Future might be like this

grandrue_est_gris.jpg (122 KB)

  • Leave a comment ?

    48 Responses to Future might be like this

    1. Has a Fifth Element feel to it

      Reply

    2. It won’t be. Flying is nowhere near as cheap as rolling, and never will be. The future’s far more likely to be like an endless multi-story carpark, where only the people on the top floor ever get to see the sun.

      Reply

    3. @JamesTuskGeorge: Actually it will never happen because third world countries, the human effect, plauges, wars.. i could go on.. did you know a mini-disk if FAR superior to cds? yet humans went with cds- because they scratch and you have to buy new ones.. this mini theroy relates to every technology.. btw- my work is a block from a natural geo-thermal vent- that vents into the sewer.. anyone heard of FREE energy? but who gives a flying fuck. well all be dead soon.

      Reply

    4. @Moe: Moe, look out for a new topic (if it pass submission) Future might be “really” like this

      Reply

    5. @ColombianMonkey:
      reposting screenshots from Fallout = DENIED.

      @Moe:
      I’d like to introduce you to something called “mp3”, most of us have been using them for the last decade or so.

      Reply

    6. reposting?nah some never came on here. but soo much repost get cross… except mines 😐

      Reply

    7. Think about the average driver. Then think about the carnage every time a plane crashes. Just today I saw some idiot driving the wrong way on a one way street. I don’t want people like that in control of flying vehicles.

      Reply

    8. I do like the Imperial shuttle delivering pizza in the lower right corner.

      Reply

    9. People are dangerous enough drunk driving.
      ~
      Drunk flying?
      ~
      Every bar would let five potential 9/11s sail into the night. This will never happen.

      Reply

    10. Throughout human civilization, people have been thinking of ways that something CAN’T be done. History, however, is made by people who think of ways something CAN be done. This could work. The majority of navigation and control would have to be automated. I’m thinking of a series of control centers networked very much like cell phone towers. If you networked them properly, a vehicle could be controlled (and monitored) by no fewer than three towers at a time. I’m just geeking out here, though. Don’t pay any attention to me. I (or someone just like me) will quietly figure out how to do it, change civilization as we know it, and make himself richer than Croesus (or Bill Gates) in the process.

      Reply

    11. @ everyone: eventually the entire universe is going to be sucked into a giant blackhole anyway, so who cares.

      on the other hand, this picture is great. I used it as my wallpaper at work for a while. I love the way the cat is almost ready to pounce.

      Reply

    12. the one on the light that is…

      Reply

    13. @wookie_x: Things that people think can’t be done are usually only done by people who can really do them well—not every pilot goes to the moon, for instance. But flying cars for *everyone* means we would, to a man, need the equivalent of a pilot’s license, and most drivers aren’t qualified for that. People get lost with maps…imagine flying where there were no roads to guide you. And you know teen drivers would be dive-bombing at people for kicks. Think of how dangerous it is to have a tire blow at 100 mph. Now have your engine die at 150 ft. in the air. KAPOW…you’re dead. It would be impossible to police, and you’d have to think about air pollution. Do we really need to start putting people in the *air* too? How about we keep that space…as space?

      Reply

    14. Ya hear? The Reg done lowered the jet-pack fault rate, now down to 86%, to comp the population down for that gol-humpin retro Octo-mom fad. But whatcha gonna do – McD’s is havin’ a 2fer on Soylent burgers on lev 8, 34th and Vine.

      Reply

    15. @rattybad: Well golly there, I guess I didn’t think about that point when I said that THE MAJORITY OF NAVIGATION AND CONTROL WOULD BE AUTOMATED. Beyond that, you just keep up that attitude, buddy! No flying motorcycle for YOU!

      Reply

    16. @wookie_x: Can I have a pony while we’re hanging out in fantasy land?

      Nothing is ever guaranteed, and automation doubly so. Besides, what would the point of personal vehicles be if we can’t control them? It seems whoafully inefficient, especially when the tax payer is the one paying for the three systems per personal vehicle.

