Slashdot Mirror


Steve Wozniak Predicts The Future (usatoday.com)

USA Today asked Steve Wozniak to predict what the world will look like in 2075 -- one hundred years after the founding of Apple. An anonymous reader writes: "He's convinced Apple, Google and Facebook will be bigger in 2075," according to the article -- just like IBM, which endured long past its founding in 1911. Pointing to Apple's $246.1 billion in cash and marketable securities, Wozniak says Apple "can invest in anything. It would be ridiculous to not expect them to be around... The same goes for Google and Facebook."

Woz predicted portable laptops back in 1982, and now says that by 2075, we could also see new cities built from scratch in the deserts, with people wearing special suits to protect them from the heat. AI will be ubiquitous in all cities, as consumers interact with smart walls to communicate -- and to shop -- while home medical devices will allow self-diagnosis and doctor-free prescriptions. And according to the article, Woz "is convinced a colony will exist on the Red Planet. Echoing the sentiments of Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, whose Blue Origin start-up has designs on traveling to Mars, Wozniak envisions Earth zoned for residential use and Mars for heavy industry." (Though he doesn't have high hopes that we'll ever meet aliens.)

Woz is promoting the Silicon Valley Comic Con next weekend. (Not coincidentally, its theme is "The Future of Humanity: Where Will We Be in 2075?") During the interview, Woz pointed at a colleague's iPhone, smiled broadly and said it "shows you how exciting the future can be."

106 of 198 comments (clear)

  1. Beware of predictions by Kazymyr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In 1911, it could have been predicted that 106 years later the Tsarist and Austro-Hungarian empires would be around and stronger than ever. There was no reason at that time not to predict that.

    --
    I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
    1. Re:Beware of predictions by Gavagai80 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bad examples. Nobody except maybe the Tsar would've predicted Tsarist Russia would last. It'd been weakening for a long time and there was a revolution in 1905.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    2. Re:Beware of predictions by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well the inverse would be "Whenever you hear a prediction, just assume that is how it will play out, because they always do" so, IOTW, No Shit Sherlock. And you have been modded up for that? Slashdot really has sunk to a low even I couldn't have predicted 20 years ago.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    3. Re:Beware of predictions by mrsquid0 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In many ways Putinist Russia is Tsarist Russia. The broad outlines of Russia's current governance and foreign policy would be immediately recognizable to people in 1911. The thing they would not have predicted was the 62-year hiatus in the middle of the 20th century.

      On the other hand, the long-term demographic problems facing Austria-Hungary were known and both Russia and Germany were trying to get their ducks in a row in case the empire collapsed. Much of the lead-up to WWI, and the Balkans wars. was states jockeying for position in a post-AH world. It was widely assumed that Austria-Hungary would not survive in its (then) current form much beyond the death of Franz-Josef. Even his heir was openly talking about radically restructuring the empire.

      --
      Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
    4. Re:Beware of predictions by sinij · · Score: 1

      Slashdot really has sunk to a low even I couldn't have predicted 20 years ago.

      Speak for yourself, I very accurately predicted 20 years ago that /. would be where it is right now.

    5. Re:Beware of predictions by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Hungary had been chafing for independence for a century at least already by that time.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re:Beware of predictions by Kazymyr · · Score: 2

      Bad examples. Nobody except maybe the Tsar would've predicted Tsarist Russia would last. It'd been weakening for a long time and there was a revolution in 1905.

      Well, here we have Tsar Wozniak making predictions about the Apple empire. :)
      Quite the apt analogy I presume.

      --
      I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
    7. Re:Beware of predictions by Gussington · · Score: 1

      Bad examples. Nobody except maybe the Tsar would've predicted Tsarist Russia would last. It'd been weakening for a long time and there was a revolution in 1905.

      Like Erdogan in Turkey? Tell us oh great Oracle how will that one turn out?
      The very nature of the future is that it cannot be predicted reliably. Claiming you knew that Tsarist Russi would fall years before it did, in hindsight, does sound a little pretentious...

    8. Re: Beware of predictions by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      thats racist

    9. Re:Beware of predictions by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      In 1911, it could have been predicted that 106 years later the Tsarist and Austro-Hungarian empires would be around and stronger than ever. There was no reason at that time not to predict that.

      The same person would have predicted that by 2011, IBM would have its Hollerith card tabulating equipment working at lightning speed. Advanced alloys in the sorters, better lubricants, and data entry girls from low-cost Southern states.

    10. Re: Beware of predictions by Time_Ngler · · Score: 1

      Then ascii is racist

    11. Re: Beware of predictions by magarity · · Score: 2

      They're still around but just transitioned to a looser format; the Commonwealth is larger than the Empire ever was.

    12. Re: Beware of predictions by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Of course.. Who said it wasn't?

  2. Nice try... by SpiralBound · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm surprised anyone would bother trying to make such sweeping predictions of "the world of tomorrow". I guess Mr. Wozniak felt that future generations will need something to giggle at in 58 years. I know I get an amused chuckle from reading all those outlandish predictions of what the year 2000 was supposed to be like, as envisioned by futurists of the 1930's. Where's my flying car! LOL! :-)

    --
    Avatar of the God(s) Random
    1. Re:Nice try... by beowulfcluster · · Score: 1, Troll

      Pretty optimistic to think there will be future generations around in 58 years. Never mind Google or Facebook.

