for certain... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      - the internet!
      - computers thousand times stronger than anything in 1964 - the size of your palm - in everybody's pocket

      He came close to predicting the internet with "Multivac" (Murray Leinster came a lot closer in 1946), but you have to remember that his "positronic brains" were the size of a large grapefruit and more powerful than any supercomputer that now exists. You also have to remember that the transistor hadn't yet been invented, let alone an I.C. Hell, in 1972 he was 52 with hundreds of books under his belt, and a C-5A flight simulator (at the time the coolest thing I'd ever seen) was controlled by a computer that took an entire building. The computer was rows and rows of bookshelves with circuit boards rather than books.

      As to probes exiting the solar system, he has human interstellar travel, way past the Voyagers.

      You got the last one right, though.

    47. Re:One thing is for certain... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      FLYING CARS (well, actually hovering onesâ"but seriously, why?)

      Potentially higher speeds, greater safety and lower energy consumption. I'm talking about maglev cars, of course. Imagine getting onto the motorway and having your car levitate, then zoom down it at a few hundred KPH in full auto-drive mode where the magnetic track keeps it on course.

      The other option is to invent some kind of low energy anti-gravity device that lets the car float without consuming much power, and then benefiting from a lack of friction with the road. Real sci-fi stuff.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    48. Re:One thing is for certain... by DirtyLiar · · Score: 1

      And I'm not really sure how to classify this one:

      Indeed, the most somber speculation I can make about A.D. 2014 is that in a society of enforced leisure, the most glorious single word in the vocabulary will have become work!

      Yeah, that's what we in 'the biz' call, "Wishful thinking".

      --

      THINK! It's patriotic

    49. Re:One thing is for certain... by stewsters · · Score: 1

      Ironically, at the EAA already had one of these in their museum : Taylor Aerocar

    50. Re:One thing is for certain... by MistrX · · Score: 2

      No one mentioned 3D copying? I mean, I predict that 3D scanning and printing will be a normal thing in 50 years.
      Everyone copies! Everyone replicates!
      The economy would look a bit different. We either have copyright laws that strangle society or we abolish copyright laws to the fullest.

    51. Re:One thing is for certain... by sabbede · · Score: 0

      Yeah, like how Asimov predicted some nonsense about future computers fitting into a small box made of colorful plastic that one keeps on a desk. What a dolt! Desktop cases are mostly metal!

    52. Re:One thing is for certain... by TWiTfan · · Score: 5, Funny

      Wrong. I'm fairly certain that in 50 years there would be a small colony of people living on the moon. Humans will also have visited Mars.

      I'm fairly certain that in 50 years Presidents will still be promising a small colony of people living on the moon and a Mars mission in 50 years.

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    53. Re:One thing is for certain... by DrXym · · Score: 1
      It's so common for futurists & AI researchers to predict something to happen in 20-25 years or "in my lifetime" that people have actually made a study of the phenomena.

      Not that Slashdot readers are any better, e.g. some of the comments about self driving cars (that supposedly we'll all driving in the millions by 2035) were ridiculously optimistic.

    54. Re:One thing is for certain... by TWiTfan · · Score: 1

      Behold my prognosticating skills!

      Some husbands and wives shall cheat on their spouses

      Politicians shall lie

      Some shall look back on their lives and be disappointed

      The strong, charismatic, and dishonest shall screw over the weak, unpopular, and honest

      War, hunger, and disease will still plague mankind

      Robot Donald Trump shall still be putting a foot in his mouth every time he speaks, albeit a metal foot now

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    55. Re:One thing is for certain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or even how you would wire up every house in the world to Multivac.

      The same way every house in the world today is wired up to the CDNs for Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Rackspace, and Akamai, which probably covers more than 95% of US Internet traffic right there.

      Or are you complaining that we have five Multivacs instead of one?

    56. Re: One thing is for certain... by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Then you haven't been looking very hard:

      In 10 years mankind will be allowed to know that We are not alone,
      In 70 years Judaism, Christianity, Islam will be united

      This century we will also discover:
      - The transfer of energy between white and black holes
      - The 6 fundamental forces
      - How to pull ZPE without unbalancing the energy lattice grid
      - Quantum Communication that will allow us to listen and eventually talk to civilizations across the galaxies.

    57. Re:One thing is for certain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one mentioned 3D copying?

      You've never seen Star Trek?

    58. Re:One thing is for certain... by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      I'd give him a bit more credit than that, personally. He may not have gotten the execution right on some of these, but he got the spirit of it. Robot housekeeping? The Roomba and such are quite close, they're just not as advanced. We do have 3D movies, just not multi-view ones. We may not have moving sidewalks outdoors, but some shopping malls and especially airports do. Postal mail's not sent throughout the city using air ducts, but postal centers are largely automated using conveyor belts (which function like compressed air tubes in all but appearance). While it may not be yeast or algae, tofu and such is still the same idea of plant-based food being flavored to imitate something else. Finally, psychiatry may not be the most important medical specialty, but psychology in general has grown dramatically since the 60s as we've expanded our knowledge of mental health.

    59. Re:One thing is for certain... by TWiTfan · · Score: 1

      You also have to remember that the transistor hadn't yet been invented

      Not to nitpick, but the first commercial transistors were produced in 1954, ten years before he wrote this article. Hell, by 1964, MIT was already working on the Apollo guidance computer.

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    60. Re:One thing is for certain... by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Wrong. I'm fairly certain that in 50 years there would be a small colony of people living on the moon. Humans will also have visited Mars.

      I'm fairly certain that in 50 years Presidents will still be promising a small colony of people living on the moon and a Mars mission in 50 years.

      Well that is what they were promising 50 years ago...

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    61. Re:One thing is for certain... by trum4n · · Score: 0

      That type of butt-hurt, mindless rage can only come from the religious. We smart people only keep you around for the entertainment.

    62. Re:One thing is for certain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone wired up with a direct terminal to one big mega-mainframe

      so you mean "The Cloud"

    63. Re:One thing is for certain... by TWiTfan · · Score: 1

      He also predicted underground suburbs and nuclear-powered appliances.

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    64. Re:One thing is for certain... by drainbramage · · Score: 1

      They will be on the second ship.

      --
      No brain, no pain.
    65. Re:One thing is for certain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Coca-cola never stopped having 'coca' extract, they are, in-fact, the both the single largest legal importer and consumer of coca plants in the United States today. Albeit what you want to say is that coca-cola will reintroduce the narcotic aspect of the coca plant, which would be interesting.

    66. Re:One thing is for certain... by Sique · · Score: 1

      But the microchip was invented only in 1967, thus too late for it.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    67. Re:One thing is for certain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's "beliefs" you idiot.

      OK, so I made a spelling error in English, a language which is not my native language. Please tell me: Which non-native language do you master to a degree that the probability of having a misspelling in any text you write in that language is negligible?

    68. Re:One thing is for certain... by gatkinso · · Score: 2

      >> Japan, which has become a Chinese protectorate.

      Is that before or after Japan nukes the living shit out of China?

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    69. Re:One thing is for certain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find your anti-religion musings to be entertaining, especially the part where you fail to understand what you criticize and fall into lock-step with exactly what you mock.

      You see, the Revelation to John describes religion as a harlot that rules a vast empire of religion that misrepresents God. That empire is also complicit with the kings of the earth in their opposition to God's rulership. And then we get to the part of that prophecy that you're taking part in fulfilling: the waters (as if a moat around the harlot's empire's fortifications) will dry up. She will lose the support of the people. She will fall in their eyes, losing their favor. Then she will be destroyed by those very same governments that she has been in bed with, so to speak. She will have outlived her usefulness and become a burden.

      You don't support religion. Your drop of water has evaporated from religion's moat. (More accurately, the river Euphrates, since it's called "Babylon the Great".) All of us who have studied Revelation, believe it, and look forward to the fulfillment of its prophecies are grateful for people like you, who are pushing the boundaries of social acceptance and advancing the destruction of the governments that oppose God and religions that misrepresent him.

    70. Re:One thing is for certain... by Somebody+Is+Using+My · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I can reliably predict the future!

      In 50 years:
      * We will have returned to the moon. Or we won't. Definitely one or the other.
      * We will have self-driving cars, but they may not be in common use.
      * New drugs will have been invented.
      * Computers will be even faster and more capable than those of today!
      * There will be robots. Of some sort.
      * Rich people will continue to have power over the poorer members of society
      * Numerous wars will have been fought, altering the political spheres and influence of various nations
      * Music of the future will suck compared to what we grew up with, although the kids of that generation will love it.

    71. Re: One thing is for certain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      - The 6 fundamental forces

      Actually the goal is to reduce the number of fundamental forces.

      We usually speak of four fundamental forces, but we already know that they are actually only three (gravitational, strong and electroweak), which appear as four because of a spontaneous symmetry breaking. The ultimate goal is to describe everything with only one fundamental force.

    72. Re:One thing is for certain... by burisch_research · · Score: 1

      Thanks but I'll wait for the TF-X when it comes out. No runway for me!

      --
      char*f="char*f=%c%s%c;main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}";main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}
    73. Re:One thing is for certain... by burisch_research · · Score: 1

      Oops forgot the link: http://www.terrafugia.com/tfx-vision

      --
      char*f="char*f=%c%s%c;main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}";main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}
    74. Re:One thing is for certain... by david672orford · · Score: 0

      I doubt that religion can be cured pharmaceutically. It isn't a medical condition and the general stupidity usually behind it cannot be cured, although less inbreeding will help.

      So over 2/3ds of the world's population and over half of all scientists are stupid and inbred? That's stupid, are your parents siblings?

      I'm sick of you idiotic atheist evangelists' offtopic insults. Any time I see this horse shit when metamoderating it gets an automatic flamebait, troll, or offtopic unless the comment isn't, but they usually are.

      Indeed. I can respect someone who believes that God does not exist. I have no problem with him explaining to others why he thinks that is so. But the foaming-at-the-mouth Internet atheists with their insults and sophmoric arguments are as bad as the worst religious nut.

      They work themselves up into a lather about how stupid people are that they cannot see the glorious logic of atheist arguments, and are ignoring the "facts". The Internet atheists are blissfully unaware that these "facts" have no objective existence. They are simply a set of assumptions which their own atheism requires them to make.

    75. Re:One thing is for certain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sarah?
      that *sounds* like one of your word salads with no meaning...

    76. Re:One thing is for certain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. I can respect someone who believes that God does not exist. I have no problem with him explaining to others why he thinks that is so. But the foaming-at-the-mouth Internet atheists with their insults and sophmoric arguments are as bad as the worst religious nut.

      They work themselves up into a lather about how stupid people are that they cannot see the glorious logic of atheist arguments, and are ignoring the "facts". The Internet atheists are blissfully unaware that these "facts" have no objective existence. They are simply a set of assumptions which their own atheism requires them to make.

      The set of assumptions that atheists use are formed primarily due to the *lack* of facts. Scientific method, and all that. "Rabid" atheists, as you seem to be leading in to, like to point out that religious people believe in things with no proof, only faith. So basically, the religious are hoping for something and lying to themselves in the meantime (or at least following the beliefs that one is not supposed to prove or disprove religion, that one is meant to accept it all on faith). Logical people don't like that line of thought.

    77. Re:One thing is for certain... by Phisbut · · Score: 1

      In the 47 years I have spent on this rock, I have yet to see a futurist reliably predict the future.

      Where the fuck is my flying car?

      -- BMO

      I'll just leave this here : http://xkcd.com/864/

      --
      After 3 days without programming, life becomes meaningless
      - The Tao of Programming
    78. Re:One thing is for certain... by HaZardman27 · · Score: 1

      computers thousand times stronger than anything in 1964 - the size of your palm - in everybody's pocket

      "Communications will become sight-sound and you will see as well as hear the person you telephone. The screen can be used not only to see the people you call but also for studying documents and photographs and reading passages from books."

      That sounds a lot like a smartphone to me.

      --
      Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
    79. Re:One thing is for certain... by SMoynihan · · Score: 1

      Heavy use of compressed air tubes for postal mail (these remain only used in special settings like moving samples around hospitals, although my supermarket has one for money, weirdly)

      Here in Europe, most supermarkets seem to use those, which has led to some ingeniously inventive heists in France, as previously reported here.

    80. Re:One thing is for certain... by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      A lot of times their errors are errors of omission. Who in the '50s was predicting the Internet? Asimov went with the "one giant computer to do everything" idea, without any clue of user-generated content being important. Or even how you would wire up every house in the world to Multivac.

      Sounds a lot like the Internet to me. Wiring up every house has pretty much happened between phone lines, broadband, satellite, etc. The "one big computer" thing is gone, though we're exploring "Cloud Computing" which is pretty similar (and the vast majority of use is accessing various cloud services - either hosted websites, Netflix, etc).

    81. Re:One thing is for certain... by notanalien_justgreen · · Score: 1

      Your flying car is at every airport in the world. They're called planes.

    82. Re:One thing is for certain... by JuzzFunky · · Score: 1

      3D movies (on holographic cube TVs)

      I've been working on this for a while now. We have something that is pretty close - a swept surface volumetric display called the Voxiebox. Here's a video of our latest prototype at the Science Alive Expo in Adelaide, South Australia: YouTube Video of the Voxiebox at Science Alive!. It's not the life size ballet that Asimov predicted, but it's pretty close.

      --
      Unexpect the expected!
    83. Re:One thing is for certain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the logic behind flying cars is the ever-increasing value of land in a society where the population far outstrips the available food and space to sustain it. Land becomes too valuable to clutter it up with things like roads.

