Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Tech Trendspotting For The Future

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the your-average-day-at-slashdot dept.

59

Dylan Knight Rogers writes to mention a CNN article about an annual 10-year forecast of tech trends. Lots of analysts produce forecasts, but the Institute of the Future goes one step further by crafting artifacts from the future: "mocked-up products claiming to be from, say, 2009. You might go to an IFTF presentation and see baskets of finessed fruit that promise cognitive enhancement. Or you might wake up in the hotel where the IFTF seminar was being held to find your newspaper dated 10 years hence."

cancel ×

59 comments

t3h omGZZZZ (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15508116)

frist ps0t!

mocked-up products claiming to be from, say, 2009: (2, Funny)

nickalopogus (615418) | more than 8 years ago | (#15508123)

Windows Vista?

Re:mocked-up products claiming to be from, say, 20 (1)

daveb (4522) | more than 8 years ago | (#15508229)

No - 2009 is too early.

more believable is a screen shot from "Duke Nukem forever" with a banner ad announcing the upcoming release of MS-Vista

Trend #1 (1, Insightful)

gowen (141411) | more than 8 years ago | (#15508133)

"Forecasts" to regain letter 'e'.
Slashdot editors to be trained at basic spelling, punctuation, grammar.

Re:Trend #1 (1)

William Robinson (875390) | more than 8 years ago | (#15508165)

Well, Zonk would not care even if it reads 'forge-cast', because forging and casting operations can be applied to future.

If you dont believe his title sense, read this [slashdot.org] and this.

Re:Trend #1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15508176)

OOPS second link is here. [slashdot.org]

Re:Trend #1 (1)

Mathiasdm (803983) | more than 8 years ago | (#15508208)

Let's not ask too much from the future!

Re:Trend #1 (1)

ameline (771895) | more than 8 years ago | (#15508636)

That's crazy talk man.

Re:Trend #1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15508736)

Geez, I'm trying to figure out how the "Institite of the Future" has the acronym IFTF. These guys are magic...

Re:Trend #1 (1)

Thing 1 (178996) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509132)

Like Quagmire's "Cross Country Wanna-bang-O" -- "Doesn't country have an 'o' in it?"

No no no (1)

woolio (927141) | more than 8 years ago | (#15511628)

I think the parent is a bit confused....

People make forcasts to predict what WILL happen in the future.

The parent seems to be predicting what WON'T happen in the future.

Silly gowen...

I'm Sorry (4, Interesting)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 8 years ago | (#15508141)

I try not to usually respond with such vitrol, but what is the point?

Forecasting is important and people spend tons of money on forecasting reports only to not read them? So we repackage the forecast in a shiny method claiming to be a product from the future?

The article doesn't have any real pertinent information. Was this really worth our time?

Re:I'm Sorry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15508173)

If I might make a comment about the general nature of forecasting. Predicting the future is often wrong, but it can be immensely inspiring. After all, isn't that why so much science fiction is popular, because it shows us a future without the problems that plague us today? Or take, for example, futurist Ray Kurzweil's book The Age of Spiritual Machines [amazon.com] , which gives a glimpse of an awesome shift in human capabilities.

Of course, just thinking about what crap you can sell people in the coming years degrades the act of forecasting, but futurism does have its place in making us all think loftier things.

Just one word: sattelites (1)

BlackShirt (690851) | more than 8 years ago | (#15508206)

It has some hindsight. It makes clear that prototypes will always beat dull analyses. I guess most of slashdotter already know this as scifi (movies) start your imagination.

Re:Just one word: sattelites (3, Interesting)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 8 years ago | (#15508249)

What I would have been more interested in is a breakdown of the 5 prototypes in the image gallery. Why do people believe these will take off?

I know drug companies have more lobbyists than there are people in Congress, but do you really think they'll get precription drugs in an apple? What about kids eating them? Or what about the prescription itself? Where would it be sold?

Last time I checked, the growing trend was for more organic food. Every grocery store in town has added a large organic/health section, and full organic stores like Wild Oats and World Market are popping up all over the place.

Then we have social movie tickets. Do you really think that people will be fine with a movie theatre knowing exactly where you are at all times with GPS coordinates? Frankly, if I want to see a movie with my friends I call them on my cell phone. I don't divulge my personal data to a movie company to track me.