    2. Re:Nice try... by mrsquid0 · · Score: 2

      Barring a visit by a Class V space jellyfish there will almost certainly be future generations in 58 years. The real question is what will their quality of life be like?

      --
      Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
    3. Re:Nice try... by Gussington · · Score: 1

      Pretty optimistic to think there will be future generations around in 58 years. Never mind Google or Facebook.

      Based on the fact that every single generation in the history of humanity said the exact same thing, I'm going to have a punt and say that in 58 years humans will not only exist, they will be much more developed and advanced than they are now, and they will look back on the early 2000's as primitive and a bit backwards. Just like pretty much every period of human civilisation.
      Don't be fooled by alarmist media or nostalgia googles, the trend of overall human development has been consistently rising since we walked out of the trees. There is nothing to suggest this will change anytime soon.

    4. Re:Nice try... by Gussington · · Score: 2

      The real question is what will their quality of life be like?

      If we use the last 10000 years as an example it is likely to be much better, all the while the great unwashed will believe it's worse.
      This has pretty much been the standard pattern for all of human civilisation.

    5. Re: Nice try... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      America's standing and influence in the world will descend even lower than it ever has in its entire history - you can take that one to the bank.

    6. Re:Nice try... by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      SO much this. I read Stranger in a Strange Land decades after it was written and it kept leaping out at me how 'quaint' it was.

      --
      Good-bye
    7. Re:Nice try... by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      Where's my flying car! LOL! :-)

      Well, we do have hoverboards and androids. Just not the actual hovering ones, or the actual humanoid robots, but who cares.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    8. Re:Nice try... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Woz is so dreamy! He's wrong though, the desert cities will have climate bubbles. Definitely climate bubbles.

    9. Re:Nice try... by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      Where's my flying car! LOL! :-)

      They're called "business jets."

    10. Re:Nice try... by mrsquid0 · · Score: 1

      Over the long term, yes. But on shorter time scales there have been a lot of extended ups and downs, and some of the downs have been quite unpleasant for the people who had to live through them.

      --
      Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
    11. Re:Nice try... by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Over the long term and overall. Utopias don't and can't exist. Comparing human progress to them is apples and imaginary oranges.

    12. Re: Nice try... by negRo_slim · · Score: 1

      So edgy.

      --
      On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
  3. We'll meet our cosmic neighbors when we're ready.. by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 2, Insightful

    .. because there would be little point in showing us how morally, spiritually, and technologically primitive we are.

  4. Here's my prediction: by DatbeDank · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In 100 years people who were successful in one field will continue to try and predict the future in areas that they have no expertise in and still be wrong.

    1. Re:Here's my prediction: by mfh · · Score: 2

      ie: narcissism is still currency in 100yrs

      --
      The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
  5. No. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "He's convinced Apple, Google and Facebook will be bigger in 2075,"

    I'm sure everyone in 1975 thought IBM was going to be ruling the playground right now. The truth is that new companies get too big, bureaucratic or unfocused which makes them slow to respond to new technologies while new companies emerge and displace them which happens about every generation or two. It's been my experience that 10 years is about as far as you can see in terms of the technology industry if you're lucky but that doesn't even account for societal changes.

    Here's my prediction: some old fart is going to complain about how the current generation behaves and give their account about how things used to be better.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:No. by Guspaz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, they didn't exactly do too bad for themselves. IBM is roughly 30% larger today than they were in 1975, accounting for inflation (~6x the size by pure dollars). Maybe they didn't rule the playground, but they grew even larger and more profitable.

    2. Re:No. by SteveWoz · · Score: 5, Informative

      A whole interview rarely carries over. I was asked if I thought Apple would be around in 100 years. My reply even referred to IBM, along the lines of what you can do and how many restarts you can get when you are that big. I facetiously jabbed at the idea of Trump seeking advice from today's huge internet companies by telling the reporter that they would all ask for lower taxes and become larger yet.

      --
      OK a new size TV
    3. Re: No. by WarJolt · · Score: 1

      Google and Facebook are oranges. Apple as a tech company has to constantly innovate. Google and Facebook will be able to sell ads based off the same technology for to next 100 years. Apple could easily become the next IBM.

    4. Re:No. by drsquare · · Score: 1

      But how much bigger is the industry than in 1975? 30% growth in 42 years is nothing..

    5. Re: No. by Voyager529 · · Score: 2

      I don't see the same longevity in Facebook as Google. When more grannies are on Facebook than 18 year olds, won't they lose their cool factor and become another MySpace?

      Well, that depends. Off the top of my head, here were Myspace's problems:

      -Their IM client never worked.
      -They allowed raw HTML pasting, which meant that MySpace pages were filled with gobs and gobs of glitter graphics and terrible CSS that made each page a different style of navigation.
      -Their advertising consisted of "punch the monkey" banner ads, but they were serving up massive amounts of internet traffic. They didn't have much in the way of user profiles or 'brand pages' with which to monetize.
      -As much as Facebook and Twitter get ire when they change the UI, Myspace never seemed to attempt to do so...until they deleted everyone's data...then restored about half of it years later.
      -It predated the critical mass of smartphones (yes, there was a Blackberry app...and very little to do with it) and failed to keep users engaged over time.
      -It didn't have the userbase Facebook has.