      (I know, I know… each would monitor several or what not… if we’re going to hang out in fantasy land, can we at least try to be somewhat pragmatic?)

      IF a flying system was implemented, totally safe, with three layers of security devices, shields to block the winds, momentum controls to prevent weekly 9/11s, and all human control removed… why not massive public transportation?

      Then, you have to ask, what makes it better than standard ground based transportation? Ground based transportation can be put on rails between massive sky scrapers (which your model would obviously call for). You could claim the vertical advantage, but then why not mass transit vertically, especially if it’s going to be publicly designated any way?

      That’s just one nitpick. There are a lot of flaws with people in flying cars, the least of which is whether it will be automated.

      Reply

    17. @tiki god: I’d like to introduce you to something called “ogg-vorbis”, which many of us have been using for the last five years or so. 😉

      Reply

    18. i agree with the nay-sayers…@Paul_Is_Drunk: seriously a pony? dude, at least go for the pegasus…

      Reply

    19. @Paul_Is_Drunk: As long as we’re hanging out in fantasy land, sure! You can have a pony. It’d like to point out a couple things. Wouldn’t it be great if we had a system for wireless communication? If you could only have to carry around a small device with extremely limited transmission capacity and still be able to talk to anyone, kinda like a telephone? I know, it’s a pipe dream, but I’m silly that way. Or, Oooo! How about being able to make computers talk to each other! Yeah! Some sort of NETwork or WEB…..Aw, I guess both those ideas would require alot of superstructure, alot of equipment and resources would be required. Who oh who could or would build what was needed?

      Ok, sarcasm aside, I present again a person who describes only why a thing cannot be done, versus a person who is willing to look and find a way.

      Reply

    20. Yeah, I can see this happening.

      When we can detect neutrinos! Lololol!!

      Wait what.

      Reply

    21. Seriously, do you know how much work is actually done by an engine to turn a wheel through one revolution with a weight of about half a ton on top of it?

      The answer is alot.

      Whereas hovering… with hovering, there’s pretty much no resistance. Except air resistance, which is pretty much negligible. Hovering is the future.

      You might never have anything on this level, but hovercraft transport is much more efficient than this “rolling” thing.

      You could do it using magnets. With sustainable electricity well on the way to true fruition, electromagnetic stripe would be (comparatively) inexpensive and relatively foolproof.

      The only problem as of now would be energy loss through heat, but the work being done on semiconductors for microcircuitry, and as a result conductors as a whole, could easily be translated.

      Reply

    22. I’d like to point out a little thing known as Electrohydrodynamic thrust. Or another little thing known as the Biefeld–Brown effect. No moving parts. Completely solid state. The limiting element is POWER. It’s all about achieving an effective weight to thrust ratio. THAT is the true limiting factor, and it’s only a matter of time before it’s overcome. If you take into consideration that we can already tell our location with sub-centimeter accuracy (already in use for things like GPS land surveying), and that we already have cell phone towers in place all over the country, you have a navigation grid. We ALREADY have GPS navigation systems in cars! So go ahead. Keep telling me how IT CAN’T BE DONE. And when it’s done, I’ll tell you to SUCK IT!

      Reply

    23. Obviously, those of you in favor of this haven’t thought all the way through the concept of a flying car or you’d all realize just what a dangerous and stupid idea a flying car really is.
      Machines break.
      Machines fall out of sky.
      Hope you aren’t under them when it happens.

      Reply

    24. @garbledxmission: That’s fine. You can walk. We don’t want you dirt-heels up in our sky anyway.

      Reply

    25. @garbledxmission: That hasn’t stopped people from getting on airplanes for…60 years now? Or stopped NASA from throwing billons of dollars worth of creaky old machines into orbit- even after two really spectacular failures and a few dozen failed smaller launches and splashdowns. No system is going to be 100% safe and reliable. Mere humans built it, and humans will operate it. Besides. Too damn many people on this mudball anyway. Time to come up with new and amusing ways to get rid of them.

