wu :: forums
        (http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi)
      

        riddles >> general problem-solving / chatting / whatever >> Flashback to the Future: Computers in 2004
        
(Message started by: william wu on Nov 17th, 2004, 8:41pm)
Title: Flashback to the Future: Computers in 2004
Post by william wu on Nov 17th, 2004, 8:41pm
An amusing clipping from a 1954 issue of Popular Mechanics magazine; thanks to Abhi Vase for this:

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/images/pc1954.jpg
Title: Re: Flashback to the Future: Computers in 2004
Post by Speaker on Nov 17th, 2004, 10:34pm
This is great. What are the big wheels for? And, how to they get the paper to offset as it goes through the desktop?

So, it is not so uncommon now to have some cutting edge development companies (maybe in Silicon Valley someplace) trying to imagine what consumers will be doing (and therefore buying) in the future. I remember seeing an article in a magazine: it showed photos of people sitting around a table with paper cutouts of video-phones taped to the walls, and other possible future household items (all cut out of paper). The idea being that creating a facsimile of the future environment would inspire insight into the average person's future home.

I wonder how common this kind of attempt to predict the future was?

Finally, can we do any better?
What will the average home (home computer) look like in 50 years?

(William, is it OK if I hi-jack your thread?)

Title: Re: Flashback to the Future: Computers in 2004
Post by Noke Lieu on Nov 17th, 2004, 10:42pm
my guess for the 50 year thing is along the neural nets in Iain M Banks' Culture novels.... sort of mind machine interfaces with super intellegent ship Minds.

Maybe 100 years down the track, then... ::)
Title: Re: Flashback to the Future: Computers in 2004
Post by towr on Nov 18th, 2004, 12:37am
I'm not going to be original here, but I think in 50 years computers will be pretty much as they are now, just faster. Of course that's what the guy in the photo thought as well. :P

But let's be honest. A speech interface to a computer isn't practical, not when there's are other people around speaking shooting 'format C' ;)
Smaller computers might be usefull for on the go (we have smaller ones now after all for just that purpose), but for at home you want something of a decent size that won't get lost.
The screen may get a bit flatter, but it will still need a decent size. VR-glasses or holograms even if theyre not as cumbersome as today, will for most (nongaming) purposes not be worth the trouble (way would you want to look at your spreadsheet in 3D ?).
The look may get more 'designer', like imacs, but more extreme (not just color). We're already seeing this change now though.
So how about a mind-computer interface? Why not plug and play? Sure, if you like to screw up your mind (ok, so many people may do it), 'format brain:'. But personally I don't feel anything for getting implants and whatnot, just to interface with my computer (unless maybe she's really cute ;) (check applegeeks (http://www.applegeeks.com/) in a few days or so) ) I just don't think it will be practical. Of course that's often what does in the 'old generation'  ::)
Title: Re: Flashback to the Future: Computers in 2004
Post by rmsgrey on Nov 18th, 2004, 4:50am
Speech interface is already here for some applications - I have a friend who developed RSI a couple of years back, so, for a while, did most of his work through a headset mike.

With sufficiently good speech recognition, it becomes possible to have multiple users acessing the same terminal simultaneously with different access priviliges - so anyone other than an administrator saying "format c" would be ignored.

Alternatively, you could go the Eye-Toy route - so called Augmented Reality - whereby the computer interfaces by reading your motions visually rather than mechanically. Add a pair of LCD glasses, and you can overlay interface elements directly rather than having to look at a screen to see the virtual elements (this would be a lot cheaper and easier than the Minority Report style holographic interface).