    84. Re:One thing is for certain... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2

      - NovartoGlaxoSmithKline announcing the first pharmceutical cure for religion causes widespread riots in Pakistan and Alabama.

      Fun! - But I doubt that religion can be cured pharmaceutically. It isn't a medical condition...

      You missed the news. A while back - 6 months to 2 years - there was a news article finding a link between religious belief and the (chemical or genetic, I forget which) makeup of the body. That implies religious belief is subject to encouragement or discouragement by biochemical means.
      My opinion is that religious belief is a defect, and that ending it is indeed a cure. Regardless, a physical mechanism that promotes religious belief is something requiring careful thought.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    85. Re:One thing is for certain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A bit off-topic, but if your parents are from the same country with the same ethnicity, there's a fair chance that they are distantly related (not direct siblings)

      You have two biological parents, each of which have two biological parents (you have four biological grandparents). If you go back to the time of the Romans, you would have enough ancestors to encompass all the humans that were alive at the time. This may actually occur even earlier, although I'd have to dig up the math to give you a better estimate. This is further compounded by the fact that each person today has their own tree, which inevitably results in an overlap somewhere along the line. Anthropologists believe that a common ancestor for all humans may have existed as late as the early hundred BCs.

    86. Re:One thing is for certain... by geekoid · · Score: 2

      There is specific brain chemistry that happens to facilitate religious beliefs, so I would say it is possible.

      ALL you decisions, beliefs, thoughts are all just chemical reactions.

      "- I am dead.

      So am I.

      --"
      Not me.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    87. Re:One thing is for certain... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Wow. You literally change the definition of facts bacause using the correct definiiton means you are wrong, but you ego can't cope.

      Simple..just.. wow.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    88. Re:One thing is for certain... by geekoid · · Score: 2

      They certainly aren't thinking.
      Applied rationality and logic would mean one should not believe in something their is no evidence to support.

      However the human brains loves harmless routine because people can go by rote and we don't spend the energy thinking.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    89. Re:One thing is for certain... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The refutation of solipsism is argumentum ad baculum.

      My understanding is that there's a psycho-chemical basis behind a person's feeling that he needs to find "something greater than himself", just as there is a psycho-chemical basis to much mental depression. This yearning for a greater thing makes a person vulnerable to accepting religious beliefs. This is a serious and occasionally deadly flaw, and ending it would constitute a cure.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    90. Re:One thing is for certain... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      define beauty.

      Of course, software is a science and an engineering discipline, not an art.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    91. Re:One thing is for certain... by jandrese · · Score: 1

      What he didn't foresee was genetic manipulation of food crops. He looked at the corn and soybeans of his day and said that it would never feed a planet, and he was right. What he didn't expect was that we would make better (higher producing) corn and soybeans instead of switching everybody to Vegemite.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    92. Re:One thing is for certain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, I realize I'm probably giving up my future fortune by suggesting this as AC and in public... ...but why can't today's microwaves scan the barcode on your bag of frozen steamable veggies and set the power and timer accordingly? Just scan and toss the bag in the microwave, have it do the rest. A little WiFi antenna, fairly durable Android touchscreen running the thing, etc...

    93. Re:One thing is for certain... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      beauty: "Something you think is beautiful"~

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    94. Re:One thing is for certain... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Most of your yes aren't, or they were based on thing already being developed.
      So like every other 'futuristic' author, you need a heavy does of cherry picking, bias, and twisting of the details.

      Photosensitive windows that block out extreme light levels (well, usually sunglasses)
      Already around.

      Automatically prepared meals (sort of, in microwave dinners; there's no standard for automated scanning of cooking times yet)
      So .. no then. If you looka t hat other were saying, he was literally tlakabout ut push a button and you complete meal rolls out. Not putting a hot dog in a microwave(which existed)

      Machine language translation (this is still a big thing; Microsoft had a pretty big demo just a year or two ago—but, of course, the game's all about Chinese now)
      SO..not prime time yet>? Of cours ewithout an end date it's meaningless

      Large solar arrays
      What we have aren't large. When we get them 50 miles to a side, then we will be what he was talking about.

      Heavy dependence on nuclear (although not as much as he hoped)
      No, we do no have heavy dependence on Nuclear, not even close to heavy.

      Automated driving (definitely show-off material, if not on the market much)
      Yes, soon.

      Video calls (still not as popular as futurists want them to be)
      My kids make them every day with their friends.

      Satellite networking
      What?

      Mostly-automated road construction
      nope

      Still no manned missions to Mars
      But a lot of robots he didn't predict.

      Optical networking (although he thought it'd be through pipes and not glass fibres)
      Not really the same thing he was talking about.

      Bus rapid transit (special lanes on highways)
      Again not waht he was tlaking about, nor wasn't futurist since they have had the discussion since they created the bus.

      Earth's population over 6.5 billion
      Which was projected.

      US population around 350 million (actually 319)
      Again. it ws a projection basedon the current data.

      Less developed areas will have slipped further behind the well-developed ones (although he didn't realise that some of them would actually fall backward)
      Where, where is this happening?

      Life expectancies around 85 in some countries (82.59 in Japan)

      Slowing population growth (it peaked in the 60s)
      No it didn't.

      Creative industries amongst the most valued ("The lucky few who can be involved in creative work of any sort will be the true elite of mankind, for they alone will do more than serve a machine.")
      Don't confuse making money with most valued.
      And computers will replace us there as well.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    95. Re:One thing is for certain... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      So , no then.

        "positronic brains"
      where as powerful as the plot needed them to be.

      " You also have to remember that the transistor hadn't yet been invented, "
      Your man crush has overridden you brain.
      the transistor was invented in 1908, the fet in 1925.

      The transistor was well know to anyone who picked up a hobby magazine.

      "As to probes exiting the solar system, he has human interstellar travel, way past the Voyagers.
      which means he was WRONG.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    96. Re:One thing is for certain... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      The IC goes back to 1947.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    97. Re:One thing is for certain... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      NO he didn't.
      sheesh.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    98. Re:One thing is for certain... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Dishwashing machines were around in the 1950s.

      "TV dinners" were in existence in the 1950s. To claim that Asimov's prediction means that they'd still exist in 2013 is mistaking his meaning.

      Radioisotope batteries is a prediction of a specific mechanism entirely different from chemical batteries.

      Single purpose machines like the Roomba are not the general purpose devices implied by Asimov's prediction.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    99. Re:One thing is for certain... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      If you think that's 'the cloud' then you are an idiot.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    100. Re:One thing is for certain... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      cite?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    101. Re:One thing is for certain... by BranMan · · Score: 2

      Yes! A moon base by 1990. We could move all of the radioactive waste from all the reactors on Earth to the moon if we had such a base.

      What could possibly go wrong?

    102. Re:One thing is for certain... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      What he didn't foresee was genetic manipulation of food crops.

      Of course not, how could anyone have? The first publications describing the successful production and intracellular replication of recombinant DNA appeared in 1972 and 1973. And of course that's not the only thing he missed -- better fertilizers, pesticides, equipment, soil testing and leaf testing in commercial labs at farmers' disposal, GPS, coating seed in beneficial microbes (he SHOULD have seen that, as he was a biochemist, but his field was cancer research, not food production) and a hundred other things.

      I live in the middle of Illinois, Monsanto and Bayar's GM are only a tiny part of what has raised production so much. Farmers mostly use non-GM seed, the GM seeds are only financially viable if your weed problem is such that you absolutely NEED glysophate.

    103. Re:One thing is for certain... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      the transistor was invented in 1908, the fet in 1925.

      Bullshit, the triode vacuum tube was invented in 1907. The transistor was indeed patented in 1925, but as wikipedia notes, "However, Lilienfeld did not publish any research articles about his devices nor did his patents cite any specific examples of a working prototype. Because the production of high-quality semiconductor materials was still decades away, Lilienfeld's solid-state amplifier ideas would not have found practical use in the 1920s and 1930s, even if such a device had been built.[6] In 1934, German inventor Oskar Heil patented a similar device.[7]"

      "From November 17, 1947 to December 23, 1947, John Bardeen and Walter Brattain at AT&T's Bell Labs in the United States, performed experiments and observed that when two gold point contacts were applied to a crystal of germanium, a signal was produced with the output power greater than the input.[8] Solid State Physics Group leader William Shockley saw the potential in this, and over the next few months worked to greatly expand the knowledge of semiconductors. The term transistor was coined by John R. Pierce as a portmanteau of the term "transfer resistor".[9][10] According to Lillian Hoddeson and Vicki Daitch, authors of a biography of John Bardeen, Shockley had proposed that Bell Labs' first patent for a transistor should be based on the field-effect and that he be named as the inventor. Having unearthed Lilienfeldâ(TM)s patents that went into obscurity years earlier, lawyers at Bell Labs advised against Shockley's proposal because the idea of a field-effect transistor that used an electric field as a "grid" was not new. Instead, what Bardeen, Brattain, and Shockley invented in 1947 was the first point-contact transistor.[6] In acknowledgement of this accomplishment, Shockley, Bardeen, and Brattain were jointly awarded the 1956 Nobel Prize in Physics "for their researches on semiconductors and their discovery of the transistor effect."[11]"

      Most importantly, The first working silicon transistor was developed at Bell Labs on January 26, 1954 by Morris Tanenbaum.[20] The first commercial silicon transistor was produced by Texas Instruments in 1954.

      I'm older than transistors. When I was a kid, everything had tubes.

      The transistor was well know to anyone who picked up a hobby magazine.

      Yes, by the 1960s after Asimov had written dozens of books and hundreds of short stories.

      Your man crush has overridden you brain.

      I'll ignore your flamebait, boy.

    104. Re:One thing is for certain... by MalachiK · · Score: 1

      I pretty much agree, On the other hand, working though the whole thing rationally gives me a headache. I've always would this little game quite entertaining. http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/god.php

    105. Re:One thing is for certain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windows will be archaic replaced with ubiquitous light panels (apparently scenery had no appeal in 1964

      Have you ever been in a large office building? This has pretty much happened.

    106. Re:One thing is for certain... by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      A lot of people have been complaining about this recently. The suggestion made Reddit's front page a few months ago, but with explicit mention of a QR code instead of just a barcode.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    107. Re:One thing is for certain... by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      Definitely the most impressive prototype I've seen—although I get the feeling AR glasses are going to be the killer technology in the quest to create a holodeck.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    108. Re:One thing is for certain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone is now wealthy enough to have that dishwasher, clothwasher+dryer, 1-2 cars, TV set, game console, video/dvd/disk recorders, portable videocamera's and that list goes on. Our houses and direct environment _is much_ automated. Yet indeed not by talking humanoid-like robots. Yet your cellphone can talk and understand you. There's no real reason to disqualify 'single purpose machines'... And on the other hand - 'humanoid' general purpose robots exist. Are used to welcome visitors and present them coffee. Learning them vacuum cleaning would be relative trivial next to keeping balance and walking stairs. They exist, yet not in households as we did not find an economic use for it - yet. We prefer to get our own coffee - which is usually out of a machine too.

      Disqualifying Asimov here seems in particular unfair because he also had to explain his views to 'the general public'. Talking about a single household robot is easier to understand as concept than describing 20 distinct devices that help please up our lifes. And he wasn't far off either just robotics appeared to be a computational and programmatic challenging task, it'd be more fair to say that he was 10-15 years of, as they will surely arrive (if practical) before 2030. In general, his predictions 50 years ahead were spot on and in reality 50 plus or minus 10 years which is still an impressive score.

      Oh.. and radioisotope batteries exist. Yet not for consumer goods.

    109. Re:One thing is for certain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      - computers thousand times stronger than anything in 1964 - the size of your palm - in everybody's pocket

      We passed a thousand times "stronger" quite a few years ago. We're closer to a factor of 1 million for both speed and storage.

    110. Re:One thing is for certain... by JeanCroix · · Score: 1

      So you're saying he's just seventeen and all he wants to do is disappear?

    111. Re:One thing is for certain... by david672orford · · Score: 0

      The set of assumptions that atheists use are formed primarily due to the *lack* of facts. Scientific method, and all that. "Rabid" atheists, as you seem to be leading in to, like to point out that religious people believe in things with no proof, only faith. So basically, the religious are hoping for something and lying to themselves in the meantime (or at least following the beliefs that one is not supposed to prove or disprove religion, that one is meant to accept it all on faith). Logical people don't like that line of thought.

      Yes, this is the line of reasoning which many atheists use and not just the angry ones. At its core is the idea that a religion, almost by definition has no factual basis. Atheist theories hold that religions have their origins exclusively within the human mind or within human societies. The Magical Thinking and Father Figure Neurosis theories are well-known examples. You suggest wishful thinking as an explanation of religion. But theories on the formation and spread of false beliefs cannot all by themselves tell us whether any specific belief system is false.

      As I have heard the scientific method argument expressed, it basically boils down to a hope that we will discover natural processes which fully replace God. I believe the best statement of this argument is the following: "It was once widely believed that lightening bolts are thrown by God. Through the scientific method we have discovered the real explanation. In time everything once attributed to God will be reatributed to natural processes." We'll just have to wait and see. For now, this argument has zero persuasive power.

      It is not a lack of facts which causes atheists to make the assumptions which I criticised. The purpose of these assumptions is to explain away inconvenent facts. For example, the Bible is a collection of historical, legal, and religious documents which describe what we would today call "contact with extraterrestials". One of them is the "God" in whom atheists would prefer not to believe.

