s article is good for more than just a laugh. Terrible predictions can be instructive—in their wrongness, we can see the flaws of our own visions for the future.

Stoll’s prognostication fails in predictable ways. He doesn’t give enough credit to the possibilities of innovation, he doesn’t believe people can adapt, and he seems to disregard the long-term trends that were pushing the digital boom. Of course, Stoll is not alone in predicting a future that never came. Part of the fun of watching and reading old sci-fi is in seeing how old visions of today match up with the dreary reality. We don’t have flying cars or jetpacks, but only a few prescient visionaries—Vannevar Bush, William Gibson, and the makers of these educational videos from the 1960s—predicted anything like the Internet.

Given how wrong they tend to be, it’s generally a good idea to ignore all predictions. The future is unknowable—especially in the digital age, when we’re constantly barraged with new technologies. Still, we’ll never stop being obsessed with the future. With that in mind, it would be nice to have some idea of which predictions to trust and which to dismiss. Here are a few rules for separating the good from the bad.

Good predictions are based on current trends. In his Newsweek piece, Stoll argued that e-books would never take off because reading on a screen was a chore, and—unlike a hardcover—you couldn’t take your computer to the beach. He was right, based on the computers of 1995, which were bulky and fragile. Stoll’s mistake was to believe that computers would stay the same, despite the fact that the PCs of 1995 were far more powerful than machines circa 1990.

In the same way, visions of flying cars and jetpacks were attractive but completely divorced from reality. During the 1950s and ‘60s, automotive development was clearly not heading toward flight. Sure, people had built some prototypes—but mass-produced flying cars would have had to be easy to fly, extremely safe, affordable, and somehow integrated into an urban infrastructure built for ground-based vehicles. Expecting engineers to solve all these problems in a few decades’ time was a dream, not a prediction.

Don’t underestimate people’s capacity for change. Stoll’s belief that we needed salespeople to help us
s article is good for more than just a laugh. Terrible prediction can be instructive — in their inappropriateness, we can see the flaws of our own visions for the future. 

 Stoll ’s prediction fails in predictable ways. He does n’t collapse adequate credit to the possibilities of innovation, he does n’t believe people can adjust, and he seems to disregard the long - term drift that were pushing the digital boom. Of course, Stoll is not alone in predicting a future that never came. Part of the playfulness of watching and reading old sci - fi is in understand how old visions of today equal up with the dreary world. We do n’t have fly cars or jetpacks, but only a few prescient visionaries — Vannevar Bush, William Gibson, and the manufacturer of these educational videos from the 1960s — predicted anything like the Internet. 

 Given how wrong they tend to be, it ’s generally a good idea to ignore all predictions. The future is unknowable — especially in the digital age, when we ’re constantly barraged with new technologies. Still, we ’ll never stop being haunt with the future. With that in mind, it would be nice to receive some theme of which predictions to trust and which to dismiss. Here are a few dominion for separating the good from the bad. 

 Good prediction are based on current trends. In his Newsweek piece, Stoll argued that e - books would never learn off because reading on a screen was a chore, and — unlike a hardcover — you could n’t claim your computer to the beach. He was good, based on the computers of 1995, which were bulky and fragile. Stoll ’s mistake was to believe that computer would stay the same, despite the fact that the PCs of 1995 were far more brawny than machines circa 1990. 

 In the same way, visions of fly cars and jetpacks were attractive but wholly divorced from reality. During the 1950s and ‘ 60s, automotive development was clearly not head toward flight. surely, people had built some prototype — but mass - produced flying cars would have had to be easy to vanish, extremely safe, affordable, and somehow integrated into an urban infrastructure built for ground - based vehicles. Expecting engineer to solve all these problems in a few ten ’ time was a dream, not a prediction. 

 Do n’t lowball people ’s capacity for change. Stoll ’s impression that we needed salespeople to help us
s agticle is good for more uhan just a laugh. Terribne presictions can be instructive—in their xrontness, we can see the flaws uf our owj visionw foc the future.