Re:Just one word: sattelites (1)

Bender0x7D1 (536254) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509138)

I know drug companies have more lobbyists than there are people in Congress, but do you really think they'll get precription drugs in an apple? What about kids eating them? Or what about the prescription itself? Where would it be sold? Last time I checked, the growing trend was for more organic food. Every grocery store in town has added a large organic/health section, and full organic stores like Wild Oats and World Market are popping up all over the place.

In the US, Congress might not allow it, but in many other nations they will. Right now they have modified crops to deliver different vitamins to people who would otherwise have a vitamin deficiency in their diet. They are also working on producing vaccines and other (medical) drugs in crops for two main reasons...

It is way cheaper if you can breed an edible plant that produces the drug for you - very little production costs, just extraction.

It is easier to mass produce the drug. Need 10x as much? Plant 10x the acres in the modified corn/soybean/rice. No need for building a new lab/production facility to handle an outbreak and then figure out what to do with it once the outbreak is over. Depending on the host plant, it may be faster to produce than even "retooling" a current facility.

So, while we may not see prescription drugs in the US, many countries, especially developing countries, would love access to these types of plants.

Re:Just one word: sattelites (1)

Joe Tie. (567096) | more than 8 years ago | (#15512418)

Not to mention that one of the main points of a pill is that you're getting an exact dose. Lost a bit of the apples juice when taking a bite? Great, the patient's suddenly only had a partial dose of their medicine.

Technology trends (1)

edittard (805475) | more than 8 years ago | (#15508151)

The only technology trends I need is the magnificent Roland Piquepaille's site. [primidi.com] It's great! You don't have to go searching all over the web for content - Roland kindly copies it all and puts it in his blog.

Boring (1)

tripppy (921964) | more than 8 years ago | (#15508167)

lets talk about E3 in 10 yrs time

Re:Boring (1)

William Robinson (875390) | more than 8 years ago | (#15508266)

lets talk about E3 in 10 yrs time

Ummm...He is talking about 7th version. Other features have higher priorities. Matrix needs to be secured described by this gentleman [slashdot.org]

Cognitive this cognitive that... (2, Funny)

Falcon040 (915278) | more than 8 years ago | (#15508177)

several years hence, I forecast the word 'cognitive' to be more prolificatedly used.

Just 30 seconds before reading this article, I came out of a meeting about the future of radio - it will be cognitive radio.

Basically, it means, two radio transceivers that continually and dynamically selects the best channel or frequency they can use to communicate.

But I didn't expect the word 'cognitive' to be used in such close connectivity to the word 'fruit'.

Wow, cognitive fruit. *oishiiii*, tasty.

[ot] "Cognitive" Radio (1)

wild_berry (448019) | more than 8 years ago | (#15513812)

That sounds like the technique presently used in RDS FM radio transmissions to follow the best signal as people drive in and out of signal range. RDS is broadcast, but the principle will probably remain the same.

Fruit laced with drugs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15508180)

It's only time before someone puts the daterape drug in and whoever takes a bite turns into Snow White

Re:Fruit laced with drugs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15508532)

How many kids get sent to hospital each year for eating a pill because they thought it was a sweet (candy)?
I'm sorry, but disguising something potentally dangerous as something else is a bit of a bad idea, unless you do want to seriously injure or kill people. I'm await a darwin award for the inventor of this one eating his lunch in the lab.

'Glacier Water'? Hmm yeah, that sounds like a business that has high transportation costs, and fairly high extraction costs (you've got to melt the glacier, don't you? Maybe we just wait for global warming to melt it for us?). I've a better idea, I like to call it 'Breath Water'. Get these bright chaps to stick plastic bags over their heads, and we can bottle the condensation.

I guess that as these ideas are s'posed to be 10-20 years in the future, they got their target market to generate the ideas. Unfortunately that target market are about 3-6 years old at the moment...

Some of the stuff in there is scary. (4, Insightful)

thealsir (927362) | more than 8 years ago | (#15508191)

Reputation accounts? "Downloaded song legally from itunes" Nay sire, I do NOT need people knowing each and every "good" thing I've done. It seems more like a thing from an Orwellian science fiction movie than anything else.

Socially networked movie tickets? Leave me and my friends the hell alone.