      Atheists have spent the last three centuries trying to discredit these accounts. They have done this mostly by making up stuff. They invent imaginary writers who supposedly lived centuries after the named writers. (So that the histories will be historical fiction and the professies written after the fact.) They claim that the stories are mostly folk tales and do not refer to historical persons. Supposedly what we have is the last version of a bunch of documents which each generation hacked to suit its own purposes.

      Time has not been kind to these theories. In the 19th and the 20th centuries archeologists dug up the palaces of 'imaginary' kings, found 'fictional' cities, and found objects with the names and titles of even minor government officials mentioned in passing. Meanwhile older and older manuscripts were found which showed that the text had undergone only minor editorial changes. For the Gospels we have partial copies from within a generation or two of the events described.

      But, the know-it-alls have not gotten the memo. That is what I meant when I refered to Internet atheists who cite "facts" which don't actually exist. Trying to discredit the Bible with 'truthy' nonsense is a prime example.

      I have no beef with atheists in general. But anyone who says that all non-atheists are fools is a fool himself.

      Like you I reject the idea that there can be two kinds of truth, religious and scientific. If God does not exist, calling his existance a 'higher truth' does not make it so. If he does exist, refusing to accept it just because "god" is a religious term is similiarly unreasonable.

    112. Re:One thing is for certain... by bmo · · Score: 1

      He hasn't even seen a machine tool.

      --
      BMO

    113. Re:One thing is for certain... by bmo · · Score: 1

      >No one mentioned 3D copying?

      We've been doing this for thousands of years. Since prehistory, even.

      --
      BMO

    114. Re:One thing is for certain... by booch · · Score: 2

      Wrong. I'm fairly certain that in 50 years there would be a small colony of people living on the moon.

      Do you realize that nobody has even set foot on the moon in the past 40 years? Or even left low earth orbit.

      --
      Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
    115. Re:One thing is for certain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      despite the overpopulation, abundance of food for everybody

      1/8 of the world's population is currently "chronically undernourished": Number of hungry people in the world from worldhunger.org. Of course next you'll let us know how this is a political problem not a technical one, as if that makes any difference in anything but a post-scarcity society, given modern societies' performance to date. Dictators of one stripe or another are the default in the poorest nations simply owing to the circumstances they find themselves in now, and they aren't simply going to roll over and hand out food for free out of the goodness of their hearts - they're dictators, after all. Maybe you could do away with them by having massive buildouts in education and quality of life to build up a middle class but with the world being oiled by capitalism it's in the rest of the world's interests to keep the poorest of the poor right where they are now, to be exploited for manpower and resources.

    116. Re:One thing is for certain... by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      No:

      Boston and Washington DC will have merged into a giant city with 40 million inhabitants

      He came close, though: he underestimated the population of BosWash (it's just shy of 50 million), and it's still a group of distinct governmental entities rather than a single unit, despite being a continuous urban area about 300 miles long.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    117. Re:One thing is for certain... by kwerle · · Score: 1

      Yeah. And there is absolutely no reason to go there unless you are planing on using it as a stepping stone.

      But there are plenty of places there is no reason to go - and [rich] folks pay to go to 'em.

      I could see a commercial/vacation moon visits done with private money. But a base? Naw.

      The big unknown is nanotech. If we can nail down atomic manufacturing, then anything goes. But trying to predict that is ridiculous.

    118. Re:One thing is for certain... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      If no one had seen evidence that would be rational. If many people spoke of seeing evidence first hand, the only rational position would be to have an open mind.

      Your Atheism depends on faith. Agnosticism is the rational answer unless you go through something like this which leaves no doubt.

      I don't have to have faith.

    119. Re:One thing is for certain... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I was referring to his "Multivac" in his fiction. In 1964, though, computers were still huge monsters; as I mentioned elsewhere, I was inside a computer in 1972. It was a building full of book racks with circuit boards instead of books. It had to be that big to run a C5-A flight simulator. In 1964 the integrated circuit was only four years old. The military had a 300 bit computer made from them in 1961.

      From wikipedia:

      In April 1960, Texas Instruments announced multivibrator #502 as the world's first integrated circuit available on the market. The company assured that contrary to the competitors they actually sell their product, at a price of US$450 per unit or US$300 for quantities larger than 100 units.[45] However, the sales began only in the summer of 1961, and the price was higher than announced.[50] The #502 schematic contained two transistors, four diodes, six resistors and two capacitors, and repeated the traditional discrete circuitry.[51] The device contained two Si strips of 5 mm length inside a metal-ceramic housing.[51] One strip contained input capacitors; the other accommodated mesa transistors and diodes, and its grooved body was used as six resistors. Gold wires acted as interconnections.[52]

      ICs were primitive and expensive in 1964. I can't fault anyone for not foreseeing pocket computers; I didn't, and I'd read of ICs, being a young curious nerd (I was using my second computer in 1964 -- a slide rule. My first was a pencil). It was really primitive back then.

      What's funny is how primitive it is now, which I won't see but you will in fifty years.

    120. Re:One thing is for certain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uhhhh .... China has nuclear weapons, Japan does not. While it's obvious that Japan has the technical minds and capabilities to easily weaponize fission on a warhead, China is not exactly unable to MAD.

    121. Re:One thing is for certain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Photosensitive glass was already well known in the 1960s, so no credit for predicting that would be widely used in windows just because it is used in sunglasses.
      Automatically prepared meals? I don't know about you, but I still have to put the meal in the microwave and press the cooking time myself.
      Heavy dependence on nuclear - partial credit. Only really true if you live in one of a handful of European countries (most notably, France), or (for some reason) South Korea. Elsewhere, nuclear's market share hasn't signficantly risen since the 1970s.

      On the flip side, robot housekeepers are a reality in good ol' Japan, where they don't have the same cultural hangups we Westerners do.

    122. Re:One thing is for certain... by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      A lot of people seemed to complain about my analysis of automated meals, not noticing that I actually put it in both lists because we're only half way there.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    123. Re:One thing is for certain... by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      I probably should've looked that one up. Not being from the region it seemed preposterous—but, hey, the world's weird like that.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    124. Re:One thing is for certain... by MistrX · · Score: 1

      What I meant was 3D scanning and printing technologies for quick modeling and prototyping of various objects.
      Not in the fashion of how we model stuff since the prehistory. Thats for old people. ;-)

      Yes, I have seen Star Trek. I know of the replicator. Our 3D printing tech is kind of like the primitive form of a replicator.

    125. Re:One thing is for certain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like the universality of physical laws in areas of the cosmos we have not visited? The Big Bang? An emphatic connection between members of the human species? The equality of man? The lack of a logical underpinning to a metaphysical dimension of existence. Lots of people seem to believe in the above mentioned world views, non of which have any more evidence to support them than religion.

    126. Re:One thing is for certain... by sabbede · · Score: 0

      Ugh. It was a short story in a collection. Can't recall the name. It started off with the guy who designed this first desktop (and it was written back in the 50's-60's) showing it off to a friend. The computer builds itself an arm and things go awry. In the same anthology there was a story about using a computer to investigate the source of jokes. The source turns out to be alien, part of a study being performed on humanity. When the experiment is discovered, it ends and takes all humor (except puns) with it.

    127. Re:One thing is for certain... by sabbede · · Score: 0

      You need to be more patient.

    128. Re:One thing is for certain... by oldestgeek · · Score: 1

      Burt Rutan will sell you a good one with high mileage. It's also a hybrid. That actually makes sense to have the extra power at takeoff and landing and cruise purely on gas engine. You now get plastic zippers on throw-away packages! Or how about the first stem cell cure for cancer. Doesn't that amaze you or are you still spouting that canard about flying cars?

    129. Re:One thing is for certain... by bmo · · Score: 1

      >Burt Rutan
      >canard

      Bravo, I fucking lost it.

      --
      BMO

    130. Re:One thing is for certain... by lissnup · · Score: 1

      Nice, fun, predictions! I'm willing to up the ante and predict that, in 100 years from now - Legislation will be proposed outlawing the use of remote gene re-sequencers to change people's religious beliefs against their will

    131. Re:One thing is for certain... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      But the foaming-at-the-mouth Internet atheists with their insults and sophmoric arguments are as bad as the worst religious nut.

      Oh, I feel so deeply upset. I suppose that I'd better give up on being a moral atheist and go and cut the cunt out of a little girl using a broken bottle, shouting "Jesus Akbar", as you religious fuckwits do.

      Nah, I'll resist the temptation, because I still can't hear the Voice of Dog ordering me to punish you unto the seventh generation, though it's statistically a near certainty that someone in your 2^7+2^6+2^5+2^4+2^3+2^2+2^1= 128+64+32+16+8+4+2= 254 ancestors will have done something sufficiently reprehensible for you to be smitten.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    132. Re:One thing is for certain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTFDelbpido

      Enjoy! :)

    133. Re:One thing is for certain... by wienerschnizzel · · Score: 1

      Of course next you'll let us know how this is a political problem not a technical one, as if that makes any difference

      Of course it does make a difference. 50 years ago, nobody thought we could produce enough food for double the world population without causing an ecological catastrophe like chopping down all the forests. Don't try to pretend that this 'technical' aspect is something you can just wave off as insignificant.

    134. Re:One thing is for certain... by wienerschnizzel · · Score: 1

      It sounds more like a personal computer to me. The miniaturization, mobility and computational power aspect is missing. There the progress went much faster than anything anybody in the 60's anticipated.

    135. Re:One thing is for certain... by Sique · · Score: 1

      No. That's the transistor. Not the IC. Keeping the different transistors and diodes and resistors together on the silicon and just connect them there was invented in 1967 by Jack Kilby (for germanium though) and by Robert Noyce (actual silicon).

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    136. Re: One thing is for certain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know where your's is, but mine is in the hangar.

      Most people are so happy (or complacent) with their 2d gas guzzlers that there has been no incentive to produce cost efficient flying cars.

    137. Re:One thing is for certain... by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 1

      From the article:

      "Much effort will be put into the designing of vehicles with 'Robot-brains', vehicles that can be set for particular destinations and that will then proceed there without interference by the slow reflexes of a human driver."

      Sounds like the Google car to me.

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
  2. So he was off by a year? Next one is in 2015. by forevermore · · Score: 5, Informative

    According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world_expositions there was one in 2012, and there is one planned for 2015, so he was only off by a year. It's not like they were an annual occurrence in his time, either.

    --
    Do you really need reason for beer? Wingman Brewers
  3. "the whole notion that we'd have a world's fair" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Of course we have world's fairs. They are called Expos. The Shanghai one was in 2010 and the Aichi one was in 2005. You must be American to be so unaware of what is happening in the world.

  4. and yet by phantomfive · · Score: 2

    classify it into 'throw away' and 'set aside.'

    This is the hardest part. We have robots that are quite agile, but classifying objects into 'throw away' and 'set aside' is still extremely difficult.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:and yet by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      no, not hard at all. one little RFID in everything and problem is solved.

    2. Re:and yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true. It can be quite easy. From hoarderbot's source code:

      def bin_or_save(item):
              return SET_ASIDE

    3. Re:and yet by loufoque · · Score: 5, Informative

      We have machines that can sort trash on a conveyor belt with air jets at amazing speeds.

    4. Re:and yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We do have robots that can recognise objects based on different criteria, including 3D spacial modelling and tactile properties, so classifying them is just a matter of creating a large enough database of household objects, which will be done eventually once the tech becomes commercially viable and desirable (for some strange reason people don't like the thought of autonomous machines rummaging through their belongings when they are not looking)

    5. Re:and yet by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      It sounds so easy until you try to do it.....

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re:and yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only after it's first been classified as trash, by someone, somewhere. That is the original poster's point I think.

    7. Re:and yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      classifying objects into 'throw away' and 'set aside' is still extremely difficult.

      Robots aren't the only ones to have a problem with that. My aunt is always telling us how my uncle gets it wrong all the time, and according to my girlfriend I've learned a lot from him too.

    8. Re:and yet by fast+turtle · · Score: 1

      The easiest way to classify "Throw Away" is to simply throw it. Does it go very far? If not, then it's a "set aside".

      --
      Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
    9. Re:and yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL! XD

    10. Re:and yet by znanue · · Score: 2

      Not true. It can be quite easy. From hoarderbot's source code:

      def bin_or_save(item): return SET_ASIDE

      sigh, python coders!

    11. Re:and yet by fermion · · Score: 3, Interesting
      One of the conciets of the pulp science fiction age was that house work was going to be more automobile than 'real' brain work. House work was done by robots, but navigation was still done by hand. By the 1960's it was clear that all the math stuff was easily automated, in 2014 Wolfram can basically solve any college level math problem you give it, but housework is still done by hand. Furthermore, there are a lot of manufacturing jobs available, they just don't pay enough to keep them in the developed world.

      Which leads to an interesting piece of economics that the writers of the time, most all versed in economics, seemed to miss. That we will pay for things, like cable, but not for things like a autonomous vacuum cleaner or lawn mower. That as long as people are willing to work cheaper than a machine, we will pay the people.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    12. Re:and yet by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      interesting observation

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    13. Re:and yet by Miamicanes · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'll be happy with an arm on a ceiling-mounted gantry that retracts into a niche above the bath-shower alcove and keeps the toilet nice and sparkly clean, including the unspeakably nasty region BEHIND the toilet.

      Somebody tell me again why it's impossible to buy a house in America with master bathroom that's built like a big waterproof shower with floor drain, so you can just hose it down with soapy water to clean it? Oh, right... because our building codes force you to use P traps and dry-venting for every single drain in the house, instead of allowing drum traps for floor drains (building a floor drain with a drum trap is cheap and easy; P-traps intrude into the ceiling envelope of the floor below, and dry-venting a floor drain that's in the middle of the room in a code-compliant manner is hard due to the horizontal distance it has to run before going vertical).

