posted
My thought is that a century from now, you won't be typing anything... all messages will be written via verbal commands. Portraying text messaging 100 years from now would not be believable to me in a futuristic story.
Posts: 2026 | Registered: Mar 2005
|
posted
Somehow I doubt the people a hundred years from now will be doing anything the way we do right now---with the way computers are worked being near the top of the list. I doubt, for instance, that they'll "log on" or "visit web sites" or even "post."
Phones, well...when I was growing up, you didn't carry one with you where you went. You talked into it and what you got was audio only. Your phone was attached to the wall. If you were away from it, you stopped at a phone, usually in a booth, where you put loose change into it before you were allowed to complete your call.
Text messaging seems popular now, but it may be just a fad. Or it may hang around while the original purpose of the telephone is forgotten. I have no way to know.
Probably what'll be done will have grown out of what is done now...but also it might grow out of things completely unforeseen and possibly unforeseeable.
Seems, over the years, I've seen a lot of SF stories (some of them classics), ostensibly set in the future, but except for this and that, are loaded up with things that make them a product of the "some time ago" they were written in.
[edited 'cause I thought of more to say after posting.]
[This message has been edited by Robert Nowall (edited August 17, 2005).]
posted
Not to argue, I can't see everything going to voice. In a situation where stealth or quiet is needed, or a person doesn't feel like talking, email and text messaging would fill the gap.
I find at work, it's easier for me to relate or recieve technical related info through email versus voice.
posted
lol... I have to agree with Robert. I'm 48. I grew up with rotary phones. There were only 3 networks on television. Computers were science fiction and any prototypes were still owned solely by the government. The internet was a theory, and one mainstream people didn't know about. People used adding machines because hand calculators didn't exist. Copiers were called "ditto machines" and produced purple images that smelled funny. 8-track tapes were the wave of the future. I've seen enough changes in technology in the past 30 years that I KNOW nothing we currently use will still be around as is.
Posts: 2026 | Registered: Mar 2005
|
posted
Ever read "Slan," by A. E. Van Vogt? It's set, as I recall, some fifteen thousand years in the futures...but newspapers still print morning and evening editions and elevators still have operators.
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted
I would have no problem believing that text messaging would be used routinely in the distant future for the very reasons you cited. I would suggest just using < and > instead of " and ". Otherwise you could use italics.
posted
Elan, I have to disagree. Our advanced culture still uses a ton of "old" technology. A brief list of examples might include: friction-striking matches, cotton-woven clothing, penicillin, metal silverware, ceramic dishware, brick construction, hand tools, internal combustion engines, pens, paper, toothpicks, flushing toliets, pulleys, hemp rope, ramps, screws, nails, watering cans, salt preservation of food, doorknobs, ceiling fans, radiant heat, fireplaces, and on, and on.
Who's to say that text-messaging won't be around in a century? Who, almost forty years ago, would have predicted that we wouldn't make it back to the moon by the end of the century? Or that we would still be using cars of the same basic design? Even assuming that technology continues to progress at a breakneck pace (which is by no means certain) who is to say what particular applications will change, and what applications, due to popularity or economics or just utility, will remain the same?
posted
I say it probably won't be around in a century (barring large-scale catastrophe) because people will be able to have their minds "read". It's already being done in a crude form today. Check out this link:
posted
Speech-to-Text will probably finally work accurately in 100 years. I think people will still be using writing to communicate. Audiobooks have been around for years but most people still prefer to read. Voicemail is still a quick blurb on an answering machine.
The stories I've seen use text messaging look like an AIM session:
BigDaddy: LOL, U R so funny! Can we meat in RL? SexyKitty> TY! *hugs* I am 14 and my rents don't let me out of the house on skoolnites.
pick your choice of cursor.
[This message has been edited by Mechwarrior (edited August 17, 2005).]
posted
I had a story where my characters "texted" each other and I used ALL CAPS on a new line to show the messages. It was easier that way. But you can use any convention that you like as long as you are consistent with it.
As an example, my mss. used the following convention...
quote:Johnny's mobile beeped. He read the message:
FOUND DAN! MEET AT HOUSE IN 1 HR.
Brilliant! Now they could interrogate the jerk and find out what happened to Maria.
posted
I would say either single quotes (' and ') or < and >. I'm leaning toward the latter. That braingate stuff is amazing. I didn't know that the technology had advanced to that point. thanks for the link.
Posts: 20 | Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted
"Somehow I doubt the people a hundred years from now will be doing anything the way we do right now---with the way computers are worked being near the top of the list. I doubt, for instance, that they'll "log on" or "visit web sites" or even "post.""
Probably not the way we do, but terminology has a way of sticking around. People have been "Logging" onto/into something since people could write their names, visiting "sites" since they could walk, and "posting" since they conquered brevity.
As for text messages, I don't think they'll ever be replaced with audio. They're silence, and the ability to re-read them, make them superior. But more importantly, they instill confidence. There is a distance between writer and reader that doesn't exist between speaker and listener. It can mean the difference between the confidence to speak your mind or not.
ChrisOwens: If much of your story is text messages, don't caps it. It'll just make it difficult to read. I suggest block quotes. And if you get the piece published, consider a separate font. I wouldn't put anything in quotes, but like in Mechwarrior's example, put the username before the message.
posted
apeiron mentioned something about fonts I was going to ask about. I've seen a few submission rules that give an explicit font and pitch size. How do you mark a manuscript to say, "Use font X and pitch Y here?"
I have a story that uses some computer log/diary entries to "tell" the story of some dead people. In Word it stands out in a nice, blocky console font. That distinction disappears when everything is all in Courier, even with indentation.
quote:Our advanced culture still uses a ton of "old" technology. A brief list of examples might include: friction-striking matches, cotton-woven clothing, penicillin, metal silverware, ceramic dishware, brick construction, hand tools, internal combustion engines, pens, paper, toothpicks, flushing toliets, pulleys, hemp rope, ramps, screws, nails, watering cans, salt preservation of food, doorknobs, ceiling fans, radiant heat, fireplaces, and on, and on.
I don't think you can equate penicillin and fireplaces with computerized technology. I'm not saying EVERYthing will be different. I'm saying that the computer world will have gone places we cannot imagine today. Heck, when Star Trek the First Generation came out, they were showing little flip-flap clocks to represent the chronometer showing they went back in time. It is laughable today. But that was high tech in the '60s. (And yes, I remember it well.) Your quartz LED clock will have evolved, your phone will have evolved, your computer and anything run WITH a computer will not resemble what we have today. I suspect that anyone who doubts the truth of that statement isn't over the age of 30 and can't imagine the swiftness of change because they haven't lived it. Us old geezers know better.
posted
Speaking of "Star Trek" (and I'm glad I didn't bring it up), take a look at the Original Series communcators. See how closely they resemble the modern-day cell phone---not surprising, since I think the "Star Trek" style was what the designers copied---but notice they apparently handle only audio and nothing else, no pictures, no text messaging.
And wouldn't it have been useful for Captain Kirk to be able to send a picture of whatever trouble he faced back to the Enterprise?
[edited for bad sentence structure---really bad sentence structure---then really bad spelling]
[This message has been edited by Robert Nowall (edited August 18, 2005).]
[This message has been edited by Robert Nowall (edited August 18, 2005).]
Printer-friendly view of this topic