Re:Some of the stuff in there is scary. (1)

stunt_penguin (906223) | more than 8 years ago | (#15508320)

Sir, the Karma Police would like to speak with you. Seems you've been spreading ill will throughout teh interweb. Please hand over your online ID immediately ;o)


/wanders off blathering on about how Thom Yorke was correct and humming Karma Police in his head.

RFID (3, Interesting)

Lord_Dweomer (648696) | more than 8 years ago | (#15508198)

Does anybody know of any products that sell a bunch of RFID chips on stickers so you can affix them to objects in your house, set up a 3 (minimum) wireless scanners and transmit the triangulated data to a computer program displaying the room so you can tell where in the room those objects are? That would be a godsend to us disorganized folks.

Re:RFID (2, Funny)

Monkeys!!! (831558) | more than 8 years ago | (#15508221)

I can just see it now:

Your date: I had a great time tonight and I..... why do you have stickers on your shirt?
You: Ummm
Your Date: And your socks. And shoes. And... I don't want to know.

Re:RFID (1)

Vo0k (760020) | more than 8 years ago | (#15508246)

RFID doesn't provide position (other than "present within range") and the readers would crash DDoS'd from more than a few signals at once anyway. The idea isn't bad but nowadays RFID is too crude for that.

Re:RFID (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 8 years ago | (#15508267)

Hence the fact it's a 9 year prediction, not a 9 month one.

Re:RFID (2, Interesting)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509450)

RFID doesn't provide position

Hence the need for three scanners to derive position.

A walkie-talkie doesn't provide position either, but if you're using one my hit team will find you. If I've only got one guy he'll find you anyway, it'll just take him a bit longer since he's working in one dimension and has to walk down the line.

the readers would crash DDoS'd from more than a few signals at once anyway.

Like your walkie-talkie crashes from all the signals at once? You should see what radio telescopes have to deal with. They're called "filters" and "unidirectional" antennas.

All the workings would be in the scanners, not the tags. All the intelligence would be in a computer. The RFID tags need only be passive and respond to a ping.

You can't find your car keys? Go to the computer, ask it where they are. The scanners sweep the room pinging the car keys. Only the car keys will respond. What's more, since we're working in a well bounded system ( a room) I'd think that two scanners would suffice. Simple parallax with the scanners placed in two corners, although precision would be reduced the closer the keys are to that wall.

Sounds like a one week hack to me.

KFG

Re:RFID (2, Interesting)

Vo0k (760020) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509833)

> A walkie-talkie doesn't provide position either, but if you're using one my hit team will find you.

If you have only another walkie-talkie and no directional antenna, you won't find me. Readers can't detect the direction the signal is coming from. No indication of direction, strength, time etc. Cell phones can "ping" the station and triangulate their position because they have means to measure the delay of answer, and the stations are in reasonable distance. Here, ping sent at light speed will return with too many delays from sources other than distance and and with the distance delay too short to be of any use.

> Like your walkie-talkie crashes from all the signals at once?

Like you can tell where one walkie-talkie is while 15 of them broadcast on the same frequency simultaneously. RFID signal reply is very weak and requires pretty sensitive reader. If you have 100 items in your house tagged, all 100 will reply to the ping at the same time. Even though each of them has an unique ID, they will simply jam each other, the reader won't be able to pick a single reply from the noise created.

> You can't find your car keys? Go to the computer, ask it where they are. The scanners sweep the room pinging the car keys. Only the car keys will respond.

Everything will respond. The signal from the scanners is not directional and all tags within range reply. The only thing you may attempt to measure is the signal "roundtrip" for one given tag, but this is encumbered with too many errors.

> Sounds like a one week hack to me.

As soon as you start to measure time it takes the radio waves to get to the tag and back, it will grow into a yearly project for a corporation. Unless you try to build a directional, beam-area RFID reader. That sounds like a yearly project for a single individual or a weekly project for a corporation.

Re:RFID (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#15510084)

If you have only another walkie-talkie and no directional antenna, you won't find me.

So, I will provide myself with one. In point of fact I'll get damned close to you without one, since a walkie-talkie antenna is semidirectional. Notice that its shape is not symetrical in three dimensions?

Have you grown up with only cable TV or something? Get thee hence and acquire a pair of rabbit ears and learn something.

The signal from the scanners is not directional. . .