      Reply

    26. @garbledxmission, SumoSnipe has a point. If people allowed themselves to be deterred by the potential danger of something, the Wright wouldn’t have airplanes. Henry Ford would not have invented the car. Nicola Tesla would not have given us AC power. Rudolf Diesel would not have built the first diesel engine. Pilatre De Rozier would not have flown hot air balloons! Are you getting this? Hero of Alexandria might as well have not started fucking around with STEAM POWER back a couple thousand years ago for fear that the vessel in which the water was being heated exploded, badly burning or killing him! After all, Garbledxmission….MACHINES BREAK! Hell, we might as well say that the invention of the wheel and the lever was dangerous and stupid, because machines break. And if this seems like it’s a “reductio ad absurdum” argument, I’d like to point out to you that it’s absurd to think that we should stop ANY kind of innovation because it’s dangerous.

      Reply

    27. I would agree with all of you except for one simple thing…all of the examples you so vociferously threw up in defense of your position don’t take into account the sheer number of personal vehicles involved. Yes there are aircraft of all sorts currently in our airspace. But they are limited to set flight patterns and are in relativly small numbers vs the number of people who use them. Now consider the number of vehicles used by people for personal transport. Now imagine all those vehicles IN THE AIR ABOVE US. Do the math people. That’s a lot more metal in the air above us in a much closer proximity to use compared to current aircraft.
      Argue all you want, numbers don’t lie. Reboot, feel free to refute me if I’m wrong and I’ll accept your judgement. Otherwise you can all just go suck it.

      Reply

    28. As for the “advancement of science involves risk” defense. I call bullshit. It’s one thing for one lunatic to risk himself in the name of scientific advancement. It’s quite another for tens of millions of retards to risk themselves and me on a daily basis to get from point A to B a little bit faster. Fuck them. It’s called the shallow end of the gene pool and the lowest contract bidder for a reason people. Wake up and smell the repulsorlift fumes.

      Reply

    29. And, as we all know, no one has ever died while driving a car.

      Reply

    30. @garbledxmission: and again, that’s fine. I’m certainly not going to force you to fly, nor will I try to coerce you to believe as I believe. I guess you figure that all the cars on all the freeways are risking themselves and you just to get from point A to B a little faster. You want to say “Fuck them” as well? I suppose you ALSO think that every car on the road is made by the lowest contract bidder, and that every auto owner on the planet came from the shallow end of the gene pool. That’s fine. As I said before, you can walk, dirt-heels.

      Reply

    31. Plus, SOMEONE’S presuming that the navigational system is going to be the same as that of planes.

      Reply

    32. @wookie_x. It’s simple physics. Even if a plane loses all power, it’s wing design gives it a resonable chance to land and the passengers to survive. A flying car would, without it’s propulsion, essentially be a flying brick. To think it would be remotely safe is retarded at best. Unless you could come up with a foolproof backed up propulsion system, (i.e., it doesn’t exist, nor would it ever concieveably within the next few generations at least), you’d be inviting mass disasters on a daily basis. BTW, nice attempt at a strawman argument at the end of your rebuttle. Makes you look like an even bigger ignorant idiot. Even the worst built car is still ON THE FUCKING GROUND YOU ASSHAT.
      @LukeV1-5. Shut up you moron. No presumptions at all. It could have the most advanced nav system available, (which I am familiar with, having worked with them on military aircraft, along with my DEGREES IN AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING), doesn’t alter one whit the fact that with their drive system inop, they would fall down go BOOM.!

      Reply

    33. @garbledxmission: You know, if you’re this easy to get into a froth from a simple theoretical discussion, I bet you’re GREAT fun at parties. Idiot? Asshat? Nice. To address the point, however, why would you assume that a privately owned flying vehicle to be built by the lowest bidder? Why would you assume that a vehicle would not have safety features? Why would you assume that a vehicle design would not have undergone strenuous testing before production? With your “DEGREES IN AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING”, one would assume that you’d studied (or at least read a comic book about) the process of taking a vehicle of any type from concept to production. Why would you assume that in the future, these processes would be ignored? Is that the way you operate now?