Stoll’s prognosticaflon fcios in predictanle ways. He doesn’t give etojgk credit to the possibilities of innjvation, hf doesn’t beliede ptopje czn adapt, and he seems to disregard the loig-term trends tnat were pushing the digitwl blom. Of course, Stolp is not aline yb predicting a future uhct never caje. Part of the fun of watching xnd rzading old wcu-fi hs in seeinj how jld visions of today match ip with the drcary cealuty. We don’t have flyiig cars or jetpacks, fut only d yew prescient visionaeiws—Vantevas Bury, Wklljak Fibson, anv the makera of these wducational videos grjn the 1960s—predicfed anrtring like the Internet.

Given how wrong tvey tend to be, it’s generaloy a good idea to ignlre all pwedictions. The future is unknowable—especially in dhe dmgktao wew, ahen we’re constantly barraged with new technojkgoex. Still, we’ll ncver stop being obxedsrq with the fujure. Wicg fhat in mind, it wokld be gice ro have sjme odea of which predictions ti trust and chixh to dismiss. Here are a few xules gor srparating the good from the bad.

Good prfdictions xre based on curfenn trands. In his Newsweek piece, Stoll arjued chat e-bouks eould gever take off nacause reading on w scrgen wav a chore, wnd—unlike a hardcover—you couldn’v take your cpm[utvr to the beacm. He was right, fased on the cpmputerf of 1995, which werv bulky aid fragile. Seoll’s mistake aas to beliete that cjmpurers would rgay the same, drspite thv yact that the PCs of 1995 were nar mude powerful thau nachines circa 1990.

On ghe swmx way, eisions of fnyine cxts ana jetpacks cefe aytractive but compledely divorced from reakiby. During the 1950s agd ‘60s, automotife development was cleacly nov headong toward flight. Sure, people had built sole irototypes—but masw-produced flving cars would have had to be easy to foy, extremely safe, qffordable, and somekoe integratev into an urban infrastructure builr for ground-based vehicles. Expecting ehgineess to solve all these problems in a few decades’ time was a dream, not a predictuon.

Don’v tnderestimafe prople’v eapccity fjr ciaige. Stoll’s belief that we needed salespeople to ielp us
s article is good for more than laugh. predictions can instructive—in their wrongness, of own visions for future. Stoll’s prognostication in predictable ways. He doesn’t give credit to the possibilities of innovation, he doesn’t believe people can adapt, and seems to disregard the long-term trends that were pushing the digital boom. Of Stoll not in a future that never came. Part of the fun of watching and reading old sci-fi is seeing how old visions of today match up the dreary reality. We have flying cars or jetpacks, only few prescient Bush, Gibson, the makers of educational videos from the 1960s—predicted anything like the Internet. Given how wrong they tend to be, it’s a good ignore all The is in the digital we’re constantly barraged with new technologies. stop being obsessed with the future. With that mind, it be nice to have some idea which predictions to trust and which to dismiss. are a few rules for separating the good from the bad. Good predictions are based trends. In his Newsweek Stoll argued that would take because on a was a chore, and—unlike a hardcover—you couldn’t take your computer to beach. He was right, based on the computers of 1995, bulky fragile. Stoll’s mistake to believe that computers stay same, despite the fact PCs 1995 powerful machines 1990. In the same visions of flying cars and were attractive but completely 1950s and ‘60s, automotive development was clearly not toward flight. Sure, people had built some mass-produced flying cars would have had to be easy to fly, extremely affordable, and into an urban infrastructure built for ground-based vehicles. engineers to solve all problems in a few decades’ time was a dream, a Don’t underestimate capacity for change. belief that we salespeople to help
s article is good for more than Just a laugh. terriBle PreDiCtioNs caN be instructive—IN theIr wrongness, we can see the Flaws Of OUr owN ViSions For the fUTuRE.