      Facebook will probably experience a slow decline, but even if grannies become the prevalent demographic, I don't think Facebook cares as much about their 'cool factor', as long as the people who use the site have good click-through rates or profiles marketers are willing to pay for. However, its sheer pervasiveness and market saturation means that it's basically the "lowest common denominator" of social networks. Snapchat may be the cool thing right now, but Facebook users outnumber them by over 10:1.

      Will something else take over? Well, that relies on two things: sufficient dissatisfaction with Facebook, and a comparable competitor to take up the slack. Myspace wouldn't have experienced its mass exodus if Facebook wasn't waiting in the wings to give everyone a home, along with additional functionality - in Facebook's case, it was possible to interact with it via text message, which was a big deal when flip phones and 'feature phones' still well-outnumbered smartphones.

      The question for the first part is what it would take to make people dissatisfied with Facebook. UI changes haven't done it, privacy implications haven't done it, political backlash hasn't done it, the Messenger debacle didn't do it...so it's rather tough to tell what the breaking point would be for Facebook...but let's say that whatever it was, happened. What would the competitor have to have in order to cause a migration? I can't believe it would take more than a month to conjure up an app/website combination that had one-to-many messaging, one-to-one messaging, image sharing, and location sharing. Besides "it's not Facebook", what would the incentive be? Instagram has had a decent amount of success due to ease-of-use and filters. Snapchat became popular because of its fun face changers and 24-hour limit. Whatever Facebook++ has, it'll need to do something desirable that isn't already being done, and have lots of people migrate to it.

    6. Re:No. by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      1975 revenue in 2017 dollars: $65.39 billion
      2017 revenue in 2017 dollars: $79.92 billion

      1975 net income in 2017 dollars: $9.02 billion
      2017 net income in 2017 dollars: $11.87 billion

      1975 headcount: 288,647
      2017 headcount: 380,300

      I measure corporate revenue in dollars, not hamburgers.

    7. Re:No. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Well, go and try to buy a house with hamburgers and then get back to us; let us know how much you saved and how much more "real" the burgers were as currency.

    8. Re: No. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Some of that is pretty funny,. Myspace failed quickly at being the type of site that facebook became, but they were the most successful place for music bands for years after that. Branded pages is exactly what they were good at, and it isn't enough because many brands will just have their own domain. It is just niche hosting. The brands it benefits aren't the ones who can pay for it, after all.

      Facebook got the right investment amounts to pay the media to hype them into mainstream awareness, and so used all the air available for the "lowest common denominator social site" niche.

      If something replaces it, it will be because big business decided to throw that much money at the replacement, beyond that analysis is irrelevant.

  6. Is it marketable? by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's the question to be asked when you want to know whether something will happen. Can it be monetized? Can someone make money off it? That is the pivotal question.

    Why don't we have colonies on the moon, as a lot of people thought in the 60s? No profit. Why don't we have flying cars? No profit. Why don't we live in one of the many utopias that were promised to us? No profit.

    Socially, the 20xx years will probably be closer to the 18xx years than the 19xx years, without a Soviet Union that forces us to look like we're the good guys, there is exactly no reason that cutthroat capitalism shouldn't be employed to the full extent that we had in the 1800s. Only far, far more efficiently.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Is it marketable? by mrsquid0 · · Score: 1

      > Socially, the 20xx years will probably be closer to the 18xx years than the 19xx years, without a Soviet Union that forces us to look like we're the good guys, there is exactly no reason that cutthroat capitalism shouldn't be employed to the full extent that we had in the 1800s. Only far, far more efficiently.

      This is probably the most insightful comment that I have read today.

      --
      Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
    2. Re:Is it marketable? by mrsquid0 · · Score: 1

      In general that is true, but it does not apply to thing like the tools required to produce the things that can be heavily monetized, and laptops for professionals are one of those tools. One cannot design the next generation of low-end laptops without powerful high end computers, and it is much easier to carry an high-end laptop to a factory or design meeting or brainstorming retreat than it is to ship a desktop system. Tools tend to be niche market, but without them there are no toys.

      --
      Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
    3. Re:Is it marketable? by Gussington · · Score: 1

      Socially, the 20xx years will probably be closer to the 18xx years than the 19xx years, without a Soviet Union that forces us to look like we're the good guys, there is exactly no reason that cutthroat capitalism shouldn't be employed to the full extent that we had in the 1800s. Only far, far more efficiently.

      I have this discussion all the time when people moan about house prices. The standard complaint is that prices are too high, "my parents could afford a house on a working class wage, why can't I"?
      The error is thinking that the 50's to the 80's is the normal that we measure against, but this period is the anomaly. For most of human history, rich people owned everything and poor people suffered. There's no reason to think that the further we get from the 20th century, the more it will revert back to this model of wealth distribution.

    4. Re:Is it marketable? by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The reason our parents could afford a house on a working class wage and we cannot is simply that we earn less than they did. Yes, I'm not kidding here, in buying power we're worse off than our parents were. Well, most of us at least. A select few are actually better off. Then again, it's that select few that probably don't even notice it.