Direct mind-machine interfacing has me rather cautious too. On the other hand, I suspect it's inevitable sooner or later. The only question then would be how good the safeties are...
Title: Re: Flashback to the Future: Computers in 2004
Post by towr on Nov 18th, 2004, 7:47am

on 11/18/04 at 04:50:17, rmsgrey wrote:
With sufficiently good speech recognition, it becomes possible to have multiple users acessing the same terminal simultaneously with different access priviliges - so anyone other than an administrator saying "format c" would be ignored.
It would still be very noisy, and (thus) imo impractical.
And it's debatable whether speech recognition will ever be that good. Even aside from correctly recognizing words, natural speech is hard enough to understand for a computer; it's very ambiguous. The computer would have to become almost as smart as us. (Smarter in some senses, it'd have to deal with all kinds of dialects, accents, languages, sayings, etc)
Maybe we should all learn loglan and make the computers job a bit easier ;)


Quote:
Alternatively, you could go the Eye-Toy route - so called Augmented Reality - whereby the computer interfaces by reading your motions visually rather than mechanically. Add a pair of LCD glasses, and you can overlay interface elements directly rather than having to look at a screen to see the virtual elements (this would be a lot cheaper and easier than the Minority Report style holographic interface).
But how practical is it for standard screenwork? Augmented reality is nice for games and such, but if I'm doing data entry I don't need to see the real world through it. Nor when I surf the internet, except maybe if I'd try to combine it with walking to the supermarket or some such activity (maybe a bit dangerous when crossing the street). Nor most games actually, since they're an escape from reality.


Quote:
Direct mind-machine interfacing has me rather cautious too. On the other hand, I suspect it's inevitable sooner or later. The only question then would be how good the safeties are...
They're already making progress here as well, luckily it's only 'brain to computer', so there's not a danger of feedback. And I don't suppose that's really necessary (our ears and eyes and other senses aren't bad inputdevices). Still, there is a lot of ethical issues with implants, and external brainsensors don't give a very high degree of control (it does work though, I think one such device is called 'brain fingers' if you want to look it up). Implants are currently tested for the severely handicapped (i.e. paralized from the neck down)
Title: Re: Flashback to the Future: Computers in 2004
Post by Grimbal on Nov 18th, 2004, 8:22am
Just for comparison, here is my 2004 home computer in the basement (yes, my wife is mad at me for that).
http://63.105.17.106/fark/ups.jpg

No, more seriously, have a look at this:
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/news/news_stories/sub-centen02.html
Title: Re: Flashback to the Future: Computers in 2004
Post by John_Gaughan on Nov 18th, 2004, 12:23pm
Grimbal, thank you for posting that. I thought the printer in the original photo was a little odd, almost like it was Photoshopped in...
Title: Re: Flashback to the Future: Computers in 2004
Post by Speaker on Nov 18th, 2004, 5:22pm
So, the photo is a phake. Oh well, but the idea is still interesting.

Maybe computers will just fade away, becoming curiosities for children and hobbiests. Why, how could this happen? Well, if instead of creating better computers, we started creating better humans.

Either through genetic engineering, or through self-disciplined mind control. We could grow better humans or teach ourselves to be super smart.

If biology makes great strides (like electronics/engineering) it could be possible to access all of the minds powers. So, we can remember and recall large amounts of information. Do calculations quickly, and our imaginations would be so powerful and lifelike that, instead of playing games on a screen, we just think about the games.

For competition, we play outside, just like mom told us to do.

Maybe what I am thinking of sounds like some kind of implant, but that is not it. I am thinking of completely human improvement. Everybody would learn yogo and tantric meditation etc. Okay, maybe this is hard to believe, but maybe that is the point.  ;D
Title: Re: Flashback to the Future: Computers in 2004
Post by SWF on Nov 18th, 2004, 5:36pm
That is just too funny to be real.  I always check snopes.com when I see something outlandish like this.  Their info on this picture is here (http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/computer.asp).
Title: Re: Flashback to the Future: Computers in 2004
Post by John_Gaughan on Nov 18th, 2004, 9:37pm
For once, Fark.com (http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=1115586) produced an image that does not look like it was made in MS Paint. This one is about a third of the way down the page. Most of those images suck, but there are a few good ones.
Title: Re: Flashback to the Future: Computers in 2004
Post by rmsgrey on Nov 19th, 2004, 5:33am

on 11/18/04 at 07:47:44, towr wrote:
It would still be very noisy, and (thus) imo impractical.
And it's debatable whether speech recognition will ever be that good. Even aside from correctly recognizing words, natural speech is hard enough to understand for a computer; it's very ambiguous. The computer would have to become almost as smart as us. (Smarter in some senses, it'd have to deal with all kinds of dialects, accents, languages, sayings, etc)
Maybe we should all learn loglan and make the computers job a bit easier ;)

But, by an analagous argument, you could never have DOS or UNIX - they require users to input words... You don't need to crack the Natural Language problem to have voice conrolled systems any more than for text controlled systems - you just have the (presumably) smart humans using it learn how to phrase their requests. I had in mind voice recognition rather than word recognition anyway. As I said before, there are already voice input applications, and I don't see the state of the art regressing on that front.