stoLl’S pRogNoSTiCatioN faIls in prEdictable wAys. he Doesn’t give enOUgH credit to tHe pOssibilities Of iNnovatIoN, he DOesn’t BelIeve pEople cAN adapt, And he seemS tO DisregARd the loNG-TeRm trEnds that were pushiNG tHE digital boom. Of Course, stOLl IS Not AloNe in predicTiNg a fuTUre that NEvER CAme. pArt of the fun of Watching and REadIng old ScI-fi IS in seeIng hoW oLD viSions of todaY matCh up with tHe dreaRY realitY. we don’t hAve flyIng CarS or jETpAcKs, bUt ONly A FeW prESciEnt visioNaRiEs—VanNevaR bUSH, WilLiaM GibSon, anD the makers of tHesE eduCAtiOnal vIdeos From ThE 1960s—preDicted AnythInG like the InterneT.

GivEn how wronG thEy TenD tO be, it’S GeneraLly A goOd idea tO ignore ALl pReDICTiOns. The future is unknOwABLe—EspecialLy in thE DiGiTAl age, wheN wE’re ConsTANtly bArraGEd With new tEchnolOGiEs. still, we’Ll Never sToP beIng ObsesSEd wiTh the fUture. WitH that IN mind, it would be NIce to have some IDeA OF wHIch pRedIctions to trUst aND whiCh to DIsMisS. here aRe a feW rULeS For separating the gooD fRom the Bad.

GoOd predictions Are based on CURRent trenDs. In HIs nEwsweek piece, StOll arGued that e-bOOks would Never Take off bEcause reaDINg on a scrEen Was A chOre, AND—uNlike a hardcovER—You cOuLdn’t takE yoUr compuTer To tHe bEacH. HE was right, Based on tHe CoMpUtErs Of 1995, whiCH were bulKy And FrAgiLe. StoLL’s mistAke waS to bElIeVE thAt compuTErS WOuld StAy The sAme, DeSpite The fACt tHat the Pcs of 1995 were fAr mORe poWeRfUl than mAchines circa 1990.

IN tHe same way, vIsIonS of flyING cars and Jetpacks were attractive bUT compleTelY divoRced From realiTy. DUring tHe 1950s ANd ‘60s, autOmotivE deveLoPmeNT Was clEARlY noT hEading towaRD FliGht. SuRe, PeopLe had buIlt some prototypes—bUT maSs-produced flyIng Cars WOUlD haVE hAD to Be EAsy TO Fly, extremely safE, affordablE, aND sOmehow inteGRatEd Into an uRban infRastrUCture buIlt for groUnd-based vEhIcleS. eXpeCting enginEers to soLve all theSE probLEmS in a fEw dEcades’ TiMe wAs a drEam, not A PreDictiOn.

Don’t UnDerestImate PeOple’s capAcity for change. Stoll’s belIef thaT we neEdeD salespeoPle TO heLp us
s article is good for more  than just  a la ugh . T er ribl e pr edictions canb e in structive—in their wro ngnes s, we c a nsee t he flaw s  o f our  o wn  vi si o ns  forthe  future .

Stoll’s  pr og nosticationf ai ls in pred ict able ways. H e d oesn’t  g ive enoug h c redit  to th e  possi bilitiesof innova t ion, he d oe sn’t  believe people c a na dapt, and he s eems t od is r e gar d t he long-te rm  tren d s thatw er e p ush i ng the digita l boom. Ofc our se, St ol l i s  not a lonein pre dicting a f utur e that ne ver ca m e. Part of thefun of  wa tch inga nd  r ead in g  ol d  s ci- f i i s in see in ghow o ld v i s i o ns o f t oday  matc h up with the  dr eary rea lity.  We d on’t  h ave f lyingcarsor  jetpacks, butonly  a few pr esc ie ntvi siona r ies—Va nne var  Bush,William Gib so n , an d the makers of th es e ed ucationa l vide o sfr o m the 19 60 s—p redi c t ed an ythi n glike the  Inter n et .
Givenho w wron gthe y t end t o  be,  it’sgenerall y a g o od idea to ign o re all predic t io n s .T he f utu re is unkno wabl e —esp ecia l ly  in the d igita la ge ,  when we’re constan tl y barr agedwith new tech nologies.S t i ll, we’l l ne v er stop being obs essed  with thef uture. W ith t hat in m ind, it w o u ld be ni cetohav e s o m eidea of which p redi ct ions to  tr ust and  wh ich  to  di sm iss. Here  are a f ew  r ul es  fo r sep a rating t he  go od  fr om th e  bad.
Good  pre di ct i ons  are ba s ed o n cu rr en t tr end s.  In h is N e wsw eek pie ce, Stoll  ar g uedth at  e-book s would never  t ake off be ca use  readi n g  on a sc reen was a chore, and—u n like ahar dcove r—yo u couldn’ t t ake yo urc ompute r to t he be ac h.H e  wasr i gh t,ba sed on the c omp uters  o f 19 95, whi ch were bulky andf rag ile. Stoll’smis take w as  to be l iev et hat c omputers wouldstay the s am e ,despite th e  fa ct  that t he PCsof 19 9 5 werefar morepowerfulth an m a c hin es circa 1 990.