      Our running costs also went up. And I'm not even talking about fluff like that we "need" cell phones and internet. Even if you dump that, we're nowhere near the expense level our parents dealt with. Yes, part of it is convenience. Most of it, though, is planned obsolescence. I do remember my dad repairing our TV, our washing machine and various other electronic devices around the house. Today, when one of them breaks, all you can do is throw it away and buy a new one. And not because you're too stupid to fix it, but because it CANNOT be repaired. Generally, the amount of things you can actually do yourself, build yourself and fix yourself has dwindled into insignificance. I remember my dad actually gathering his buddies and build an extension to our home. Can't do that no more, new building codes and other laws demand that you hire some "professional" to do it.

      Professional only means here that he's doing it for money. Not that he has any fucking clue.

      The list goes on. It's frustrating to know that you're reduced to being a consumer. And this learned helplessness is branching into other areas of our life. More and more people live by the creed of "can't do it anyway, why bother trying".

      In all aspects of their life.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re: Is it marketable? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Yes, but factor in the lifetime of those things. I remember that we had our first TV for about 10 years, the second still lasted about 8. Today you're lucky if yours lasts you five. And don't get me started on computers.

      The reason for this is that devices were repairable back then. And given the cost, repairing them was actually a GOOD idea.

      But when it is simply impossible to repair your electronic devices anymore, you have to replace them. And yes, they got cheaper, at least relatively, but not by the factor 5 they would have to get cheaper to reach the lifetime cost of the old ones.

      House prices were nearly stable until the late 1960s when they started to rise, getting a first surge in the late 1980s and again a huge one in the 200s (source). We're looking at prices nearly reaching ten times the 1960s levels. I guess we can agree that this is a wee bit above the income development.

      I do remember that my dad, back when I was a kid, managed to get a 20k loan to fix our house. Wasn't easy, because the banks didn't even consider the house worth that much. Today, the same house (with some minor improvements, granted, but that didn't turn a shack into a mansion) could be sold for close to a quarter million.

      This is what drives people nuts. They cannot afford moving out. Because they just can't find a place to stay in they could possibly afford.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:Is it marketable? by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      I've felt the internet has helped me repair things and be self sufficient. Certainly it has made it easier to get parts for my washing machine and dryer than it'd be otherwise. But I'd agree with the microelectronics like the TV. You can't even have it repaired for less than replacement cost. It is a bit of a boon for me, in a way, that manufacturing all went abroad so I can afford all the tools to do work I can't afford to hire out... I suppose you're right, though, in that if not for cribbing knowledge from others online I'd be pretty screwed financially if I had to depend hiring out all the home repairs.

    7. Re:Is it marketable? by magarity · · Score: 1

      Why don't we have colonies on the moon, as a lot of people thought in the 60s? No profit.

      Startup costs. There's whopping piles of profit on the moon.

    8. Re:Is it marketable? by ediron2 · · Score: 1

      Nah, bro. All that shit is DIY if you're willing. The internet has fix my appliance websites and repair parts vendors. I've done every aspect of homebuilding from pouring a quarter-acre of concrete and stamping it, to plumbing gas & water (PEX is amazing), craning in trusses (my crane truck and operator was about $80 an hour or $600 a day... worth every penny) and sheathing / shingling roofs, etc. Phones... don't even come in here with how DECT6 at $100 for several extensions isn't as good as 1970-80 tech, let alone cellular. And my cellphone is fixable... until it is discounted from $800 to $200, whereupon parts costs outweigh replacement. Cars and computers last longer. A 20" screen is cheaper and better. We have so FUCKING much maker / DIY activity it is impossible to keep up.

      There are problems with incomes stagnant and costs soaring. Corruption, a shitty misimplementation on neoliberal trade policy: they're to blame.

      But if you're not doing the stuff your dad did... try it. Some of us still do. That part's entirely up to you.

      > Can't do that no more, new building codes and other laws demand that you hire some "professional" to do it.
      > Professional only means here that he's doing it for money. Not that he has any fucking clue.

      Oh, and fuck that. Anyone that says they're incapable of (laundry list of DIY) then whinges about code and clueless 'professionals'... fuck that right out. Code = do things safely. And that professional knows something, if they're doing stuff you're claiming is impossible.

    9. Re:Is it marketable? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      No. Sorry, but no. Most of what we could extract from the moon exists at best a theoretic concepts that are not even close to a risk/reward study, let alone some kind of financial plan. Whether that would ever be profitable is to be determined.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    10. Re: Is it marketable? by ajlisows · · Score: 1

      To be fair, the cost of a computer was a lot different years ago as well. Today, if I didn't have a bunch of gear for no reason, I'm plunk down $80 on New Egg for a Core 2 Duo with 4 GB of RAM and Windows 10. Another $75 for a 22" widescreen monitor and I've got a rig that I can pay bills, create resumes, read the news, go on Facebook, and stream netflix. If they both die after three years, I've rented a computer for $50 a year. Hardware repair at that price? Hell no, throw it away and buy a new one. I've I'm a lay man and I get a massive virus infestation....I can either pay to get it cleaned at a computer store for $150 or buy a new one.

      Computers are suuuuper cheap.

