I think the correct answer is “none, really, but lots of them get bits & pieces right.”
That said, Robert Heinlein completely nailed the internet in Friday.
I remember an old Jetsons cartoon in which a classmate of Elroy’s was watching the Flintstones on a miniature wristwatch-TV. Now, 40 years later, you can actually buy the darned things.
Of course Seiko came out with one 20 years ago, but it was black and white and had an external battery pack and tuner hooked up to the display.
And Star Trek was dead on with some things. Personal communicators (cell phones), desk top computers, padds or PDA like devices. If I recall correctly, Chekov even used something similar to a CD-Rom in one episode – about 15 years before CDs first came onto the market and only about 5 years after the invention of the laser!
Were even the viewscreens innovations? BBC Television had been on the air since 1932, and thousands of English homes had television by the time Orwell wrote the novel in 1948.
What about the speechwriting machine? IIRC, Winston Smith just had to speak into it and it typed out what he said. Nothing like that existed in Orwell’s time.
Software that does exactly this now exists, and is used for live subtitling of TV news bulletins, etc.
But they only worked one way.
Well, in 1950, what publisher would’ve paid for this story of the far-off year 2000:
“By then, we’ll have landed on the moon! And then decided not to go back. Oh, and those atomic weapons we used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? They’re everywhere, but since then nobody’s used 'em even once; the Soviet Union had tons of 'em pointed at us, we thought there was maybe going to be a post-apocalyptic wasteland, but then there wasn’t a war and they just collapsed. So instead, Americans of the future discuss things like gay marriage. And folks can get laser beams shot into their eyeballs to improve their vision, but most of them stick to glasses or contact lenses anyway. And folks can cook with microwave radiation, though they still often use a stove instead.”
That’d be dull and implausible at the same time. 
Ain’t very accurate either, as anyone who looked at things halfway objectively would know.
But, quite surprisingly, for other applications it’s not a very important technology (I tried to sell it once). Because a skilled typist can type much faster than he/she can talk.
:dubious: You again?
Ray Bradbury did that: his short story “The Murderer” is about a man driven insane by cell phones, muzak and video screens playing commercials on the city bus.
If you can’t support your positions in here without trying to flame me elsewhere, I won’t be enabling you.
Is that a challenge to debate? 
(Not that I would support WordMan’s position. Saying what we’ve got now is like 1984 is like saying half a loaf is the same as no bread.)
If you don’t support wordman’s position, what’s there to debate?
You’re missing the point. I’m Pitting you because you’re wrong even when you’re right. You pop into these CS threads, post you’re-full-of-shit political statements of the kind that belong in GD, and then you can or won’t back them up when challenged. It’s like charging into somebody else’s argument, throwing a random punch – slap, really – and then running away. Over and over and over.
Nope. I don’t do political arguments here BECAUSE THIS IS CAFE SOCIETY. I make comments in response to comments just to let the person know there are those that disagree with that view and he shouldn’t assume everyone sees it the way he does. Actually, it’s the political statements on which I am commenting that belong in GD or the Pit, but you wouldn’t care about that for the simple reason that you AGREE with the politics. You’re being hypocritical, but that’s nothing new.
I signed up at SDMB for Cafe Society, to discuss entertainment subjects. I have other places I go to talk politics. If you want to debate politics, go hang out in GD. If you want to flame me, go to the Pit. I won’t be going either place, as that’s not why I am here.
Now if you please, allow this thread to go back on topic.
I’m no hypocrite. The difference between you and me is, when I make political statements in any forum, I’m willing and able to back them up with facts and/or argument.
Fine! Then make a meaningful contribution to it instead of just sniping that WordMan is full of shit!
I’ll let you to get back to it in a sec - I am surprised that folks who are beating down my post don’t allow for the fact that it is a matter of degrees. Of course, I completely agree that there is a fundamental level of freedom that the majority of the people who can access this message board have that is simply unavailable to the characters in 1984. Given. However, relative to 40, 50 or 100 years ago, the level of interconnectedness, convenience and capitalism over self-subsistence and simple tech innovation have greatly diminished the ability to live “off the grid” or unmonitored in someway. Surely you agree that more can be found out about our lives in a very short time relative to the pre-computer age?
Of course…but the POTENTIAL for abuse doesn’t equal the actuality of it. There is nothing in the constitution about the right to “live off the grid.”
In fact you are. You don’t mind at all if someone makes a hit-n-run political comment as long as you agree with it.
I never said he was full of shit…that’s your term. I said he wasn’t being objective. And he wasn’t. But on the bright side, he’s still more objective than you.
I am happy to let this go and encourage the thread to get back on track. I disagree with RW’s premise but don’t find this type of debate productive in this setting - no one’s mind will get changed. Sorry, all - back to our regularly scheduled thread…