It is if I have constructed them to be. I don't get this argument at all. It's doofey.

Like you can tell where one walkie-talkie is while 15 of them broadcast on the same frequency simultaneously.

If each one is broadcasting a unique digital pulse code and I filter on the code, not the carrier, yes.

Everything will respond.

The information I am seeking is not the code. I know the code a priori. Think about it.

As soon as you start to measure time it takes the radio waves to get to the tag and back, it will grow into a yearly project for a corporation.

So I won't do that. You are asigning me that task because your assumption that the scanners are not directional is false.

Since the only information I am seeking is direction I build my equipment to be . . .directional.

KFG

P.S. (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#15510127)

As soon as you start to measure time it takes the radio waves to get to the tag and back. .

Well understood late 1800s tech. It's available off the shelf or about ten bucks worth of parts from Radio Shack.

KFG

Re:P.S. (1)

Vo0k (760020) | more than 8 years ago | (#15510772)

>>If you have only another walkie-talkie and no directional antenna, you won't find me.

>So, I will provide myself with one.

Good luck. In the middle of the jungle.
Patents, industrial secrets, regulations, lack of documentation...

>> The signal from the scanners is not directional. . .

>It is if I have constructed them to be. I don't get this argument at all. It's doofey.

So you want to construct directional RFID scanners. Get sued for constructing RFID scanners and reverse-engineering them. And if you avoid that somehow, you still need to understand how they work and send a narrow beam of VERY strong signal. Quite a bit of advanced electronics. Oh, and how are you going to scan the area? Tilting the antenna mechanically? Then either the beam is quite thick (and catches many RFIDs at once, plus precision of location sucks) or time grows enormously as a narrow beam scans lots and lots of area.

> Like you can tell where one walkie-talkie is while 15 of them broadcast on the same frequency simultaneously.

> If each one is broadcasting a unique digital pulse code and I filter on the code, not the carrier, yes.

You can't filter on the code.
You broadcast "breath of life", strong pulse that powers them all up but provides no data. Once woken up, they broadcast ID without care if anything else broadcasts in the meantime. So before you can filter by ID, you have to fish the data out of ether, and the moment you ping a box of RFIDs, they all reply. You can't broadcast "everything except #nnn keep quiet, #nnn report." You broadcast "Everything in range report" and that's the only thing you can do.

> The information I am seeking is not the code. I know the code a priori. Think about it.

The information you're seeking is distance/direction of item with a code you know a priori. If you get 100 code replies, you need to seek this particular code in these replies. Directional antenna could limit the number of replies from scarcely distributed items but still a box of tagged items will create enough noise to kill any single signal.

And as for measuring the speed:

Half-meter distance measurement precision to make it nearly useful is resolution of about 0.1 nanoseconds. Give me off-the-shelf timer providing such resolution. That's equivalent of 30GHZ CPU performing 3 cycles long loop, or some VERY clean analog circuit with every milimeter of tracks on the PCB calculated carefully. Add to that probably about 10 microseconds tollerance in rise times and general response time of the RFID and you have your signal (distance delay) 5 orders of magnitude weaker than the noise (other delays).

You found a pet project and you're blinded by "how cool it is" neglecting some obvious difficulties. I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm saying 10 years is a good deadline for such a project.

Re:P.S. (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#15510881)


>>>If you have only another walkie-talkie and no directional antenna, you won't find me.

>>So, I will provide myself with one.

>Good luck. In the middle of the jungle.
>Patents, industrial secrets, regulations, lack of documentation...

I'd like to say I stopped reading here, but, unfortunately, I didn't.

. . .you still need to understand how they work . . .

It takes maybe 10 seconds to show a Boy Scout how. Most of them used to be able to put it to practial application in about 15 seconds. It may be rocket science, but it's dirt simple rocket science.

You can't filter on the code.

News to the tens of thousands of us already doing it. It's no harder; and is equivilent to, making a child's shape matching box. The square peg will only go through the square hole.

You broadcast "Everything in range report"

The hell I do.

And as for measuring the speed:

I ain't gonna do it.

Give me off-the-shelf timer providing such resolution.

What for? You don't need one. You don't directly measure it, you derive it from more easily measurable physical phenomenon. Late 1800s tech. See Michelson. Measured the speed of light by timing it across the room.