    11. Re:Is it marketable? by magarity · · Score: 1

      I didn't bother to specify: because startup costs in the 60's were too high. it is still too high today. at some future point when the costs are lower, there are whopping piles of profit on the moon.

    12. Re:Is it marketable? by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      The reason our parents could afford a house on a working class wage and we cannot is simply that we earn less than they did. Yes, I'm not kidding here, in buying power we're worse off than our parents were. Well, most of us at least. A select few are actually better off. Then again, it's that select few that probably don't even notice it.

      I won't argue that the current generation doesn't earn less than the previous, but there is a bit more to housing than that. Housing coasts have gone up relatively also and there are multiple reasons for that. First, houses are bigger with more features than earlier generations, especially if talking my grandparents or farther back (50's or earlier). "Middle class" housing from that time period not only would not be acceptable to the average family these days, but probably wouldn't even but up to code. You had families of four or five in two bedroom houses the square footage of some living rooms I've seen. Go back to the 40's or earlier and you had shotgun shacks the like that were considered "middle class" back then. All that housing has been torn down and replaced with larger versions stuffed with appliances (which allows for less time homemaking that allows a two paycheck family). Then that housing that is in places that have jobs are getting so expensive because so many people want them, while housing in rural areas is not growing in worth because people aren't moving there because there are less jobs and living situations. The old industry could deal with small pools of slightly skilled workers producing simple products, while the current economy is seemingly demanding large pools of highly skilled workers capable of producing expensive products.

      If I wanted to move back to where I grew up, I could just write a check for a house in my old hometown. I might even find a job, but it would require the one or two employers in the area needing my skill set, and few options except waiting for a spot to open up for me.

  7. A lot of people have ditched Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The next generation don't think Facebook is "cool". And Facebook's push for monetization is annoying existing users. It's getting by on momentum and critical mass, but I can see a new pretender overtaking it within the next 10 years.

  8. hopefully it will finally be by FudRucker · · Score: 4, Funny

    the year of the Linux desktop

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  9. What?! by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

    No catgirls?!

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  10. Re:In the year 2000 by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    Maybe, but at some point president Not Sure will take over and fix everything. Sort of.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  11. Re:In the year 2000 by FudRucker · · Score: 1

    unless science can preserve alive heads in a jar like on futurama, then nazi pelosi and amy schumer can be running the democrat party

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  12. Counter-argument to Woz by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 3, Informative

    I predict it will be more like Idiocracy. In fact it's already begun.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
    1. Re:Counter-argument to Woz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This. I don't know anyone successful or smart that is a breeder. I've lived in a lot of different cities between the US and Europe, but I've decided to stay in Seattle since it seems the most enlightened area. Dogs outnumber kids almost two to one here. With only stupid people breeding, the human race is doomed.

    2. Re:Counter-argument to Woz by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      In Seattle they only have dialup. And no jobs because Microsoft laid off their entire QA department. That is why I am working as a maintenance guy and don't have a girlfriend.

    3. Re:Counter-argument to Woz by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      a majority of your teens are strung out on heroin because its so great over there.

    4. Re:Counter-argument to Woz by quicks0rt · · Score: 1

      If this were true, our species would have been reverted back to stone age by now since book burning days of Dark Ages. But that didn't happen now did it?

  13. Cities in the desert by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 2

    Makes perfect sense to me. It may just be a matter of economics:

    In the past, cities tended to grow at strategic locations, or where it is relatively easy (read: cheap) to support a city. Like near a choke point between land masses. Or a river delta (easy transport up river). Or in the middle of an area with fertile agricultural land.

    In a technological advanced society, it should be possible to recycle most raw materials (including water). Most food could be grown in 10-story greenhouses where crops don't even need soil. This only takes space, and energy. So 'cheap' may then gravitate to non-agricultural land where energy is abundant. A desert could be one of such places. Floating cities on the open ocean another option.

    Of course this may depend on how much more the world's population grows. Maybe that will stabilize at a number where there isn't much need to build new cities from scratch.

    1. Re:Cities in the desert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, Las Vegas is a colossal failure ...

    2. Re:Cities in the desert by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      In the past, cities tended to grow at strategic locations, or where it is relatively easy (read: cheap) to support a city.

      If that's so, how do you explain Los Angeles?

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    3. Re: Cities in the desert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      New technology made each day, like the invention mentioned on /. this week that can pull water out of desert air will lessen the shitty desert life.
      Water re-use and recycling taken to new extremes to conserve water, intentional weather change (isn't there a Country with Olympics coming up talking about putting aluminum or something in the air to cause raining...), etc.

      Make a financial incentive and it will come. People have been living in far shittier places for years, like the entire middle east.

    4. Re:Cities in the desert by careysub · · Score: 1

      It would be more general to say - cities are found where people have a reason for wanting to live in large numbers.

      Historically that has meant most often natural nexuses of transportation, centers of industrial and other economic activity, and governmental administrative centers. And cities have a natural tendency toward self-reinforcing growth - once economic activity and large numbers of people are located at once place, more of both tends to follow.

      In the case of Las Vegas its founding as a major city was due to lax gambling laws, creating a "sin haven", a trick that can pretty much only be done once. Others have copied but with only modest, and often fleeting success - (cough) Atlantic City (cough). Also, it is next to a major river, and grew up at a time that the water rights of the river were not over-subscribed.

