We've all heard the stories about the guy who opined that there was no foreseeable future for computers in the home, etc. Well, here's a whole load of them! http://theweek.com/home/bad_op...4&index=14&bogid=151

Interesting how accurate are Arthur C Clarke's compared with most of the others. For example:

"Food will be grown in air-conditioned domes, and building materials will be mined from the moon itself."

All that's needed is a bit more time.

He is still wrong.

I liked this one, particularly: “Over the next century, Law will be simplified. Lawyers will have diminished, and their fees will have been vastly curtailed.”

—Junius Henri Browne, American journalist, 1893

I don't see that he's wrong - unless he gave some time-frame which is not in the quotation. I am quite sure that his prediction about lunar living will eventually come to pass.

It just hasn't happened yet.

Incidentally, Clarke's prediction about geostationery satellites was poo-pooed by many in the 1940s. Now we use the things every day without a second's thought.

quote:

Now we use the things every day without a second's thought.

I constantly worry that they may fall on me, so that's not true.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
I don't see that he's wrong - unless he gave some time-frame which is not in the quotation. I am quite sure that his prediction about lunar living will eventually come to pass.

It just hasn't happened yet.

Incidentally, Clarke's prediction about geostationery satellites was poo-pooed by many in the 1940s. Now we use the things every day without a second's thought.

And every other prediction by anybody must be allowed the same leeway if no timeframe was given.

While man can fly using machines, I wonder why evolution hasn't worked to make us capable of flying by turning farts into jet propulsion.

quote:

And every other prediction by anybody must be allowed the same leeway if no timeframe was given.

I don't think that's necessarily true. Some of the predictions shown will never happen regardless of how long the timeframe is.

Self-sustaining colonies on the moon are already possible with current technology. all that is lacking is the will to make it happen. I doubt it'll be in my lifetime - even though we already have colonies in space, if not yet the moon.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
even though we already have colonies in space, if not yet the moon.

Not by any definiton of colony that I'm familiar with.

The International Space Station has been continuously occupied for about 12 years and is expected to reamin occupied for another 10 years at least. The colony is a small one, of course, but I reckon it deserves to be called a colony.

On the moon it would be easier to build a larger facility as many of the materials will be to hand.

A colony has to be self-sufficient and self-sustaining. The space station is not, nor would a moon base be, either. Both require supplies from an outside source to survive.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: <Proofreader>,

I would think every colony must start with support from the founding country - and that support might continue for many years.

But I see no reason why a moon colony should not eventually become self-sustaining. Obviously we don't yet know what resources the moon had - but I'd not be surprised to learn that there is water deep underground that could be mined. Oxygen can be made as it is made on Earth - through plant photosynthesis. All that is needed is the will to do it.

My favorite bad opinion of election season was by Larry Kudlow, right-wing pundit, on his CNBC show “The Kudlow Report” on Oct. 25: ”I am now predicting a 330 vote electoral landslide [for Romney].”

Obama won 332 electoral votes (to Romney's 206), a result which was hastily repainted by right-wingers as 'squeaking by'.

Oh, that is funny, Bethree!