Have you ever tuned a musical instrument by listening for the beats?

You found a pet project and you're blinded by "how cool it is" neglecting some obvious difficulties.

It isn't my project and I think it's moderately stupid. It isn't, however, hard and the solution is obvious to anyone with some experience in radio/data acquisition. Which I do.

I'm saying 10 years is a good deadline for such a project.

Dude, that's about 2 years longer than going from high school graduation to a PhD; and this project is simple enough that it might not get approved for an undergraduate senior project, nevermind a Doctoral Thesis. They started giving out the Nobels for this shit 100 years ago.

Radio isn't a secret anymo'.

KFG

Re:P.S. (1)

Vo0k (760020) | more than 8 years ago | (#15511007)

>Radio isn't a secret anymo'.

Wireless Power is.
Tesla tried this. He screwed up a big time, it worked but created far more problems than solved. Few tried it with any success. Only relatively recently TI came up with RFID which works... sometimes.
The "radio" part is least of concern. If you could place a fixed transmitter sending a chosen signal continuously, no biggie. That's not even undergraduate project. The problem is RFID is to radio what submarine is to rowboat. And you still try to navigate using the stars.

Re:P.S. (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#15511025)

Radio iswireless power. If it weren't your antenna wouldn't work.

KFG

Re:P.S. (1)

Vo0k (760020) | more than 8 years ago | (#15512072)


radio is wireless.
kfg is clueless.

Radio is wireless signal with barely enough power to drive minimal, very sensitive part of a circuit through relatively big antenna. It NEEDS local power and amplifiers to work. A radio that does not require external power, able to power up small, weak earphones using only the broadcast waver and at barely audible volume will require 5-10 meters of antenna length. No working unpowered pocket radios, sorry.

RFID tag 5 milimeters long needs to be powered up with the pulse from the transmitter and use the received power to power up its own transmitter, logic circuits, memory with the data to be sent, clock/loop to generate frequency for carrier and values for binary data - that's a lot of circuits and not entirely power-friendly ones running from power from a single minimal size antenna. Great care must be taken that the power broadcast doesn't jam the receiver. There's definitely no power and time for the receiver to analyse the source of the power, or any data that might get carried together with the power, to listen to other RFIDs and try not to interrupt them, no room to store the power for later use for any significant reply delay and so on.

This IS a rocket science. You're trying to reach the orbit with black gunpowder and a fuse, because you got a sniff how the rockets fly, but you don't understand why they need to use such inconvenient hydrogen-oxygen mix for fuel and you assumed "more powder=fly higher". Wireless power as in POWER, not DATA CARRIER is still a secret. Wireless power to power up radio transmitters until recently was a taboo. Directional EMP pulse is pretty much capable of powering up devices, but it is much better suited for frying them, and that's about what you're facing here.

Re:P.S. (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#15512153)

you assumed "more powder=fly higher".

No, acutally, I've determined that empirically in my rockets.

Wireless power to power up radio transmitters until recently was a taboo.

Ok, now I can stop reading.

KFG

Re:P.S. (1)

Vo0k (760020) | more than 8 years ago | (#15512178)

You understood?

Re:P.S. (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 8 years ago | (#15512265)

The second you posted:

>Good luck. In the middle of the jungle.
>Patents, industrial secrets, regulations, lack of documentation...

KFG

Re:RFID (2, Interesting)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 8 years ago | (#15508260)

Can't be done the way you describe, the same basic result can be accomplished by having a reader at every doorway inside the house. Provided that the item is registered in a database, it'll tell you what room an item is in. Okay, it won't pinpoint the exact location, but is it that much of a bother to search in your bedroom if you knew it was there. It'll also tell you whether or not it's in the house period.

Plus, the doorway option is better for many places to get a definite read as well. My 802.11G broadband router can't penetrate the stone walls of my house and I actually get more signal vertically (up to 3 stories up) than I get horizontally (the next room seperated by a hallway doesn't get any signal). I can't see RFID readers trying to triangulate positions being any better in this case.

The tech for that is currently here, but having that many scanners is too expensive yet it is much cheaper than it was just a few years ago. It'll get much cheaper still.

