That is why the title of the comment you replied to was 'That depends on what you mean by "Reliably"', why I compared them to Nostradamus, and why I asked "Now if you mean someone who can tell you in detail what's the world will be like in 50 or a 100 years , you tell me, who does that?"

Like I said before, it really depends on what you mean by "reliably".

I again challenge you to find anyone who does a better job of predicting SPECIFIC (not vague) technologies.

You really should read what you reply to.

Yeah, that's what we in 'the biz' call, "Wishful thinking".

... Let me write this down!

If you mean successfully predicted a technology, social movement, or political change, then many Science Fiction authors fit the bill.

French author Jules Verne (often called the father of Science Fiction), for instance, predicted Cell Phones, the Nuclear Submarine, that _America_ would land on the Moon, the return splashdown (with a spookily accurate estimation of the total cost), correctly predicted the number of Astronauts that were sent, and seems to describe WEIGHTLESSNESS, writing that the astronaut's "...feet no longer clung to the floor". All 100+ years before the fact(s).

In 1898 Mark Twain predicted the World Wide Web (Internet), streaming video, Social Networking sites, blogs and discussion boards, all based on the phone system. Only a handful of years after the invention of the Telephone it'self.

H.G. Wells not only predicted the Atomic Bomb, but he coined the term "Atomic Bomb". He also predicted mutations as a danger from overexposure to uranium.

Even Gene Roddenberry predicted flip phones. (Can someone both predict and inspire the same thing?)

I'd say that SciFi authors, with some very specific predictions, have a better track record than Nostradamus and his ilk with their sweeping predictions.

Now if you mean someone who can tell you in detail what's the world will be like in 50 or a 100 years, you tell me, who does that?

And you won't be getting a flying car until it can reliably fly itself, need no user maintenance, and not require a thorough going-over every other time you take it out. Oh, and can crash anywhere without endangering hundreds of lives. Until then it's called a helicopter, get a license and find places that have helipads and your golden.

Or, you could always look here: http://www.terrafugia.com/ Video: http://www.terrafugia.com/news/first-public-transition%C2%AE-demonstrations

Personally I suspect the flying car is going to catch-on like those Dick Tracy communicator watches http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dt2wrr.jpg did. It'll just be more trouble than it's worth, and it's job will be done better by something else.

Plus, this guy invented, or twisted, NOTHING.

The concept has been known for years and is called "rising to your greatest level of incompetency". You get promoted so much that you leave your sphere of knowledge.

!!!!!!!

You beat me to it!

U R Squed

... that people (including scientists, but especially political) get far too emotionally attached to ideas. Especially if they thought them first.

People need to realize that basically every idea they ever had or will have is wrong (if for no other reason than people are not capable of perfection, that is the realm of God alone), but it doesn't matter. We only have to be "right enough" with our ideas so that they can help us successfully predict outcomes. Just like the term "Good-enough for Government work", our ideas only need to be accurate-enough that they help us to deal successfully with the world, and are not too much of a hindrance to that end. And when they stop successfully predicting outcomes and begin to harm or hold us back, we need to be able to let those ideas go, if need be, and figure out new ones that predict better than our last idea.

Unfortunately, everyone likes to be looked upon as smart and clever, and when you put a lot of work into something you tend to be reluctant to let it go. Similarly, people like to believe that those they put their trust in to explain how the world, or certain aspects of it, works, that those people are correct. Otherwise they would be foolish for believing them. Then, of course, people get side-tracked by in-fighting, personality clashes, intellectual sparring, grudges, politics, and all sorts of other irrelevant things that are simply distractions to the real questions.

1) They got caught.
2) They are getting prosecuted.
3) (It get's attention HERE because) Coders are a significant fraction of /. readers.
4) It WAS both illegal and immoral don'tchaknow. (And unethical to boot!) Some misguided people care about things like that. They are called "Suckers"... I mean, "Not Sociopaths".

5) Well, I suppose there are still a few people a smidge upset over the 2009 crash. You know, blaming Wall Street gamblers and big banks for the loss of jobs, life-styles, and life-savings. (While the big firms and their COs still managed to rack up record pay and bonuses.) Petty grudges to be sure, but some people just can't let anything go. *rolls eyes*

This is quite an indictment modern business practices. You do know that doing those things that "Happens all the time" are the shameful acts of a parasite. Not just a parasite on society, but a parasite on the business world. Defined as a "person" who lives off the work of others, and that adds nothing of value to the system it benefits from. Like the banks that buy up oil just to take it off the market, and so create an artificial scarcity that drives the price up. Except they don't actually STEAL anything, that I'm aware of.

Wishing I had points to give!

That depends on how it's licenced. Some people don't want companies profiting off of their code, and there are licences that prohibit that.

Others just want, if their code is used for-profit, to get a cut of those profits, and there are licences for that.

And some people don't care who uses it, or if it's sold for a profit, they just want to share it with others, and not loose the right to use their own code. (The entire reason for the "Open Source", "GNU" and "Copy-Left" type movements: Companies were taking [IE stealing] code that people shared with the world, and copyrighting it. Meaning that the original author could be sued for using his own code, and never get compensated for it.)

Still just excuses to not execute a dead man's wishes and meet his expectations.

They need to just come out and admit:
1) We love money, and if we could get away with it, we'd come into your homes and just take it.
2) Now that he's dead, his wishes, understanding, and intent do not matter. Especially since they cannot be enforced.
3) We are cowards, and will not expose ourselves to litagation, reguardless of whether we would be protecting the truth or not.
4) What's RIGHT has no impact on our decisions. What is PROFITABLE is the only measurement of success we recognise. All other considerations, like legality (as long as it's still profitable), morality, honesty, and even honoring a contract have no place in our decision-making process.

... but I had no idea they were single-celled orginisms trapped in a human body!

Of teeth..."

Just saying.