      Notions of new cities growing up in deserts require an explanation of what it will be attracting people to live there in the first place.

      Why is there a new city? All cities require an economic basis, a productive economy. The industries of the future are going to be high skill industries. You will note that new high skill businesses are invariably located in/near existing cities, usually in reasonably nice climates, often where costs are already high, because that's where they have to be to get the workers they need . What is going to attract those educated youngish types out to your new desert city? Even if a super billionaire business type decides he is going to found a new city, let's call it "Bezosville" or "Muskopolis", he may find the competitive *disadvantage* of recruiting employees may be too big a hit to take.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    5. Re:Cities in the desert by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Vegas is great Fuck You!

    6. Re:Cities in the desert by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      I grew up in Los Angeles, and don't remember learning that it was a key to trade back in Mexican days. It doesn't have a reliable local water supply, both San Diego and San Francisco have better natural harbors and it's not the obvious terminal for the rail roads.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
  14. what else did Woz predict? by darthsilun · · Score: 1

    ...Woz predicted portable laptops back in 1982,...

    And what else did he predict that hasn't come true?
    Laptops? In 1982? That really wasn't a stretch.

  15. My predictions... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A world market crash as rogue agents from various countries manipulate high speed trading markets for immediate gains, destabilizing the currently in-place market balance agreements between the top trading organizations around the globe. Apple shares will plummet to $1 per share, at which point Apple will be bought out by Costco, and the iPhone will be marketed in bulk packs of 25 and as a loss leader for Costco Internet Services. Costco Internet Services will actually be a division of Amazon run on the AmeriNet network, the internet no longer being what it is today but more like AOL once more.

    We'll have flying cars, but only the elite and shipping & transport companies will be able to afford or use them. They'll also be fully autonomous with security programs backed by massive AI complexes that actively defend themselves from hacking, usually by taking down an entire countries internet structure for a short time. Its simply more efficient that way.

    Home computers will no longer be a thing in the US, as cardboard boxes won't have electrical outlets. The good news is that Apple and others don't accept rat pelts and grass clipping as currency anyways. Rednecks will be extinct as well, having been replaced by literally everyone else in the US and out-competed for food.

    The maker community will have been completely bought out by the Corporations, and their projects all promptly shelved in an effort to prevent the Third Corporate IP sueball war.

    Generation of power at home will be flat out illegal in every country. You will buy your electricity and heating gas and like it, or die.

    Laser weapons will finally come into their own, and Trump's descendants will carve his name in 30 mile high letters on the face of the moon, in homage to Chairface Chippendale. The use of laser weaponry will then be banned in all countries by mutual agreement treaty.

    We won't make it to Mars. We'll have had our first contact with advanced alien species before 2075, and they'll have established a cordon around our planet to keep us all here until we die off naturally, thus preventing the spread of our insanity to the universe at large. They will however rebroadcast our sitcoms, removing the laugh tracks and billing them as documentaries, as a warning to other species not to interact with us.

  16. uncertainty and expert predictions by e**(i+pi)-1 · · Score: 1

    Large players currently can grow, buy, or merge without any oversight. If that continues the prediction might be right. But there are many unknowns. Facebook and Google rely on advertisement. If the technology for blocking or removing or filtering adds gets better and more wide spread, that revenue might dry out. On the other hand these players are so large (similarly like Amazon, Microsoft or Oracle) that they can diversify and buy up new technology, surviving in other sectors , even so the original sectors dry out.One has learned from the lessons of the past. Its very hard to predict the future in technology. Most experts in the past were dead wrong. examples.

  17. Flying cars.... by hambone142 · · Score: 1

    I remember when Disney and others predicted people would drive flying cars.

    Can you imagine the unwashed masses piloting flying cars without any lanes? They drive shitty enough with land-based vehicles.

    1. Re:Flying cars.... by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      Obviously, the flying cars will be self-driving.

  18. Re:Meh, who cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    yes he will be, but not for his prophetic predictions of the future. He was/is an incredible engineer that was ahead of his time 3 decades ago and will be remembered for that. Predicting laptops was obvious back in 82 as they already had a heap of people working on them for fucks sack, that is the equivalent of predicting a smartphone that will have longer battery life in a few years time.

  19. Re:We'll meet our cosmic neighbors when we're read by spire3661 · · Score: 1

    You know we split the atom right? You know im essentially transmitting thought to you effortlessly for almost no cost, right? For all our faults, we are still almost gods.

    --
    Good-bye
  20. Wasn't the first to predict laptops by arobatino · · Score: 4, Informative

    Woz predicted portable laptops back in 1982

    Laptops were predicted in the September 1977 Scientific American article Microelectronics and the Personal Computer by Alan C. Kay. That's just one prediction I happened to know, there may be earlier ones.

    1. Re:Wasn't the first to predict laptops by RandCraw · · Score: 1

      And the Osborne 1 *shipped* in July 1981. Yeah it was a luggable portable not a laptop, but imagining that it would shrink and add a battery isn't exactly a big leap.

    2. Re:Wasn't the first to predict laptops by arobatino · · Score: 1

      Thank you. I googled Dynabook and it was also proposed by Alan Kay.