    14. Re:and yet by lxs · · Score: 2

      I'll be happy when people stop being too lazy and/or proud to keep their own houses clean.
      An unspeakably nasty region behind the toilet doesn't appear overnight.

    15. Re:and yet by the_other_chewey · · Score: 1

      We have machines that can sort trash on a conveyor belt with air jets at amazing speeds.

      But everything on this conveyor belt is already classified as trash.

      Would you trust a computer to make the "trash vs. non-trash decision" while
      cleaning your living room? Your desk? Your garage?

    16. Re:and yet by loufoque · · Score: 2

      They can sort different types of trash.
      Differentiating trash and non-trash is subjective. Not even a human can reliably do it. Assuming you instruct a machine what is trash and what isn't, with a clear and non-ambiguous definition, then there should be no problem making an algorithm that identifies which is which.

    17. Re:and yet by LoRdTAW · · Score: 2

      Agreed. I have always wanted a bathroom with central drain and the ability to quickly wash down the bathroom. Behind the toilet always gets grimey as well as the area just under and behind the seat hinge. It could also allow for a smaller bathroom with a shower head hanging from the ceiling. Just stand and shower right in the middle, no need for a stall. Hell wouldn't it be even better if you could sit on the bowl and shower at the same time? That would save some time in the morning. Bonus if the bathroom could double as a sauna.

    18. Re:and yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because many people would much rather spend their time doing just about anything else. nothing to do with laziness or being proud.

      why don't you change the oil in your car yourself?

      and if you happen to do that i bet i can list other tasks nearly everyone has to do on a semi-regular basis and there will be at least one item that you don't do because either you don't like it or would much rather spend your time doing something else.

      there are quite a number of things that i would hire done before doing myself, such as roofing a house (luckily not something that is done often). i have the skill and ability to do it, and i have done it before, but i very much hate doing it and would far prefer to pay someone else to do it for me so i can do anything else with that time.

    19. Re:and yet by judoguy · · Score: 1

      Hell, *I* have trouble with that at my house!

      --
      Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
    20. Re:and yet by judoguy · · Score: 2

      Agreed. I have always wanted a bathroom with central drain and the ability to quickly wash down the bathroom.

      Ever live as part of a family? All you'd have to do is move all the towels and electric razors and hair driers and all the other stuff real bathrooms have then hose everything down, wait for it to dry sufficiently, and then replace everything.

      Voila! Labor savings!

      --
      Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
    21. Re:and yet by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "Differentiating trash and non-trash is subjective"
      and that's the issue. It's nice if you removed the problem they are trying to solve and then declrae it 'fixed'.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    22. Re:and yet by loufoque · · Score: 1

      The problem is that of definition.
      You can't solve a problem whose definition is not well-formed.

    23. Re:and yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have machines that can sort trash on a conveyor belt with air jets at amazing speeds.

      Ther're also the size of factories and cost millions of dollars. It still remains more cost efficient to make humans do that job.

    24. Re:and yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm confused. Move to Japan.

  5. Did he ever revisit these predictions? by Derec01 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Considering Asimov did not die until the early nineties, did he ever update or evaluate the progress towards his earlier predictions? I feel he would have revised his belief that, for instance, mankind would be increasingly interested in living in hermetically sealed, controlled bubbles.

    1. Re:Did he ever revisit these predictions? by rubycodez · · Score: 4, Informative

      oh? the windows on my building at work don't open. my windows at home are open maybe 2 months total out of the year.

    2. Re:Did he ever revisit these predictions? by chromaexcursion · · Score: 1

      Sadly, he was slowly dying of cancer since the early 80's.
      he lost interest in his writing, and more in staying alive.
      I met him in late '79.
      he was doing his last university circuit. windows wasn't on the horizon

    3. Re:Did he ever revisit these predictions? by kamapuaa · · Score: 2

      Asimov was on a TV show where the host asked him about his earlier prediction that the world would only have five computers. Asimov asked that the question be cut, where the confused newscaster pointed out it was a live show. So Asimov walked out of the interview.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    4. Re:Did he ever revisit these predictions? by Moridineas · · Score: 5, Informative

      Isaac Asimov did not have cancer. He died of AIDS complications. He was a very early casualty and was infected by a tainted blood transfusion. He and his family kept the truth a secret for many years due to the early stigma of aids.

    5. Re:Did he ever revisit these predictions? by Tran · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I think that was the "Our future in the Cosmos" series of presentations. I saw him present that at NASA Langley Research Center.
      Stood in line to meet him and get his autograph on a scrap piece of paper. Then I recognized the man sitting behind him, talking to him on occasion - and got his autograph right next to Isaac Asimov's. That man was no other than Mr Kelly Freas (Frank Kelly Freas). He was astonished that anyone recognized him, and I kept it to myself I had just seen him recently at a Sci-Con, so recognition was easy.

      Had the concept been known back then I think that was my first nerd-gasm.

      I was too young(16-17) and to unaware to notice Mr Asimov's health.

    6. Re:Did he ever revisit these predictions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      windows wasn't on the horizon

      QDOS was being coded though.

    7. Re:Did he ever revisit these predictions? by LostMonk · · Score: 1

      It's you misfortune to live in a poor climate. My home windows are usually open for 10 months of the year.

    8. Re:Did he ever revisit these predictions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My home windows are usually open for 10 months of the year.

      You have an address? I want to come see this. And by the way, what time do you leave for work?

    9. Re:Did he ever revisit these predictions? by Derec01 · · Score: 1

      Underground? Without natural light? Truly sealed? I see your point, but Asimov's description was of a developing larger distaste of an uncontrolled environment, rather than just not being cold/hot and wet.

      We certainly keep ourselves dry and at comfortable temperatures, but otherwise most people still have real windows looking out on whatever area they're in, and don't seem terribly interested in sealing off all natural light or avoiding the outside entirely.

    10. Re:Did he ever revisit these predictions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're mistaken. I remember seeing that and Asimov said, and I quote "In another 50 years, computers will be twice as powerful, 10000 times larger and so expensive only the 5 richest kings of Europe will be able to afford them."

      True story.

    11. Re:Did he ever revisit these predictions? by vrt3 · · Score: 1

      Asimov was on a TV show where the host asked him about his earlier prediction that the world would only have five computers. Asimov asked that the question be cut, where the confused newscaster pointed out it was a live show. So Asimov walked out of the interview.

      Citation needed.

      AFAIK Asimov never said that; it was an IBM executive, IIRC.

      --
      This sig under construction. Please check back later.
    12. Re:Did he ever revisit these predictions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mine are also open for about 10 months of the year -- but good luck getting past the electric fencing, 10 foot wall, armed guards, my german shepherd dog -- and the stout burglar bars.

      Welcome to Johannesburg.

    13. Re:Did he ever revisit these predictions? by burisch_research · · Score: 1

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

      --
      char*f="char*f=%c%s%c;main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}";main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}
    14. Re:Did he ever revisit these predictions? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      the average corporate worker has a fluorescent lit cloth covered foam "cube" for a workspace, windows are for management.

    15. Re:Did he ever revisit these predictions? by Derec01 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, sure. That's a corporate focus on efficiency, etc. etc. I'm sure people worked in dimly lit basement offices in the 60s. But Asimov was predicting we'd want that in our homes. The fact that a dingy fluorescent lit cubicle is considered depressing is exactly my point. It's not desirable for most people.

    16. Re:Did he ever revisit these predictions? by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Good God, not this idiotic statement again. He never said any such thing. He was telling a story about the development of their first commercial computer. He said that he had his engineers draw up a design on paper. He then took that paper design to 20 different potential buyers to gauge interest. He said 'I hoped to get five orders, we got eighteen.' He was not making some grand prediction about the world market for computers, he was hoping to get a minimum of five orders for a particular as-yet-to-be-built computer, after showing it to a grand total of 20 customers.

    17. Re:Did he ever revisit these predictions? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      that does bring to mind the dingy fluorescent lighting as the government mandated and approved standard for the home

    18. Re:Did he ever revisit these predictions? by burisch_research · · Score: 1

      Actually I also thought that was the case; but it certainly wasn't Asimov, which is why I posted this. Further research (if you can call it research) reveals the wikipedia page which states:

      'Although Watson is well known for his alleged 1943 statement, "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers", there is scant evidence he made it.'

      --
      char*f="char*f=%c%s%c;main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}";main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}
  6. Why even classify? by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is the hardest part. We have robots that are quite agile, but classifying objects into 'throw away' and 'set aside' is still extremely difficult.

    I think there are plenty of other harder parts because I don't care if a robot can do that. Just a simple robot that could dust every item on a shelf would be fantastic. Heck, even if it could just lift any arbitrary item and clean only the shelf it would be fantastic.

    The ability to lift and replace arbitrary items on a crowded shelf would seem to be pretty hard all by itself, without any need of classifying them...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Why even classify? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's like you've never used a regular expression: “all items” includes the dust :)

      What? The robot doesn't have that degree of spatial recognition and manipulative prowess? Okay... so now we're talking shitty hardware? ;P

    2. Re:Why even classify? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      It's more profitable to havve the robot ask you what each thing is and where it goes, then it will know for future reference. Just like a human child. A general-purpose recognizer is unneeded. Just recognizing an object separate from background is all that's needed, if non-trivial itself.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    3. Re:Why even classify? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Is a crumpled piece of paper trash? an old love note you want to save? An important contract you kid stepped on?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:Why even classify? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      OK, throw away everything under one microgram.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  7. Wonder why the dislike of sunlight by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The oddest part of the whole thing to me, was the thought that so many people would want to get rid of sunlight to the greatest extent possible.

    The opposite has been true, luxury houses all have huge windows. People love natural light indoors, and a lot of money is spent trying to replicate it with artificial lighting...

    I wonder if that was a prevailing opinion at the time, or if it was just something Asimov preferred.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Wonder why the dislike of sunlight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The oddest part of the whole thing to me, was the thought that so many people would want to get rid of sunlight to the greatest extent possible.

      The opposite has been true, luxury houses all have huge windows. People love natural light indoors, and a lot of money is spent trying to replicate it with artificial lighting...

      I wonder if that was a prevailing opinion at the time, or if it was just something Asimov preferred.

      If you look at Asimov's works of fiction, you will see several (e.g. The Caves of Steel - the Elijah Bailey series) where humans can't tolerate sunlight and open spaces, and you will also see some where people live on a planet with 7 suns and the entire world goes crazy because they can't stand the darkness when all of them set (or have eclipses) all at once.

    2. Re:Wonder why the dislike of sunlight by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      most people don't live in luxury houses. and we sure as hell don't work in them. we bask most the working day and night under artificial light.

    3. Re:Wonder why the dislike of sunlight by bws111 · · Score: 5, Informative

      In 1964, most windows were still glazed with a single pane. They let lots of heat in during the summer and out during the winter. In addition, the sun coming in through the windows tended to fade carpets and furniture. Today, with double and triple glazing, and low e coatings, we get the light without the problems.

    4. Re:Wonder why the dislike of sunlight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In 2013, in Australia, at least, double glazing is still rare. http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/ABS@.nsf/2f762f95845417aeca25706c00834efa/66EB261521F6DE96CA25750E00108C0D?opendocument

    5. Re:Wonder why the dislike of sunlight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LCD tech was just being discovered. It was thought a main use would be for controlling the opacity of windows with the flick of a switch.

    6. Re:Wonder why the dislike of sunlight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In 1964, most windows were still glazed with a single pane. They let lots of heat in during the summer and out during the winter. In addition, the sun coming in through the windows tended to fade carpets and furniture. Today, with double and triple glazing, and low e coatings, we get the light without the problems.

      Unless your in Australia the standard window is still crappy single glaze no low e coatings

    7. Re:Wonder why the dislike of sunlight by Alioth · · Score: 1

      When I lived in the US (up till 2002, in Texas) most windows were still single pane even in new builds which surprised me given in Houston heat everyone needs A/C and it's expensive to load up the AC by having windows that just allow the heat in.

    8. Re:Wonder why the dislike of sunlight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The oddest part of the whole thing to me, was the thought that so many people would want to get rid of sunlight to the greatest extent possible.

      The opposite has been true, luxury houses all have huge windows. People love natural light indoors, and a lot of money is spent trying to replicate it with artificial lighting...

      I wonder if that was a prevailing opinion at the time, or if it was just something Asimov preferred.

      He was slightly agoraphobic if I remember correctly. So were some of his protagonists.

    9. Re:Wonder why the dislike of sunlight by Nimey · · Score: 2

      That's probably Texas's reflexive dislike of government regulations.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    10. Re:Wonder why the dislike of sunlight by burisch_research · · Score: 1

      This technology is available today, but hasn't really caught on.

      --
      char*f="char*f=%c%s%c;main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}";main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}
    11. Re:Wonder why the dislike of sunlight by jandrese · · Score: 1

      Were you living in a particularly old and poor point of town? By 2002 double pane windows were commonplace on everything except old construction. Replacing the windows on 50 year old houses is really expensive, so poor people don't do it, which causes them to waste a ton of money on heating and cooling so they can't afford to replace the windows. It's a viscous cycle. Houston is especially bad because it is both hot and humid there for much of the year.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    12. Re:Wonder why the dislike of sunlight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Were you living in a particularly old and poor point of town? By 2002 double pane windows were commonplace on everything except old construction. Replacing the windows on 50 year old houses is really expensive, so poor people don't do it, which causes them to waste a ton of money on heating and cooling so they can't afford to replace the windows. It's a viscous cycle. Houston is especially bad because it is both hot and humid there for much of the year.

