3 ms·
The by line explains why the article feels so spot on: "Vinton Cerf". The big glaring mistake is that we call "WIDGETs" Smartphones.
by Game_Ender 15y ago
The by line explains why the article feels so spot on: "Vinton Cerf". The big glaring mistake is that we call "WIDGETs" Smartphones.
- raphar 15y agoAlthough the name (and acronym ) WIDGET is as silly as Smartphone. He wasn't wrong in that.
- Dn_Ab 15y agoI came here to write just that. The only predictions I am sceptical about (more hoping against hope) are nanoscale atomically precise manufacturing and an interplanetary backbone. I've heard Vint Cerf talk about that interplanetary network before and although I hope I am wrong, I don't think the economic incentives will be aligned to make ventures into space worth taking by 2020. As for nanoscale that one is a free variable like nuclear fusion power, and superhuman AI. They all seem like they are missing a key that when unlocked will just lead to a cascade of progress. I predict synthetic biology to be a precursor to a lot of what nanomachines will be good for.