Quote:
But how practical is it for standard screenwork? Augmented reality is nice for games and such, but if I'm doing data entry I don't need to see the real world through it. Nor when I surf the internet, except maybe if I'd try to combine it with walking to the supermarket or some such activity (maybe a bit dangerous when crossing the street). Nor most games actually, since they're an escape from reality.

If you're doing data entry, then where are you getting the data to enter? If you're reading it off a sheet of paper, then you might as well feed the image in directly (OCR might not be that good yet, but this way you would be able to compare the original image with the translated version on a character by character basis literally at a glance) Even if you're making something up and typing it in, a virtual keyboard could be used (OK, you lose the tactile feedback, but you also avoid the mechanical errors that my current keyboard suffers...)  EyeToy is a long way from being mature technology, but it's already pretty darn impressive.

Quote:
They're already making progress here as well, luckily it's only 'brain to computer', so there's not a danger of feedback. And I don't suppose that's really necessary (our ears and eyes and other senses aren't bad inputdevices). Still, there is a lot of ethical issues with implants, and external brainsensors don't give a very high degree of control (it does work though, I think one such device is called 'brain fingers' if you want to look it up). Implants are currently tested for the severely handicapped (i.e. paralized from the neck down)

It may be intended to only be brain to computer, but, as a general rule, any transducer can be run in reverse, Even if software can't hack into our wetware, there's still the question of what happens if there's a power surge...

I haven't been keeping up directly with developments in this area, but I suspect that within my lifetime (barring accidents) there will be 2-way DNI (direct neural interface)
Title: Re: Flashback to the Future: Computers in 2004
Post by towr on Nov 19th, 2004, 11:43am

on 11/19/04 at 05:33:57, rmsgrey wrote:
But, by an analagous argument, you could never have DOS or UNIX - they require users to input words...
In an articifical language, and people invented windows for a reason :P


Quote:
You don't need to crack the Natural Language problem to have voice conrolled systems any more than for text controlled systems - you just have the (presumably) smart humans using it learn how to phrase their requests.
Which is less than 5% of the population. To give voice-recognition a real benefit over what we have now it needs to be better.


Quote:
I had in mind voice recognition rather than word recognition anyway. As I said before, there are already voice input applications, and I don't see the state of the art regressing on that front.
They're not really good in my experience, I'd rather have a keyboard any day.


Quote:
a virtual keyboard could be used (OK, you lose the tactile feedback, but you also avoid the mechanical errors that my current keyboard suffers...)
True enough, and they already exist as well, still, adequate feedback is reasonably important to people (but beeps from the computer would do, if someone chose to have such feedback)


Quote:
EyeToy is a long way from being mature technology, but it's already pretty darn impressive.
Perhaps, but I don't have much faith in it's usefullness beyond certain specialized uses. But perhaps I'm just pessimistic.


Quote:
It may be intended to only be brain to computer, but, as a general rule, any transducer can be run in reverse
Yes it could, but I think it only sends signal out, and doesn't have a receiver (plugin ports aren't popular yet, wireless is the way to go) And since it's battery operated power surges also become unlikely.


Quote:
I haven't been keeping up directly with developments in this area, but I suspect that within my lifetime (barring accidents) there will be 2-way DNI (direct neural interface)
An interface to the brain would arguably be easier than from the brain, because the brain can more easily adapt to receive input than we can adapt to decode it's output. But it has inherent dangers if you're not carefull.
Of course they are already working on optical chips and such to help restore sight to blind, which is a sort of to-brain interface. But at least it can't run windows ;)


Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.4!
Forum software copyright © 2000-2004 Yet another Bulletin Board