      So...it's incredibly thick?

    13. Re:Wonder why the dislike of sunlight by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's a Texas thing. In Minnesota everything has been double-paned for several decades in new construction. You'll run into single-pane in old construction, but even those are getting more scarce as most people have figured out that replacing those windows will pay for itself, and that's assuming the windows didn't rot out years ago from all the moisture (from condensation) in the winter.

  8. Asimov by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is one of the reasons I like to read Asimov's work. It's not (completely) wild imagination - there's actually some thought into whether things are reasonable.

    My favorite Asimov invention that actually came to be is "Psychohistory": The kinds of big data analysis that we can do today are pretty much exactly what he's talking about. I worked on a project recently about predicting the behavior of Indian terrorist groups like the Lashkar-e-taiba and the Mujahadeen based on the last 20 years of the actions they've done and the things that have happened in their environment. There were some things we were able to predict about future behavior with accuracy as good as 90%."

    1. Re:Asimov by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anything specific?

    2. Re:Asimov by gsslay · · Score: 2

      Asimov was a genius. Not a brilliant writer, but a genius all the same. He was best at short stories, where he could get an idea across quickly. But I find his novels by-the-numbers and tedious. Too many wooden discussions going on that repeat themselves in order to hammer a point home. And he never managed to write a female character that wasn't a two dimensional cypher.

      But it doesn't surprise me that this essay is remarkably accurate.

    3. Re:Asimov by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pakistani Terrorist groups not Indian, they kill Indians. India does not supoort any terror group whatsoever.

    4. Re:Asimov by proslack · · Score: 1

      Psychohistory: It's pretty much sociology with some regressions thrown in, isn't it?

      --


      Floating in the black seas of infinity without a paddle.
    5. Re:Asimov by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I find his novels by-the-numbers and tedious.

      Huh? His stuff is imminemntly readable and enjoyable as hell. He was no stylist, as he said himself, but his words did easily flow and I was drawn into the worlds he presented. On the other hand, Niven was often tedious and boring, especially when writing with Pournelle, although the concepts were interesting and the books were readable, even if large parts of them were boring.

      I remember liking Pohl's stuff, but I checked his latest, All the Lives He Led and it was just plain BORING. I only read half of it, but there are many who disagree with me. Googling for a wikipedia entry it looks like the critics were ecstatic over it.

      But Asimov? How many of his novels have you read? I particularly liked the Elija Baily trilogy and the Foundation series.

      His nonfiction was as good as his fiction.

    6. Re:Asimov by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      90% is most likely an overly optimistic estimate of the accuracy. You've probably used training sets and validation sets and even cross-validations, but no matter what you do your accuracy estimate is based on what had already happened, and the model tries to fit it as best as it can. The future, invariably , will bring more surprises. In reality, I think even 70-80% accuracy would be really great and useful. Another key assumption is that the terrorist groups would not adjust their strategy because their planned attacks are increasingly getting thwarted based on your accurate prediction. How to model that feedback is going to be a very difficult and interesting problem.

    7. Re:Asimov by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      No surprise about his inability to make a credible female character. Asimov was a womanizer, and as such had no respect for women.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  9. Pocket Computers by rossdee · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Asimov predicted 'pocket compiters (I think it was in one of the early foundation books) and when pocket calculators came out in the 70's they were using red LEDs and the 'good doctor' said "look I even got the colors right.
    (but 40 years later pocket compiters are using multicolored displays, so much for his predictions.)

    Like many SF authors he was obsessed with humanoid style robots, but that hasn't happened even though other robots are around in quantity.

    The first law of Robotics doesn't seem to be around either (just the opposite when you think of drones)

    1. Re:Pocket Computers by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      Well, there are humanoid robots, but they kind of suck at being humanoid. Robots build for a purpose aren't humanoid. The human form is an animal form. A humanoid form would work fine if you were making a robot out of meat.

    2. Re:Pocket Computers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like many SF authors he was obsessed with humanoid style robots, but that hasn't happened

      It happened, man! After they defeated us they managed to brainwash most people and now live in disguise. I don't have much time but now that you've read this you know too much. If you don't want them to screw with your brain again you must find %#$`#{`&NO CARRIER

    3. Re:Pocket Computers by dcollins · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I recently wrote a series of blogs analyzing Asimov's use of technology (esp. hyperspace and calculating jumps) in the original Foundation trilogy. The best it gets in the 3rd book is to have a room-sized computer that can project a picture of the galaxy and locate your position in space in only a half-hour ("the Lens"). Probably the two most jarring elements when re-reading these books is how all communication is still done on paper (stacks of paperwork, paper capsules for secure messaging, paper star charts for navigation), and that most everyone is smoking everywhere all the time. Follow-up would be the absence of women in any leadership or technical roles. This being set 50,000 years in the future.

      http://deltasdnd.blogspot.com/2013/07/scifi-saturday-asimov-on-hyperspace-pt-4.html

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    4. Re:Pocket Computers by eclectro · · Score: 1

      (just the opposite when you think of drones)

      It's hard to call remote controlled aircraft aka drones "robots", which are autonomous machines capable of making decisions without human intervention.

      But that's also the reason why the self-driving robot cars seem to be coming true, with vehicles similar to Google's driverless car.

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    5. Re:Pocket Computers by cas2000 · · Score: 1

      the american obsession with humanoid robots is a harkening back to the good old days when you could own slaves - i.e. it's entirely due to the fact that they are slave substitutes who won't murder you in your sleep for mis-treating them.

      in fact, due to Asimov's 3 laws, they *can't* murder you in your sleep.

    6. Re:Pocket Computers by kamapuaa · · Score: 1

      Isn't humanoid robots an international thing? If anything, maybe Japanese.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    7. Re:Pocket Computers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How do you know people won't smoke in the future? Perhaps medical tech will be able to any cures that come of it and it will regain its ubiquity. Certainly billions of people do at the present despite omnipresent warnings about its negative health consequences.

      I very much enjoy smoking, with a pipe. Takes me away from this aneseptic harmless world so many want to revel in.

    8. Re:Pocket Computers by Jonner · · Score: 1

      The first law of Robotics doesn't seem to be around either (just the opposite when you think of drones)

      There isn't yet artificial intelligence anywhere close to the level for which the laws of robotics would make sense. However, even if there ever is such AI, it is naive in the extreme to think there could be universal agreement on how such AIs should be constrained. I doubt even Asimov thought that was realistic. I think his interest in the laws was for thought experiments and plot devices more than anything else. Notice that he doesn't mention them in this essay.

    9. Re:Pocket Computers by xenobyte · · Score: 2

      in fact, due to Asimov's 3 laws, they *can't* murder you in your sleep.

      Actually they can. Turns out Asimov made a classic mistake when he created the three laws, a mistake he actually used later when it came to the robots on Solaria. The laws are immutable except through generalization which apparently is only possible for telepathic robots, but the definitions behind them aren't. You can modify the definitions of 'human' and emphasize the check of this, which makes such a robot clearly state when someone appears to be human but fails on a single important parameter: "You're not a human being".

      This is of course the so-called 'racist loophole' which allows racists to act against 'sub people' in ways they'd never use against 'real people'. The propaganda of Goebbels portrayed jews as rat-like sub-creatures which existed only to do harm, and so the people had very few qualms when SA started harassing the jews and still very few when Gestapo and the SS started arresting them and sending them to the concentration camps. Slavery has also been consistently justified by the fact that the slaves were not 'real people'.

      --
      "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
    10. Re:Pocket Computers by Kvan · · Score: 1

      e-cigarettes are also growing explosively right now (on track to becoming a $1B industry this year), and there are already tons of luxury products in that category. I think that will take over almost all cigarette use (in the West), and pipes and cigars will become even more niche than they are already. Barring legislative shenanigans from the neo-puritan crowd, of course.

      --

      "A *person* is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."
      - 'K' in Men in Black.

    11. Re:Pocket Computers by locofungus · · Score: 1

      Harla Branno (mayor of Terminus)
      Vasilia Aliena (Dr Falstoffs daughter and by all accounts, one of the most brilliant roboticists on Aurora)
      Susan Calvin (The Einstein of robotics - still remembered hundreds of years later on a world that considers Earthmen to be little more than monkeys)

      --
      God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
    12. Re:Pocket Computers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're also coming under fire as they're still not healthy and should only be used to quit smoking, not replace one with the other long term. Oh look, a source: http://www.thelocal.fr/20130826/e-cigarettes-are-potentially-carcinogenic

    13. Re:Pocket Computers by Bob+The+Cowboy · · Score: 1

      WRT to the women in leadership roles: I don't have it in front me, but I seem to recall several mayors/governors of Terminus and other planets (the one that was formerly named after Elijah Bailey?).

    14. Re:Pocket Computers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Asimov came close to predicting e-cigs; cigarettes in his stories combusted on inhalation.

    15. Re:Pocket Computers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slavery has also been consistently justified by the fact that the slaves were not 'real people'.

      American slaves weren't thought of as PEOPLE, period. They were no more highly regarded than a dog or a horse or any other work animal. Like dogs, there were "field niggers" and "house niggers". This is why calling a black person a "nigger" or calling him "boy" is so insulting. Calling a black person either of those is saying he's an inhuman animal. Would you stand for that if you were black?

    16. Re:Pocket Computers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And continues to exists today, as pre-borns are not real persons. John R Holdren has even claimed that infants and toddlers are not real persons and it is ethical to kill them if they are unwanted. Same song, different year.

    17. Re:Pocket Computers by dcollins · · Score: 1

      None of which are in the original Foundation trilogy (context as stated in GP).

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    18. Re:Pocket Computers by dcollins · · Score: 1

      Not in the original Foundation trilogy (context as stated in GP).

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    19. Re:Pocket Computers by locofungus · · Score: 1

      OK.

      Off the top of my head, only women I can think of with significant roles in the original foundation trilogy are Bayta and Arkady Darell.

      There's also the wife of Preem Palver who, although not having much of a role (nor does Preem Palver himself) we learn was a speaker in her own right.

      Calia (Stetin's mistress) also has an important role although she was obviously a foot soldier and sacrificial pawn for the second foundation.

      --
      God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
  10. Asimov didn't live long enough by veektor · · Score: 2

    Too bad Asimov didn't live long enough to revist his predictions. I'm sure he would have had something interesting to day about the hazards of prediction. Here's hoping that my prediction is as good as the best of his, although we can never know.

  11. Amazing Asimov by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not only did he get his technology predictions far more accurate than other futurists, he also figured out which companies would survive (GE and IBM)

  12. Fair good, olympics bad by johnwerneken · · Score: 2

    Is fun watching folks compete to be best, I have seen it at the Olympic level, but it is useless. And considering the expense, outrageous.

    Fairs were a good custom in many ways, particularly World's Fairs. I miss them, and could do entirely without the Oily Pimpics.

    1. Re:Fair good, olympics bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Olympics are very very bad indeed, for everyone except the competitors. This event should be abolished.

    2. Re:Fair good, olympics bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fairs were a good custom in many ways, particularly World's Fairs. I miss them

      They're still around, the Illinois State Fair just concluded last week and the next World's Fair will be in 2015.

  13. True Sage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Several misses for each hit. A few from TFA:

    One thought that occurs to me is that men will continue to withdraw from nature in order to create an environment that will suit them better. By 2014, electroluminescent panels will be in common use. Ceilings and walls will glow softly, and in a variety of colors that will change at the touch of a push button.

    Jets of compressed air will also lift land vehicles off the highways, which, among other things, will minimize paving problems. Smooth earth or level lawns will do as well as pavements. Bridges will also be of less importance, since cars will be capable of crossing water on their jets, though local ordinances will discourage the practice.

    For short-range travel, moving sidewalks (with benches on either side, standing room in the center) will be making their appearance in downtown sections. They will be raised above the traffic. Traffic will continue (on several levels in some places) only because all parking will be off-street and because at least 80 per cent of truck deliveries will be to certain fixed centers at the city's rim. Compressed air tubes will carry goods and materials over local stretches, and the switching devices that will place specific shipments in specific destinations will be one of the city's marvels.

      As for television, wall screens will have replaced the ordinary set; but transparent cubes will be making their appearance in which three-dimensional viewing will be possible. In fact, one popular exhibit at the 2014 World's Fair will be such a 3-D TV, built life-size, in which ballet performances will be seen. The cube will slowly revolve for viewing from all angles.

      There will, therefore, be a worldwide propaganda drive in favor of birth control by rational and humane methods and, by 2014, it will undoubtedly have taken serious effect. The rate of increase of population will have slackened*but, I suspect, not sufficiently.

    1. Re:True Sage by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      One thought that occurs to me is that men will continue to withdraw from nature in order to create an environment that will suit them better. By 2014, electroluminescent panels will be in common use. Ceilings and walls will glow softly, and in a variety of colors that will change at the touch of a push button.

      Not a total miss. If you haven't seen these, they you haven't been in the right office buildings. Okay, so they're mostly backed by either fluorescent lights or LEDs, and the panels themselves don't glow, per se, but the basic idea is valid. It also reminds me of the LED panels that are sometimes used in newer TV setups.

      Jets of compressed air will also lift land vehicles off the highways, which, among other things, will minimize paving problems. Smooth earth or level lawns will do as well as pavements. Bridges will also be of less importance, since cars will be capable of crossing water on their jets, though local ordinances will discourage the practice.

      Yeah, that's a miss. It never made it out of military use to the civilian world, and it already existed in the military world at the time of this prediction.