Re:RFID (2, Informative)

smallfries (601545) | more than 8 years ago | (#15508275)

What you are after isn't RFID. There are indoor ultrasonic positioning systems that do what you are asking for. The transmitters are about RFID tag size. The batteries don't last forever but the time between recharges is getting better all the time and for an application like this they could have a really long sleep cycle between pulses.

Worthless (3, Interesting)

Umbral Blot (737704) | more than 8 years ago | (#15508271)

Experience tells me that such predictions are more wrong than they are right. It's part of the nature of advancement to take us places that we didn't even know existed before (ex: computers). As a company it would seem to be more prudent to pay for real research on real products than to worry about what may or may not come about. You really only need to be looking about a year into the future to roll with the punches, and you can to that by reading academic journals (so that you know what areas are expecting breakthroughs).

Cheat the Prophet (1)

dominique_cimafranca (978645) | more than 8 years ago | (#15508426)

From GK Chesterton's Napoleon of Notting Hill:

THE human race, to which so many of my readers belong, has been playing at children's games from the beginning, and will probably do it till the end, which is a nuisance for the few people who grow up. And one of the games to which it is most attached is called, "Keep to-morrow dark," and which is also named (by the rustics in Shropshire, I have no doubt) "Cheat the Prophet." The players listen very carefully and respectfully to all that the clever men have to say about what is to happen in the next generation. The players then wait until all the clever men are dead, and bury them nicely. They then go and do something else. That is all. For a race of simple tastes, however, it is great fun.

Re:Depends (1)

vertinox (846076) | more than 8 years ago | (#15508717)

Experience tells me that such predictions are more wrong than they are right.

Depends on who making the prediction...

If it is lone column writer on some newspaper claiming that we will have Fusion power by 2015 because he saw a science fiction movie then chances are it won't happen.

If it is a small group of scientists with PHDs in nuclear science saying we will have fusion power by 2015 because they have done computer models then it is more likley to happen.

If it is a larger group of government officials, world leaders, and scientists saying we will have fusion by 2015 because they have allocated 1 Trillion dollars to the project then I'd say they will most likley be able to pull it off.

Also some trends are self fufilling prophecies. Take More's Law for example. There isn't anything that is a law about this trend and could up and stop anyday now. However, because this is the goal the market has set for itself, companies know they are expected to keep up with this trend.

With that in mind it we use Moore's law (and assume that this trend can continue) we can safley assume by 2018 (or 2020) that we will have enough MIPS or FLOPS (100 billion MIPS) in a $1,000 hardware to simulate all the several trillion neurons of a human mind in parallel and therefore StrongAI will at least be theoretically possible by this time.

Of course we might need to take other things into account, but this is a better prediction of the future because it is based off current trends rather than saying "Look... We have a cars... And we have airplanes and they are both improving on their own field every year... Oh I have a cool idea... Someone could combine them and we can have flying cars in about 40 years!"

Without thinking about the social or technical problems one might be faced with a drunk driver flying their car into a building at 300mph. That said... The reason we don't have flying cars today is because we still can't drive the ones on the ground safely (40,000 died to car related accidents last year)

Speaking of which... (And if you want to talk about future trends and predictions) You should check out the talks given at the Singularity Summit [stanford.edu] . Sebastian Thrun (the head dev on the Stanley winning car at the DARPA 2005 grand challenge) gives a good talk on automated car technology and his goal to eventually see computers replace people as the drivers. We might not see anything for another 10 years to reach the market, but we know this stuff is feasible given enough research and technical effort. It will be interesting to see what the 2007 Urban Challenge will bring... And it will be more important than any of these CNN predictions.

Re:Depends (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15509204)

FLOPS (100 billion MIPS)/1 Trillion nerouns = 10^(2+9+6-12)= 10^5 computation per neroun which might seem about right but it's still off by at least 100.

However it's more of a bandwith issue.

Raw estimate of bandwith:
8bit number * 10^(2(cycles / second)+4(number of connections)+12(number of nerons)+2(safty factor))= ~640 billion terabytes / second.

Now looking at the rate of growth of bandwith RAM is not going to be that fast for a long time.

PS: This let's you build something with zero knowlage that would take another 20 years to train...

Re:Depends (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15509646)

A bit off topic, but you have to also consider that the neurons in a human mind usually run information about 1 to 120 meters per second in speed. Now, that is fast compared to other things get get up and move, but it isn't as fast as the speed of light which the electrons of the cpu are operating.