  21. Predictions are about as useful as MySpace stock by raxtich · · Score: 2

    How soon people forget that it was less than a decade ago that everyone was convinced MySpace was going to be around forever, Windows was going to be killed off by "desktop Linux", the demise of Blockbuster meant DVD's-by-mail was the future of home video viewing, Amazon's business model was destined to fail, Blackberry was the future of smartphones, and everyone would be driving hydrogen cars.

  22. Alternatively by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    Alternatively, our society will have exhausted a key resource required for the next technological revolution required to get rid of it. Everything will collapse, and nothing the Woz describe will happen.

  23. Re:We'll meet our cosmic neighbors when we're read by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

    "Technological development is not coupled with any scale of morality in any way, shape, or form. If we were waiting for morality to develop before advancing technology, we'd be sitting in a cave debating whether or not rocks were edible.

    '

    At any given time in human history, moral codes are largely an emergent property of the many adjustments in social etiquette we have to make as new technologies become available. Nineteenth-century Britain had to deal with child labor moving from the farm, where it had always peacefully existed, to factories, where the changed environment made it an abomination. Right at the moment we are fretting about our sudden ability to use personal privacy as an asset that we can exchange for goods and services.

  24. Unserious ruminations from Woz by MSTCrow5429 · · Score: 1

    In 1982, Woz saw the future as having portable laptops; they duly came out several years later. He was deeply involved in the microcomputing field, and the ever constant miniaturization was readily apparent to any observer. Not to mention adults during 1982 would have likely experience the transition from desk calculators to handheld calculators. Woz's prediction may have been a rarer one (I don't know on this), but it was in the very-near-future and rather obvious to anyone with a hint of imagination. Accurately predicting fifty-eight years into the future? Yeah, no, I don't think so.

    --
    Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
  25. We still have to solve the following insanely diff by backslashdot · · Score: 2

    1. Batteries that are 5x better than what we have today.
    2. Artificial muscle to replace bulky inefficient motors.
    3. Solar cells that are 3x cheaper than today's lowest cost.
    4. Fusion energy (current viable path exists via MagLIF or ITER).
    5. Cure stage IV cancer and autoimmune diseases reliably.

  26. Re: We still have to solve the following insanely by backslashdot · · Score: 1

    Frankly by 2075 I think we may only be able to tackle #5 to some extent. Fusion energy, while technologically viable, is not going to happen due to the fact that politicians keep trying to pull funding. I doubt we'll be able to improve batteries or solar cells much by 2075. There is hardly any materials scientists that care about artificial muscle .. so that one's not gonna happen either.

  27. Re: We'll meet our cosmic neighbors when we're rea by Time_Ngler · · Score: 1

    Gods? Gods wouldn't send 99.999% of what humans communicate with each other every day. We are using the tools of greatness to propagate trash. We are the mold growing from the cracks beneath the God machines, and one day we will be scraped off and washed away, never to be heard from again.

  28. Re:Meh, who cares by Layzej · · Score: 1

    There were three laptops already available in 1981. So... not much of a prediction really.

  29. Re:We still have to solve the following insanely d by Rob+Lister · · Score: 1, Interesting

    1. Batteries 5x better. I think that is the most realistic of the list. Li-air certainly but maybe zinc-air might dwarf that. 2. Mech Muscles. I think that is reasonable but may not be widely deployed. 3. Solar is already pretty damn cheap at $1/watt. Couple with 5x batteries and today's tech is fine. 4. Fusion will be just 50 years away. Modular fission will be all the rage. 5. Probably but it doesn't really matter.

  30. Re:We'll meet our cosmic neighbors when we're read by flappinbooger · · Score: 1

    .. because there would be little point in showing us how morally, spiritually, and technologically primitive we are.

    calm down there, Neil D Tyson.

    http://sciencevibe.com/2017/01...

    --
    Flappinbooger isn't my real name
  31. Missing Oxford comma by terevos · · Score: 2

    > He's convinced Apple, Google and Facebook will be bigger in 2075,"

    He's convinced Apple that Google and Facebook will be bigger? How did he do that? And why did Apple need to be convinced?

  32. Re:We'll meet our cosmic neighbors when we're read by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

    And yet,

    * Consciousness doesn't exist according to Physics
    * The Big Bang is joke with many unsolved problems
    * We STILL don't know what Electricity is
    * Or what causes Gravity
    * Or how to calculate how long a magnet will stay on a fridge
    * We haven't discovered that Space is relative (i.e. teleportation)
    * We haven't discovered that Time is relative (i.e. time travel)

    So yeah, our current tech is a total joke compared to other advanced civilizations.

  33. Uhuh, I've heard this one before by holophrastic · · Score: 1

    colonies on the moon? travelling to other planets? flying cars? jetpacks? biodomes?

    It'll take way more than 2075 for a colony on mars. It takes a decade to build a highway 100km long.

    It took thirty years for cellphones to get a touchscreen.

    People have been diagnosing themselves at home for millenia. The advancement was the doctor, not the diagnosis.

    Doctor-free prescriptions are called illicit drugs.

    Civilization doesn't move that fast, nor that way. Makes for a nice book though.