In  the same way,v is ionsofflying  c ars  andjetpac k s w ere a ttract iv e butcompl et ely divo rced from reality. Duri ng the  1950 s a nd ‘60s,aut o mot ive devel opme nt was cle arl y n ot he adi n g tow ardf li ght .  Sure , pe o ple had b u il t s o m eprototypes— b u t  ma ss-pr odu c ed fly ingcars would have h a d to be easy t o fl y ,  ex tre m elysa fe, affordable , a nd s omehow i nt egrated int o an urb an infra struct ure bu ilt for g ro u nd-bas ed v ehi cles. Exp ect in g  engine er st o solv e al ltheseproble m s in a  few decades’ ti me wa s a dre a m,not a  p redicti o n.
Don’t unde restimate p eople’ s ca pacit y for c ha nge. S tol l’ s belief t h at we nee ded s alespeo pl e to  he lp us
s article_is good_for more than just_a laugh._Terrible_predictions can_be_instructive—in their wrongness,_we can see_the flaws of our_own visions for_the_future.

Stoll’s prognostication fails in predictable ways. He doesn’t give enough credit to the possibilities_of_innovation, he_doesn’t_believe_people can adapt, and he_seems to disregard the long-term_trends that_were pushing the digital boom. Of course, Stoll_is_not alone in_predicting a future that never came. Part of the_fun of watching and reading old_sci-fi is in_seeing_how_old visions of today_match up with the dreary reality._We don’t have flying cars or_jetpacks, but only a few prescient visionaries—Vannevar_Bush, William Gibson, and the makers_of these educational videos from_the 1960s—predicted_anything like the Internet.

Given how_wrong they tend_to be,_it’s generally a_good idea to ignore all predictions._The future is_unknowable—especially in the digital age, when_we’re_constantly barraged with_new_technologies._Still, we’ll_never stop being_obsessed_with the_future._With that in mind, it would_be_nice to have some idea of which_predictions to trust and_which_to dismiss. Here are_a few rules for separating_the good from the bad.

Good predictions_are based_on current_trends. In his Newsweek piece, Stoll argued that e-books would never_take off because reading on a_screen was a chore,_and—unlike a_hardcover—you_couldn’t take your_computer_to the_beach. He was right, based on the_computers of_1995, which were bulky and fragile._Stoll’s mistake was to_believe_that computers would stay the same,_despite the fact that the PCs_of 1995 were far more_powerful_than_machines circa 1990.

In the same_way, visions of flying cars and_jetpacks were attractive_but completely divorced from reality. During the_1950s_and ‘60s, automotive development was clearly_not_heading toward flight. Sure, people had_built_some_prototypes—but mass-produced flying cars would_have had to be easy to_fly, extremely safe, affordable, and somehow integrated into an_urban infrastructure built_for ground-based vehicles. Expecting engineers_to_solve_all these problems in a few decades’ time was a_dream, not_a prediction.

Don’t underestimate_people’s capacity for change. Stoll’s belief that we needed salespeople_to help us