So, one would just have to do the same calculations even though not 100% parallel in the same time the neuron has to do its work in the real brain without having latency in the process.

Of course there has got to be a better way than just brute forcing AI by simulating every neuron in the brain.

"Welcome to the world of tomorrow" (1)

Adam Hazzlebank (970369) | more than 8 years ago | (#15508283)

Ahhh crap, someone kill me please...

Re:"Welcome to the world of tomorrow" (1)

Joebert (946227) | more than 8 years ago | (#15508660)

Adam Hazzlebank, you are fined one credit for a violation of the Verbal Morality Statute.

Accurate (3, Informative)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 8 years ago | (#15508337)

I find it funny that companies that are paid big money to forecast the future are so often wrong.

However, there are virtual stock markets where people predict the future in regards to news, sports, movies, etc. More often than not, these are correct.

http://www.ideosphere.com/ [ideosphere.com]
http://www.hsx.com/ [hsx.com]
http://blogshares.com/ [blogshares.com]
http://us.newsfutures.com/ [newsfutures.com]

Past Predictions (2, Informative)

Chatmag (646500) | more than 8 years ago | (#15508490)

First, no old jokes.

I remember the NY Worlds Fair from 1964 and the technological exhibits that showed us the world of the future. And what about EPCOT? Another prediction of how we'll all live in the future. Most of the predictions didn't come true, yet it did cause us to think of what was possible.

Edison said every failed project taught him what did not work, in order to find those projects that did work.

Just one example of what may work. The fruit laced with drugs. That may work in countries where a particular drug would have to be refrigerated, but cannot due to the lack of infrastructure. Perhaps the drug would be able to be administered without losing its effectivness via a native fruit which needs no refrigeration.

PR press hits (1)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 8 years ago | (#15508668)

Some PR company hired by one or more of the featured products to be included in that list. Happens all the time with hot software trends. Rarely are feature pieces like that written by real journalists. Most of the time it's some industry or PR writer.

Don't feel bad, half the national stories you see on local news were shot by an industry trade group and in more than a couple cases, our very own government propaganda ministry.

Internet 0.1 (1)

carpeweb (949895) | more than 8 years ago | (#15508955)

How about a hyperlink that just links to more information? The pop-up photo gallery didn't work for me, beyond the first product displayed. I don't care about the technical reasons why I couldn't use the "next" and "previous" buttons (but, FYI, I use IE6, and lots of pop-ups and javascript thingies work for me). I care about the fact that it's unnecessarily complicated. Just put the info in these newfangled thingies called "web pages" and let users browse them with these other newfangled thingies called "web browsers".

I'm tellin' ya, it could happen ... in the year 2000 (cue Conan O'Brien music).

What about... (1)

mentaldingo (967181) | more than 8 years ago | (#15509526)

Duke Nukem Forever?

Oh wait, nevermind [slashdot.org] ...

Fight Back the Smart Way (0, Offtopic)

geekp0wer (516841) | more than 8 years ago | (#15510461)

For those at Bank of America or any other place where this is occuring. Make sure you get your severance pay but do not pass on any more information that you have to. You may even considering passing on wrong information. B of A deserves getting screwed by you. If database maintenance has to happen every 12 hours tell them every 12 days. If they call you tell them the idiot you were training wrote it down wrong. Leave critical steps out. Dont provide key contact info or personal tricks. Get ride of any source code, documentation, or scripting that may make someone elses job easier. You get the idea. Remember still have the right to resist this through less obvious tactics. They screwed you and expect you to help them move on. WTF were they thinking. Thats like divorcing your wife and then asking her to teach you new wife how to blow you correctly or she won't get her alimony.

For those who don't work at B of A you need to make sure you never do business with them again. Tell your family not to do business with them either. Explaing to them that they are taking jobs from away from people in your field. This really pisses me off. More to come soon.

Re:Fight Back the Smart Way (1)

garnetlion (786722) | more than 8 years ago | (#15511972)

I am so confused.

The Amazing Criswell Predicts.... (1)

CffnDwllr (644273) | more than 8 years ago | (#15511978)

"Greetings, my friends. We are all interested in the future, for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. And remember, my friends, future events such as these will affect you in the future."

The Amazing Criswell
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...