  34. Mars. Sure. by jjw3579 · · Score: 1

    People just won't admit there isn't anything on Mars worth colonizing it for, will they? I mean, it sounds cool, but other than "Woohoo! I'm on Mars!" it's kind of a hell hole. You don't see people rushing to colonize Antarctica, and that's far more hospitable, closer, and cheaper to do.

  35. I predict... by wjcofkc · · Score: 1

    No one will be around to prove that humans existed.

    --
    Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
  36. My prediction by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    A lot of things will be different in the future... On a more serious note, I won't be here in 2075, unless they figure out how to keep a 130 year old person alive. Personally, I don't want to live that long. I see the world (if they don't blow themselves up), being dominated by a super muslim majority simply because the rest of the worlds birth rate is not enough to sustain their populations. ALL ethnic groups except for the super breeding muslims, are in a negative rate. With the so called refugees being spread all over the non muslim world, they will eventually be the majority populations globally.

  37. Glad I'll be dead, then. by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    If the likes of Google, and especially Facebook, would not only still be around but 'bigger than ever', then I'm glad I'll be long since dead by that point, since that sounds like a pretty shitty world to have to live in.

    Personally I think he's mostly full of crap. Apple may still be around in 60 years, but Google and Facebook? LOL, no, especially not any sort of so-called 'social media' nonsense. I think 'social media' is just a fad that'll eventually pass, or at the very least the face of it will change enough that monstrosities like Facebook will go the way of it's predecessors. People are already showing signs of getting tired of this whole 'sharing everything' nonsense, and there are small sparks here and there I see of privacy being valued again, especially in the face of there being more and more intrusions into it that people just can't ignore anymore.

    1. Re:Glad I'll be dead, then. by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      Think so? Retirement guys are saying we need to plan for living to be 100 to 120. So unless you're real old, you'll see it.

    2. Re:Glad I'll be dead, then. by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      I don't want to live to be 100 or 120, I only want to live as long as I can take care of myself, earn a living, and still be enjoying living. Anything beyond that seems pointless to me. The last thing I want is to either be a burden on someone else, or be in essence prisoner in some 'care facility' that I can't escape from because I can't take care of myself anymore. ;-) Quality of life is more important than quantity of life. Hanging on to life just for it's own sake is pathetic so far as I'm concerned.

    3. Re:Glad I'll be dead, then. by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      Left important stuff out.

      I'm with you on that. However they said we won't be that way. In another 5 years or so they'll improve us a great deal. I'm looking at my 70s-110s to be more like my 30s. Maybe even more like my 20s if I'm lucky. Sounds like when we do go, it'll be quick. Nothing like the sad state of affairs today.

    4. Re:Glad I'll be dead, then. by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      In another 5 years or so they'll improve us a great deal.

      Yeah. Last week I was reading about a new substance they discovered, that when given to mice, at least, seemed to 'clean up' their chromosomes, fixing errors. Also read about another substance someone else found that appears to provoke a 'garbage collection' within organs and cells, killing off the old/weak/damaged ones, sweeping them out, and clearing the way for new, young, fully-functional cells. If they come up with a treatment using things like that, and I can roll back the calendar to being in my 30's when I'm in my 70's or 80's, then great! I race bikes, and would love to keep doing it. However if 'ageism' is still a thing, or is worse than now, and nobody will give you a job? Then what's the point? Or, worse, everyone is as healthy an vital as a 30 year old, so there's a huge surplus of viable workforce, and nobody us getting paid much to do anything.

    5. Re:Glad I'll be dead, then. by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      There is that problem. Who wants to live forever? Could be a special kind of hell. Ah, first world problems.

      I think there was a movie out about that in the 1970s or 80s. Maybe it was a TV show. Everyone had a termination date.

      Then there is the memory problem.

    6. Re:Glad I'll be dead, then. by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt00...
      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt00...

      30 is too young to die. You're just barely done developing mentally by 30. The vast majority of people don't even get their acts together by 40, let alone 30. I'm past that point and I'm just at the point where I've got a number of things figured out and have developed the internal discipline to make them work.

    7. Re:Glad I'll be dead, then. by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      OMG, that was Logan's run? Should have googled it....

      30 is way too young. However I guess if people were to die at say 100 back then... who would care?

  38. Shopping by richieb · · Score: 1

    Why does he think that shopping will be around in 2075?

    --
    ...richie - It is a good day to code.
  39. Value of human life will decrease by subnomine · · Score: 1

    Illuminati will have access to more useful information than ever before.
    Invisible hands will continue to improve at steering the population.
    The population will be so busy absorbing the incredible entertainment options that they will never notice their own prisons.
    The newer generations will not know how the world works both politically and technically.
    Artificial Intelligence will provide hilarious companionship.
    Body modification will expand well beyond piercing and tattooing.
    The worth of human organs will decrease; the value of human life will decrease.

  40. What about AI by aberglas · · Score: 1

    58 years is roughly the time frame that machines become truly intelligent. Certainly much smarter than they are now. Robots everywhere.

    Most futuristic predictions completely miss that fact. It is just beyond our human emotional comprehension.

    See below for some ideas on what this might really mean.
    http://www.comptuersthink.com/

  41. Could the Woz predict 2022? by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

    2022 is only 5 years from now, we'll all be able to verify if the predictions were true.

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...