      For short-range travel, moving sidewalks (with benches on either side, standing room in the center) will be making their appearance in downtown sections. They will be raised above the traffic.

      s/downtown/airport/. And non-moving elevated sidewalks (pedestrian bridges) are actually becoming pretty common these days. So not entirely a miss. The real miss is the assumption that anyone would still care about the downtown anymore.

      Traffic will continue (on several levels in some places) only because all parking will be off-street and because at least 80 per cent of truck deliveries will be to certain fixed centers at the city's rim.

      The last part... only in Venice.... That said, AFAIK, most parking in major cities is off-street, statistically.

      Compressed air tubes will carry goods and materials over local stretches, and the switching devices that will place specific shipments in specific destinations will be one of the city's marvels.

      That's a miss. Turns out trucks are cheaper than redundant infrastructure.

      As for television, wall screens will have replaced the ordinary set; but transparent cubes will be making their appearance in which three-dimensional viewing will be possible. In fact, one popular exhibit at the 2014 World's Fair will be such a 3-D TV, built life-size, in which ballet performances will be seen. The cube will slowly revolve for viewing from all angles.

      Let's call that one half right. 3D TV is starting to become available in households, though the viewing angle is limited, and it still requires you to wear glasses. Flat panels have largely replaced CRTs, though only a small percentage of them are actually mounted on walls.

      There will, therefore, be a worldwide propaganda drive in favor of birth control by rational and humane methods and, by 2014, it will undoubtedly have taken serious effect. The rate of increase of population will have slackened*but, I suspect, not sufficiently.

      Have you looked at birth rates in developed nations? He pretty much nailed this one, notwithstanding the lack of a formal propaganda drive....

      --

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

    2. Re:True Sage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One thought that occurs to me is that men will continue to withdraw from nature in order to create an environment that will suit them better.

      Can you imagine that in the 1960's people wore suits in their office with no air conditioning? I can't even imagine wearing a shirt and tie all day in the summer with no air conditioning.

      These days the environment suits me fine enough, though I do hope that someone finishes that laser gun that shoots down mosquitoes.

      By 2014, electroluminescent panels will be in common use. Ceilings and walls will glow softly, and in a variety of colors that will change at the touch of a push button.

      You win this point. Nobody's going to hang giant flat panels all over their walls and ceilings. After all, just the one's enough to light up the room.

    3. Re:True Sage by kenj0418 · · Score: 1

      There will, therefore, be a worldwide propaganda drive in favor of birth control ...

      Have you looked at birth rates in developed nations? He pretty much nailed this one, notwithstanding the lack of a formal propaganda drive....

      Wait, I thought that's what reality TV was.

    4. Re:True Sage by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      He underestimated the 2014 population as 6.5 billion, but overestimated how much people would care about it.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    5. Re:True Sage by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      Relatedly:

      (Robots for gardening work will also have made their appearance.)

      Isaac Asimov, Manhattanite that he was, clearly never paid a Mexican to cut his lawn for $7 an hour.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    6. Re:True Sage by real-modo · · Score: 1

      This was before the Green Revolution. Food prices did get really high in the 1970s, and people were seriously worried about the re-emergence of famine. The Green Revolution forestalled that, and then daytime soaps on TV cut the birthrate...except in sub-Saharan Africa.

  14. Propaganda by tpstigers · · Score: 1

    It reads more like a commercial for the 1964 fair than a series of predictions for a future one.

    1. Re:Propaganda by Scott+Tracy · · Score: 1

      Seriously...as I was reading I kept thinking "No, nope, wrong." In fact he didn't do any better than an episode of The Jetsons.

  15. Re:So he was off by a year? Next one is in 2015. by Greyfox · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yeah, and I hear IBM's planning to introduce their "Crushinator" maid robot at it! Two tons of hot robot maid! Ooh yeah!

    --

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

  16. Then Again by b4upoo · · Score: 1

    I would say our cruise missiles and drones are wonderful examples of just how well robots can work right now. And those Google cars driving about are neat as well. Then we have a very sleek drone that sort of looks like a flying saucer that lands itself on an aircraft carrier better than human pilots can. The Navy is also working on large ships which are robotic that can carry and deploy drones in large numbers. Sometimes robots are around us and we just don't think of what they really are.

    1. Re:Then Again by alias.exec · · Score: 0

      Cruise missiles and drones are wonderful? You, my friend are brain dead.

    2. Re:Then Again by fnj · · Score: 1

      Misconstrue what you want. You know damn well the wording was that they were "wonderful examples" of what technology is capable of. You think they are not?

  17. Moon colonies... by joe_frisch · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The saddest part is that he doesn't feel the need to mention the moon colonies except to discuss improved communication with them. Humanities future in space was so obvious that it didn't even need to be stated.

    1. Re:Moon colonies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, to be fair, at the time the US did have the world fooled into thinking that it cared about anything except winning a vague war against the rest of the world. Looking back, I cannot but regret that the USA had a space program. Perhaps other countries wouldn't have waited as long to start ours.

    2. Re:Moon colonies... by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      It was interesting that in the same prediction he was still hedging his bets on whether fiber optic communication would be common. Laser tunnels are strung everywhere and are ubiquitous. So common we don't even use all of them.

    3. Re:Moon colonies... by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      The saddest part is that he doesn't feel the need to mention the moon colonies except to discuss improved communication with them. Humanities future in space was so obvious that it didn't even need to be stated.

      It's not all that sad. People living in space will be about as happy and healthy as dolphins living on mountaintops. There might be a 3-day window of enjoyment of the novelty; after the spacesickness subsides and before the ennui sets in; after that, just an ever-growing sense of "I wish I was back on Earth so I could go outside and see a tree now and then".

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    4. Re:Moon colonies... by Orne · · Score: 1

      Good point. Thanks to the Dot Com Bust, fiber optics had become so commonplace that the bottom fell out of the market, which has impacted companies like Owens Corning.

  18. Re:So he was off by a year? Next one is in 2015. by viperidaenz · · Score: 4, Funny

    Bite my shiny metal ass.

  19. Personally by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'm still waiting for the orgasmatron to come into production.

    1. Re:Personally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pssst! What you call the orgasmatron is what the rest of us call "The Internet". Don't tell anybody but there is pr0n everywhere on the Internet.

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

      I'm still waiting for the orgasmatron to come into production.

      Dude. Wait no longer. Google 'sex robot' if you're 18yo or older!

  20. Re: So he was off by a year? Next one is in 2015. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He should be more surprised to learn that IBM abandoned the consumer segment completely and now only deals with *yawn* enterprise.....

  21. Predicitng the future is hard by rudy_wayne · · Score: 5, Funny

    June 26, 2005

    Ten things I learned about the future at the Wired NextFest

    This past Saturday, I attended the Wired NextFest at Chicago's Navy Pier. The event promised visitors that they could "experience the future," and I just couldn't pass up that opportunity. I wish I had, though, because after spending a few hours at the NextFest I'm sad to report that the future isn't what it used to be. Maybe I was expecting to relive my first visit to Epcot Center as a child, or maybe I'm just jaded in my old age. Whatever the cause, my trip to the future was not very inspirational.

    Here are the things I learned about the future, in no particular order.

    1. The people of the future are a scantily clad people. They delight in showing off their naked, tattooed flesh.

    2. In the future, an airport security checkpoint will work exactly the same as it does now, except that the scanning technology will be different. For instance, at the GE-manufactured checkpoint that I saw, the machine supposedly sniffs you for bomb residue.

    Interestingly enough, there was a long line of people waiting to go through that checkpoint and be checked for bomb residue, which is something that just baffled me. I mean, don't people dread going through the checkpoint at airport security? Why voluntarily stand in line in order to pass through a security scanner if you don't have to? It's not like the machine did anything other than flash a little green light saying you were free of bomb residue. Truly, the long line of people who just couldn't wait to go through that security checkpoint was probably the most bizarre thing that I saw at the entire event.

    3. The elderly Japanese people of the future will be so desperately lonely for companionship that they'll purchase creepy android replicas of the sci-fi author Phillip K. Dick. Why the Japanese, and why Phillip K. Dick? It's a long story, and I'm not sure I fully understood it all when the android's makers explained it to me.

    I think the PKD robot would've been a lot cooler and significantly less creepy if they'd have glued his hair on, instead of leaving the wires in the top of his head exposed. But hey, PKD was an odd guy, and maybe he would've wanted it that way.

    4. The senior citizens of the future won't roll around in wheelchairs - not even cool robotic wheelchairs like those invented by Dean Kamen. Instead, they'll have robotic exoskeletons that will make them much stronger and faster than the non-elderly. So in addition to being the largest voting block in future elections, they'll also have superhuman strength and speed.

    5. In the future, most robots will look pretty much like robots have looked since the 1970's. About the only difference is that robot antennaein the 70's were spiral shaped and had a tiny ball on the tip. The current thinking is that future robots will have straight antennae with no ball, and maybe a plastic coating instead of just bare wire.

    6. Apple's market share doesn't change much in the future. Out of all the computers I saw at the NextFest, only one was a Mac. Sorry Steve, but the people of the future are still using Windows. At least you can gloat that they're all still running Windows 2000. From what I saw, Windows XP never really catches on in the future, and Longhorn is nowhere to be seen at all. I did see a flying car though, so maybe it was running the embedded version of Longhorn.

    7. On the weekends, the people of the future will take to the water in dolphin-shaped craft that don't look nearly as much fun to drive as a Seadoo of today. Hey, the future isn't always better than the present - sometimes we have to settle for less. The good news is that the robotic dolphin is too small to accommodate a human who's equipped with an exoskeleton, which means that if you're being pursued by a senior citizen then you can use the dolphin to escape.

    8. Dolphin watercraft aren't the only form of future transportation that's a bit cramped. The electrically powered cars of the future will

    1. Re:Predicitng the future is hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The saddest part about #10 is that Pan Am used to land large helicopters on their HQ. When 911 happened I was confused as to why they didn't have an army of rescue choppers hovering up there to pull people off the building.

    2. Re:Predicitng the future is hard by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      ... Or, maybe only the CEO was saved, and the rest of the employees were safe at their desks in Bangladesh.

      You've read recent headlines about workplace safety in Bangladesh, haven't you?

    3. Re:Predicitng the future is hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bender has a ball baby!

    4. Re:Predicitng the future is hard by TWiTfan · · Score: 1

      When 911 happened I was confused as to why they didn't have an army of rescue choppers hovering up there to pull people off the building.

      Because choppers couldn't have gotten close enough to the buildings to do much more than watch, and the very long ropes and rope ladders they would have needed to do anything more aren't exactly standard issue on most helicopters. And also because:

      1) No one asked them to
      2) Car traffic in NYC came to a stop almost immediately after the second plane hit, making it impossible for any pilot to get to his helicopter unless he happened to be within walking distance of it.
      2) The area was evacuated pretty quickly
      3) All air traffic was grounded in less than an hour after the first plane hit.
      4) Both towers were down in about 2 hours.

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    5. Re:Predicitng the future is hard by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      8. Dolphin watercraft aren't the only form of future transportation that's a bit cramped. The electrically powered cars of the future will be quite small. In fact, when I first saw the tiny Daimler-Chrysler two-seaters on exhibit, I asked the exhibitor if the cars were perhaps meant to be attached to the side of a larger SUV, in case you run out of gas.

      Probably.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    6. Re:Predicitng the future is hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interestingly enough, there was a long line of people waiting to go through that checkpoint and be checked for bomb residue, which is something that just baffled me. I mean, don't people dread going through the checkpoint at airport security? Why voluntarily stand in line in order to pass through a security scanner if you don't have to? It's not like the machine did anything other than flash a little green light saying you were free of bomb residue. Truly, the long line of people who just couldn't wait to go through that security checkpoint was probably the most bizarre thing that I saw at the entire event.

      Only a small fraction of the population regularly travels by air. Trying out a mysterious machine that would actually solve the real problem (bombs are a genuine threat to airplanes) might seem like they're touching something they rarely experience. Meanwhile, people who travel regularly don't really think this is so wonderful, particularly since we know those machines don't work.

    7. Re:Predicitng the future is hard by booch · · Score: 1

      So apparently this was a legitimate article from Ars Technica in 2005. Let's see how we're doing so far, just 8 years later.

      1. The people of the future are a scantily clad people. They delight in showing off their naked, tattooed flesh.

      Check.

      2. In the future, an airport security checkpoint will work exactly the same as it does now, except that the scanning technology will be different. For instance, at the GE-manufactured checkpoint that I saw, the machine supposedly sniffs you for bomb residue.

      Check.

      3. The elderly Japanese people of the future will be so desperately lonely for companionship that they'll purchase creepy android replicas.

      Not quite yet, but still seems headed in that direction.

      4. The senior citizens of the future won't roll around in wheelchairs - not even cool robotic wheelchairs like those invented by Dean Kamen. Instead, they'll have robotic exoskeletons that will make them much stronger and faster than the non-elderly. So in addition to being the largest voting block in future elections, they'll also have superhuman strength and speed.

      Not yet, and not looking too likely at this point. Robotic exoskeletons exist, but they're not even used much in heavy industry yet.

      5. In the future, most robots will look pretty much like robots have looked since the 1970's.

      Robots pretty much look like Frisbees. (I.e. the Roomba is the only successful robot so far.)

      6. Apple's market share doesn't change much in the future.

      Considering the iPhone and iPad, I'd say their market share has definitely increased.

      7. On the weekends, the people of the future will take to the water in dolphin-shaped craft that don't look nearly as much fun to drive as a Seadoo of today.

      No signs of that happening any time soon.

      8. Dolphin watercraft aren't the only form of future transportation that's a bit cramped. The electrically powered cars of the future will be quite small.

      We now have the Smart, the Fiat 500, the Mini, and several others. American drivers have a lot more choices in very small cars than they did in 2005.

      9. Future entertainment will follow the trends that were established with the rise of disco. First, they replaced the live band with a DJ. Next, they'll replace the DJ with a large, floor-mounted robotic arm. ... Vinyl aficionados can rejoice, though, because vinyl records are still around.

      Not sure about the DJs. That seems to not have changed much since 2005, and I think the mix of live music to DJs to Musak is likely to remain where it's been for the past few decades. Maybe more iTunes mixes though, especially at parties. The prediction about vinyl records was spot on though.

      10. In a future 9/11-style scenario, where the top of a high-rise building is on fire, a Moller Aircar...

      The Moller is still 50 years away, as always. Moller says it's 5 years away, as always.

      --
      Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
  22. Good News, Everyone! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "At the New York World's Fair of 2014, General Motors' "Futurama" may well display vistas of underground cities complete with light- forced vegetable gardens. The surface, G.M. will argue, will be given over to large-scale agriculture, grazing and parklands, with less space wasted on actual human occupancy. "

  23. Re:"the whole notion that we'd have a world's fair by eagle8635 · · Score: 1

    I was lucky enough to attend the Aichi World Expo in 2005. The "robots" were pretty good, but not really autonomous. Software is were the work needs to happen; and IBM it working on that in a sense. So, well done Asimov. Kinda.

  24. How True by waddleman · · Score: 1

    The thing that disturbed me the most about his article was the last sentence:

    Indeed, the most somber speculation I can make about A.D. 2014 is that in a society of enforced leisure, the most glorious single word in the vocabulary will have become work!

    1. Re:How True by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Alas, he was presuming a world which made sense.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  25. Here tis by englishstudent · · Score: 1
    --
    We'll never make it.......oh! we made it! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWf3iJjqYCM&list=FL7kKrE4eTs17mQl7eyvJIOg
    1. Re:Here tis by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That is not a flying car! It is a plain old-fashioned prop plane with folding wings. Big deal.
      If it isn't VTOL, it isn't a flying car.

    2. Re:Here tis by geekoid · · Score: 1

      If it isn't anti-grav, it's not a flying car!

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  26. Lumbering cleaner robot? by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Google: Wikipedia Jetsons

    Jetsons ran from 63-64. Asimov's predictions were from 64. So did Asimov get a kick out of Rosie? Heh. There's not enough information available to know this, but that's the first thing I thought of.

    1. Re:Lumbering cleaner robot? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Funny thing about the Jetsons is that most of the episodes were actually done in the 80's and Rosie the Robot was a pretty minor character in the early episodes and only appeared a few times. Though that doesn't rule Asimov being inspired by the Rosie the Robot I suppose.

  27. Sadly... by Nemyst · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The missiles Asimov mentions in his opening paragraph are what stopped his vision on electricity from coming anywhere near reality: "The appliances of 2014 will have no electric cords, of course, for they will be powered by long- lived batteries running on radioisotopes. The isotopes will not be expensive for they will be by- products of the fission-power plants which, by 2014, will be supplying well over half the power needs of humanity. But once the isotype batteries are used up they will be disposed of only through authorized agents of the manufacturer."

    Instead, we're still just as dependent on coal, oil and gas as ever.

    1. Re:Sadly... by pne · · Score: 1

      once the isotype batteries are used up they will be disposed of only through authorized agents of the manufacturer.

      And you know that if the radioisotope batteries had come to pass, that sentence might be true for first-world countries with a stable political infrastructure and a wide network of agents, but in some countries, people would be taking them apart on the street and harvesting still-usable components... and quite possibly doing so not only to their own used batteries but also to some sent to them by "authorized agents of the manufacturer".

      Just look at what's happening with electronics, with people "cooking" circuit boards to harvest the metals on them, etc.

      --
      Esli epei etot cumprenan, shris soa Sfaha.
    2. Re:Sadly... by xenobyte · · Score: 1

      The missiles Asimov mentions in his opening paragraph are what stopped his vision on electricity from coming anywhere near reality: "The appliances of 2014 will have no electric cords, of course, for they will be powered by long- lived batteries running on radioisotopes. The isotopes will not be expensive for they will be by- products of the fission-power plants which, by 2014, will be supplying well over half the power needs of humanity. But once the isotype batteries are used up they will be disposed of only through authorized agents of the manufacturer."

      Instead, we're still just as dependent on coal, oil and gas as ever.

      Not quite. Both solar and wind are gaining market shares quickly these days. They cannot replace coal, oil, gas or nuclear (yet?), but they can supplement more or less, and in some parts of the world maybe almost replace.

      What's more interesting is that the race to create portable electronics (phones, tabs, laptops etc.) has created some radical new forms of batteries. Not radioisotope-based but still chemically-based (lithium-polymer) with a durability many times exceeding the batteries known in 1962.

      And a new revolution is just around the corner - the nano-capacitor-style battery is in the prototype stage at the moment. It will offer much higher capacity and much higher power density than lithium-ion, and it will offer instant recharging to full capacity in less than a second. If combined with induction recharging the power cords will be a thing of the past as everything will be battery operated and no cords needed to recharge. The wall sockets will be charging points, turning on for a few seconds when they detect a not fully charged battery nearby.

      --
      "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
    3. Re:Sadly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not the technology, but the politics and social aspects that are not advancing sufficiently. We could have radioisotope batteries of some sort easily. The problem is sufficiently armoring devices so that people couldn't do something malicious with them (dirty bombs) or ensuring that people were responsible with disposing of them. Hell, look at how many fire alarms with a bit of americium in them are tossed into ordinary landfills instead of being properly disposed of.

      *Humans* aren't ready for that kind of technical advancement. That's the problem with half of futurists' predictions. Technology progresses by leaps and bounds and humans are as selfish, irresponsible and foolish as ever. This is why we can't have nice things.

    4. Re:Sadly... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Just look at what's happening with electronics, with people "cooking" circuit boards to harvest the metals on them, etc.

      Asimov could not have predicted the regulatory environments that effectively preclude first-world refining of these resources.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    5. Re:Sadly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead, we're still just as dependent on coal, oil and gas as ever.

      Funny thing was the Imperial meltdown in the Foundation series and the return to coal. If the series would have been written little later, or by a writer know for cynicism, the Empire could have been interpreted to be the glorious, fantastical image of the future world so loved in the 1950's US, France and SU and the other parts of the world touched by the utopia via television. The "Empire" might have been just a pr campaign for the nuclear weapons and the industry from the perspective of a paranoid, though.

    6. Re:Sadly... by jandrese · · Score: 1

      Radioisotope batteries is a strange prediction no matter how you look at it. I guess he figured he had a clever way of dealing with the Nuclear Waste issue, but it is hard to imagine a world where people readily accept radioactive material into their house, to be stored next to their food. It's not like the dangers of radioactivity were unknown in the 1960s, and the worlds mindset was already colored by the atomic bombs from 20 years earlier and the horrible aftermath. Plus, it's not like the power grid was a strange and novel concept. People already had power delivered directly to their houses, why would they bother with a dangerous and troublesome technology like RTGs?

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
  28. I have your flying car by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But I'm a mad scientist so you'll have to do "certain things" with me in order to get your flying car. Once you see this car, you will question your true nature and realize that you did not actually know yourself as much as you thought you did.

  29. Re: So he was off by a year? Next one is in 2015. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    International Business Machines never really had a consumer division, then or now, except for a short stint in the 80's where they made PCs that were subsequently cloned and outsold by everyone else.

  30. Inaccurate? by AJWM · · Score: 3, Informative

    And, of course, the whole notion that we'd have a world's fair is among the inaccurate predictions.

    It's only off by one year. Expo 2015 will be in Milan, Italy. There was one last year (2012) in Yeosu, S. Korea. The World's Fairs started using the term Expo with the 1967 Montreal World's Fair, Expo '67.

    It's generally a good idea to know what you're talking about before you accuse someone else of inaccuracy.

    --
    -- Alastair
    1. Re:Inaccurate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the 1964 New York "World's Fair" wasn't a world's fair at all. It was a trade exposition. Seattle had a World's Fair in 1962, and countries weren't allowed to have them twice in a row. Two inaccuracies in the article.

  31. Simple object separating algorithm... by gwolf · · Score: 1


    IF object.contains?(Carbon); THEN
        object.throw_away();
    ELSE
        object.set_aside();
    FI

    1. Re:Simple object separating algorithm... by ixuzus · · Score: 1

      I have a hunch that the dog and the robot aren't going to get on very well

    2. Re:Simple object separating algorithm... by lxs · · Score: 1

      Robot? Where is the diamond brooch that I inherited from my grandmother?

    3. Re:Simple object separating algorithm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of plastic is going to get thrown away with this routine.

    4. Re:Simple object separating algorithm... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Robot? where are my children?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:Simple object separating algorithm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're already in the incinerator, so why don't YOU look for it.

    6. Re:Simple object separating algorithm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Humans are 18% carbon by mass=
      Throw away humans;

  32. 9 years too late and in the wrong country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aichi's World Fair, Expo 2005. Robots and green spaces were the theme of 2005's world fair. Trash cans were emptied and replaced by robots.

  33. Humanoids by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    I believe the Japanese lean towards octopi.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Humanoids by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · · Score: 1

      Tonight, on the SyFi channel - Roboctopus!

    2. Re:Humanoids by pscottdv · · Score: 1

      Robotopunado!!

      --

      this signature has been removed due to a DMCA takedown notice

  34. In the year 2889 by fwc · · Score: 2

    There's a jules verne short story called "in the year 2889" which is a very interesting read as well.. . I'd say in many ways he was describing 2013, not 2889...

    Definitely worth the 5-10 minutes to read.

    1. Re:In the year 2889 by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1
      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:In the year 2889 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i'll just get my robot to read it for me..

  35. Psychohistory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Somewhere, at an undisclosed location, is a large wall with equations neatly flowing over it. Many of the equations are depicted in black ink, however, there is a thread of equations written in red ink, starting in the portion describing events 50 years ago. That red scar carries forward to equations describing today and the events in our future.

  36. Re:So he was off by a year? Next one is in 2015. by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    You didn't touch the Crushinator, did you?

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  37. More fun when they're way off by xenobyte · · Score: 1

    Like this one from Popular Mechanics in 1954:

    http://blogs.osafoundation.org/mitch/Picfrom1954PopulareMechanics.jpg

    --
    "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
    1. Re:More fun when they're way off by real-modo · · Score: 1

      "With a teletype interface and the Fortran language, they will be easy to use".

      Hello? This is Slashdot? All of that is pretty close, not way off.

      What are the <TAB>, <CR>, and <LF> characters? Yes, part of the teletype interface.

      The Fortran language is still on most computers here (well, the Linux ones, anyway).

      Easy to use? You bet.

      I will admit, they got the color scheme wrong. It's beige, not gray. But give a mechanic a chance, and he'll paint everything gray.

    2. Re:More fun when they're way off by Megane · · Score: 1

      I hope you know that's a photoshop from around 2005 or so. (And it's awesome, too.)

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    3. Re:More fun when they're way off by rabidMacBigot() · · Score: 1

      That's a nuclear submarine reactor/generator/throttle control panel.

    4. Re:More fun when they're way off by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2

      But why does it have a steering wheel?

    5. Re:More fun when they're way off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course that photo is fake: http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/r/randpix.htm#.UhzWPvvWWvN

    6. Re:More fun when they're way off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sigh ... Here, let me Snopes that for you: http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/computer.asp

    7. Re:More fun when they're way off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To steer the submarine, of course. The caption on the picture is fake.

  38. There still are World Fairs... by rajanala83 · · Score: 1

    The whole notion that we'd have a world's fair is among the inaccurate predictions? There still are world fairs. Just the name was modernized. The EXPO 2017 will be in Astana.

  39. Robocop was optimistic. by mosb1000 · · Score: 2

    I re-watched that recently. I remember when I first watched it I took it for a dystopian vision of the future of Detroit. As it turns out, it was hopelessly optimistic.

    Also, all robots should make the noise that Robocop makes.

    1. Re:Robocop was optimistic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I re-watched that recently. I remember when I first watched it I took it for a dystopian vision of the future of Detroit. .

      When I watch it now, I have to make sure I'm not just watching the news.

  40. Humans are adaptable by bradley13 · · Score: 1

    To the contrary, once permanent colonies are established, people will adapt. Just look at the extreme environments that people inhabit on earth, from Sahara to the Arctic.

    It's past time for humans to be out there, exploring and exploiting the resources of the solar system.

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    1. Re:Humans are adaptable by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Deserts and the Arctic have a fully habitable atmosphere, 1G gravity, even other lifeforms and liquid water...while Arizona and Alaska can be pretty depressing, they're really not the same thing as living in a metal can in the murderous void of space.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:Humans are adaptable by joe_frisch · · Score: 2

      Without some level of technology (here I'm including neolithic), the desert and the arctic are deadly - just a bit more slowly than space.

      Of course we don't need to go to space any more than we needed to leave the trees. Hopefully likely the species who do explore space will find us adorable and give their children little stuffed human toys when they visit the zoo.

  41. Re:birth rates by real-modo · · Score: 1

    Current thinking is that locally-made soaps work well. They show women in developing countries women "like themselves", except for having only one or two children -- and putting their kids in school, sticking up for themselves against their menfolk, etc.

    Best part is that this is an unintended consequence. The soap-opera makers just wanted to make money...

  42. code to the people! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "All the high-school students will be taught the fundamentals of computer technology will become proficient in binary arithmetic and will be trained to perfection in the use of the computer languages that will have developed out of those like the contemporary "Fortran" (from "formula translation"). "

    Oops... missed that one! Even our computer programmers don't know how to program computers.

    So we're still waiting for the lunar colonies and undersea communities, but otherwise, remarkably prescient. consider: this would be like us trying to predict the world of 2063. I'd pay good money to see such a good prediction of our future, but I think this job would be exponentially harder than Asimov's task.

  43. Re:So he was off by a year? Next one is in 2015. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course not. A lady that fine you gotta romance first.

  44. That depends on what you mean by "Reliably". by DirtyLiar · · Score: 1

    In the 47 years I have spent on this rock, I have yet to see a futurist reliably predict the future.

    If you mean successfully predicted a technology, social movement, or political change, then many Science Fiction authors fit the bill.

    French author Jules Verne (often called the father of Science Fiction), for instance, predicted Cell Phones, the Nuclear Submarine, that _America_ would land on the Moon, the return splashdown (with a spookily accurate estimation of the total cost), correctly predicted the number of Astronauts that were sent, and seems to describe WEIGHTLESSNESS, writing that the astronaut's "...feet no longer clung to the floor". All 100+ years before the fact(s).

    In 1898 Mark Twain predicted the World Wide Web (Internet), streaming video, Social Networking sites, blogs and discussion boards, all based on the phone system. Only a handful of years after the invention of the Telephone it'self.

    H.G. Wells not only predicted the Atomic Bomb, but he coined the term "Atomic Bomb". He also predicted mutations as a danger from overexposure to uranium.

    Even Gene Roddenberry predicted flip phones. (Can someone both predict and inspire the same thing?)

    I'd say that SciFi authors, with some very specific predictions, have a better track record than Nostradamus and his ilk with their sweeping predictions.

    Now if you mean someone who can tell you in detail what's the world will be like in 50 or a 100 years, you tell me, who does that?

    Where the fuck is my flying car?

    And you won't be getting a flying car until it can reliably fly itself, need no user maintenance, and not require a thorough going-over every other time you take it out. Oh, and can crash anywhere without endangering hundreds of lives. Until then it's called a helicopter, get a license and find places that have helipads and your golden.

    Or, you could always look here: http://www.terrafugia.com/ Video: http://www.terrafugia.com/news/first-public-transition%C2%AE-demonstrations

    Personally I suspect the flying car is going to catch-on like those Dick Tracy communicator watches http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dt2wrr.jpg did. It'll just be more trouble than it's worth, and it's job will be done better by something else.

    --

    THINK! It's patriotic

    1. Re:That depends on what you mean by "Reliably". by TWiTfan · · Score: 1

      No, he said RELIABLY predict the future. The authors you cite got one or two things vaguely right, but MANY more things wrong. No writer has ever reliably predicted the future, and the smart ones don't pretend to be able to. Even in Asimov's article, the first thing he admits is that he doesn't pretend to know what the future actually holds, and is only guessing.

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    2. Re:That depends on what you mean by "Reliably". by DirtyLiar · · Score: 1

      That is why the title of the comment you replied to was 'That depends on what you mean by "Reliably"', why I compared them to Nostradamus, and why I asked "Now if you mean someone who can tell you in detail what's the world will be like in 50 or a 100 years , you tell me, who does that?"

      Like I said before, it really depends on what you mean by "reliably".

      I again challenge you to find anyone who does a better job of predicting SPECIFIC (not vague) technologies.

      You really should read what you reply to.

      --

      THINK! It's patriotic

  45. Wait!... by DirtyLiar · · Score: 1

    ... Let me write this down!

    --

    THINK! It's patriotic

  46. Laser beams and NASA by umafuckit · · Score: 1

    He says: "Any number of simultaneous conversations between earth and moon can be handled by modulated laser beams"

    We say: http://news.slashdot.org/story/13/08/24/1416209/nasa-testing-frickin-laser-communications

  47. multivac by schneidafunk · · Score: 2
    --
    Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
    1. Re:multivac by Digital+Vomit · · Score: 2

      Or read Answer

      --
      Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
    2. Re:multivac by schneidafunk · · Score: 1

      That link is to a story written by Fredric Brown. I believe you meant to post a link to The Last Answer

      --
      Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
  48. Re:So he was off by a year? Next one is in 2015. by TWiTfan · · Score: 1

    IBM's planning to introduce their "Crushinator" maid robot at it! Two tons of hot robot maid!

    I just hope she's sassy, or at least comes with an optional sassy module.

    --
    The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
  49. As usual, the time scales are off, but... by TomGreenhaw · · Score: 1

    Its amazing how the most successful science fiction authors are great futurists in disguise. They are usually right on the their predictions and just as often wrong on the time frame. The last sentence in TFA is particularly chilling - only a lucky few will have jobs - glad he's off on that one.

    --
    Greed is the root of all evil.
  50. Overpopulation by halcyon1234 · · Score: 1

    Re: concerted birth control efforts:

    One of the more serious exhibits at the 2014 World's Fair, accordingly, will be a series of lectures, movies and documentary material at the World Population Control Center (adults only; special showings for teen-agers).

    If you're looking to control the unintended population boom, you might want to reverse those showings there, Mr. A.

  51. Predictions are hard. by MaWeiTao · · Score: 1

    The problem with futurists is that as much as they try to use their imagination they're still heavily constrained by the technology of the day. Most of their predictions arise from extrapolation of the world around them. I can't count the number of sci-fi novels I've read, even those written in the 70s, where they predict galaxy-spanning civilizations storing data on tape and computers spitting out reams of paper.

    Faster than light travel and robots are easy to imagine because they're all enhancements, taken to their most absurd extreme of course on what we see around us. But making that intuitive leap to something like the internet, and then going the next step beyond that to imagine how it will affect society is the real challenge. Of course, the problem is that often the most significant advances are very subtle. And the problem is that often times there's the important distinction between what we are capable of and what we are actually able to do for financial, political or practical reasons.

    So we don't have the flashy bits of tech like flying cars and torus shaped space stations. But the internet and the impact it's had on humanity is incredible. The miniaturization of electronics is another big one. Those of us who grew up even as late as the 80s would be in complete awe of the world today. Growing up I fantasized about flat tvs and portable tablets, mostly thanks to Star Trek. These things are so common today that they're taken for granted. Most cars on the road today would look like an exotic concept back in 1985. That may be an aesthetic consideration, but technological evolution enabled the complexity found in presetn day cars. And by every other metric, performance, economy and reliability, cars today are far superior. But as I mentioned, many things are quite subtle and would only be noticed by someone waking up from a 30-year coma. And little of it would have been predicted by anyone.

  52. Go back in time a give Asimov a vision by cerebralpayne · · Score: 2

    "Mr. Asimov, did you know that in 2013, a quarter of all Americans will own an android?"
    "Why, the future will be astounding!" ...

    "Another quarter will have iOS!" trollface.jpg

  53. Your fucking flying car.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...was provided to you in 1979. Although it didn't fly very far and the landings were a bit rough. Still it played a little tune while airborne.

  54. Quote from paragraph 6 by LongearedBat · · Score: 1

    Windows need be no more than an archaic touch

    What? Windows 8 is all about touch! It relies on it too much even. Many people prefer the older (dare I say "archaic") style of non-touch UI.

    and even when present will be polarized to block out the harsh sunlight.

    Yeah... no. LCD's are already out of fashion because polarised sunglasses (used in harsh sunlight) block out anything on the screen.

    The degree of opacity of the glass may even be made to alter automatically in accordance with the intensity of the light falling upon it.

    My last laptop, and my new mobile, alter the screen brilliance depending on the level of ambient light.

    Still, one out of three isn't too bad, given that was written about 50 years ago. ;)

  55. What's this? by LongearedBat · · Score: 1

    Even today, a small but genuine fusion explosion is demonstrated at frequent intervals in the G.E. exhibit at the 1964 fair.

    What was he referring to?

  56. Nope by geekoid · · Score: 1

    It's cure that you twist the meaning to make yourself feel good, but stop it.

    This is what people mean when they say flying car:

    "In science fiction, the vision of a flying car is usually a practical aircraft that the average person can fly directly from any point to another (e.g., from home to work or to the supermarket) without the requirement for roads, runways or other specially-prepared operating areas. In such works they can often start and land automatically in a garage or on a parking lot.[1] In addition, the science-fiction version of the flying car typically resembles a conventional car with no visible means of propulsion, unlike that of an fixed-wing aircraft or helicopter.
    A flying car is subtly different from a hovercar, which flies at a constant altitude of a few meters above the ground."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_car_(fiction)

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  57. World Fair Continues, Sort of by agrisea · · Score: 1

    I recall stories from relatives of the various World's Fair they attended in the various cities of the US, very much like what Asimov wrote about. The organizers no longer call it the "World's Fair" though as the "Expo's" tend to focus in towards some type of theme. In 2015, Milan, Italy, will be the host with the theme of Feeding the Planet, Energy for Life. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expo_2015

    --
    Agrisea Tsunami - Epyc Servers... https://agrisea.net/products
  58. Deal? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Scientists! Give us flying cars and you will be forgiven for not delivering on the other sci-fi prophesies like moon vacations and robot maids.

  59. China vs. Japan by John+Bayko · · Score: 1

    China has nukes, Japan doesn't. Unless you count the damage from leaking nuclear reactors.

    Also, China has a large military and a young population, Japans population is aging with fewer service-aged citizens.

    Both countries have all-volunteer militaries (conscripts tend to do a lot worse). But to be fair, Japan's military is much better trained (thanks to the U.S), and China's military tends to be politicized - it's similar to the U.S.S.R in WW II, in which Stalin kept interfering until Germany had taken half of Russia. At that point, he kept his hands off and let the professional fight the war, which pushed Germany back to Berlin.

    Then again you'd have to consider the alliances of the area - even excluding the U.S. First Taiwan, despite disputes over ownership of the Senkaku (Tiaoyutai) islands, would side with Japan. And though Koreans tend to hate Japanese for former war atrocities (and Japan's censorship of its own guilt), Korea in general would probably ally with Japan (ironically, North Korea would provide the essential buffer keeping Korea safe from immediate retaliation from China). So between the three of them, much of China would be cut off from ocean-going world trade - including fuel and supplies.

    After that it gets a bit fuzzy to predict. I think most countries would try to remain neutral initially, but woud be drawn in - particularly India, which has border disputes with China, and Russia, which distrusts China but kind of needs it to keep buying oil and resources, but also needs Europe, and is the greatest country in the world except for all its problems all caused by the United States and not corruption etc.. Add Australia, the U.S, Pakistan, etc., and you can keep yourself entertained for days predicting utterly improbably things.

    But original point stands - Japan can't nuke China, despite many Japanese politicians advocating that they should be able to.

    1. Re:China vs. Japan by bmcage · · Score: 1
      Japan can produce 9 tonnes of weapon grade plutonium a year (approx some 2000 bombs), or enough to nuke all of China. They have sattellite launching capabilities, so need not make new rockets. Thinking Japan cannot bomb China given a 4 month lead is wrong. All China can do is attempt a surprise attack. Japan has several spy satellites though ...

      All this just to say that the Japanese politicians have not been utter fools believing in love and world peace,

    2. Re:China vs. Japan by tftp · · Score: 1

      Japan can produce 9 tonnes of weapon grade plutonium a year (approx some 2000 bombs), or enough to nuke all of China.

      First we have to imagine that Japan can manufacture 2,000 Pu239 bombs without Chinese spies ever finding out. But even if that unlikely scenario occurs, how many of those bombs Japan can launch at China before China destroys all four islands of Japan? With Japan's population density, just a few thermonuclear strikes at major population centers will halve the population and reduce the industrial power to 0.01% of what it was. China has far more territory and people. First strike from the ancient foe will be received without surprise, but with a quiet determination to go full genocide. China has enough nukes to do just that; Japanese leaders do not commit seppuku any more; and certainly they don't take the whole country down with them.

  60. The sad thing... by vanyel · · Score: 1

    ...is that he was far more accurate about the negative aspects of 2014 than the positive ones...

  61. Re:"the whole notion that we'd have a world's fair by j-beda · · Score: 1

    Of course we have world's fairs. They are called Expos. The Shanghai one was in 2010 and the Aichi one was in 2005. You must be American to be so unaware of what is happening in the world.

    Looks like 2015 is scheduled for Italy.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's_fair

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

  62. Don't Get Me Wrong, I'm an Asimov Fan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... but seriously, if you write as much as that guy (and a lot of futurists have), you are bound to be right sometimes.

  63. actually, he's pretty much spot on, +- 5 years by ender89 · · Score: 1

    If you think about it, robots are the things people are pushing as the new "thing". robots that learn to walk, cars that drive themselves, and robot vacuums and lawn mowers. They also aren't very good, for example bipedal movement is exceptionally tricky, the roomba isn't great for more than basic dusting, and selfdriving cars are still untrusted. Miniaturization is what you're mainly going to see, and clunky robots are probably going to make an appearance. he missed some things, but what he predicted is surprisingly realistic.

  64. asimov by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It does not seem farfetched at all
    He didn't even glimpse at internet,, personal pc for all type of activities, celllular phones, hydroponics gardens, aand how to solve global problems, including eliminating disease and pollution. The limited knowledge of his time dictated his forecasts..