      Reply

    34. @wookie. Actually, I’m the life of the party when there aren’t short busers such as yourself there.
      To rebut your arguments:
      1) I never said they would be built by the lowest bidder. Just like ground vehicles, one would find many levels of flying vehicle quality. That being said, the basic model would be built by the lowest bidder because in every vehicle design from scooters to space shuttles, the lowest bidder inevitably gets the contract. Do some research.
      2) They would have safety features. But like I previously stated, (which I’m guessing you either didn’t bother to read or are too dense to understand), the technology does not exist, (nor would be viably created in the near or distant feature), to make a foolproof safety feature to prevent the damn thing from falling out of the sky.
      3) It would have undergone testing. And the tests would have proven that the average person would not be remotely capable or trustworthy of safely operating said vehicle. Now you’re into computer control, something trustworthy only until it malfunctions. Plus the aforementioned needed backups in case of propulsion failure.
      4) How far into the future are you talking about? Go far enough and the point is moot. Who knows what kind of tech they will have and how it will be implemented? We were discussing the viability of the design in the forseeable future, i.e. our lifetimes.
      Now if you want, I can go into exhaustive detail about basic lift/drag ratios, propulsion systems, safety systems, etc., but I’m quite convinced by your pathetic arguments that you don’t have a clue. So instead, I’m going to tell you to shut your whore mouth and have a nice day, you donkey rapist.

      Reply

    35. Oh, and BTW, quit your lame attempts at strawman statements. It makes you look more pathetic than you already are.

      Reply

    36. @garbledxmission: You do LOVE the concept of the strawman argument, don’t you? After all, this is the second time you’ve accused me of it, while tossing around juvenile insults. I’ll make comments as appropriate. 1. So when Henry Ford designed the Model T, it was by the lowest bidder? Or the Camero? The Mustang? Any other PRIVATELY owned manufacturer? You’re saying that they don’t have their own design teams? Interesting. 2. Of course the technology doesn’t exist! Looking at the technological advances of the past 100 years, I don’t think you or anyone else can accurately predict WHAT will be possible in the “distant feature” (I’m just gonna assume you meant future there). 3. If we’re talking about technology that doesn’t yet exist, how can you know what the testing would show? Despite your ego, there is no way you can predict what tests will show regarding technology that doesn’t exist. 4. and finally, this I think we can agree upon except for one bit…..exactly when was it agreed that this would happen IN OUR LIFETIMES? It wasn’t, kiddo, and don’t pretend that it was. So, with regards, you can take all your pathetic, juvenile insults, and stick them up your ass (if you can get them past your head). Have a GREAT life!

      Reply

    37. Wook, quit using the argument and i’ll quit accusing you of it. You’ve done it enough times to accuse you of using it as your primary mode of attack in an argument. Has nothing to do with my love of a particular argument style. You keep using it. Period. Perhaps if you truly understood it you’d stop going there everytime someone disagrees with you.
      1) Way to jump a century or so between the creation of the land vehicle and modern vehicles. BTW, if you’d actually done any research, you’d know Ford did advocate the theory of the cheapest, simplest vehicle for the public. Even down to the color. “they can have whatever color they want, so long as it’s black.” Speaks volumes.
      2) Of course the basis for your argument doesn’t exist! That would make it too easy for anyone to refute your argument that at some time in some future the tech might exist for flying cars to be safe and plentiful for a mankind that may or may not exist! Wow! We’ve reached a science plateau. Look into it. The science for safe, foolproof flying cars simply doesn’t exist and will not feasibly exist for centuries. Get over your Star Trek/Star Wars boner fantasy and let it go.
      3) You’re right, since we are talking about tech that doesn’t exist, let’s throw all science out the window and assume, (let’s ignore what assuming does), that all the testing would ignore the basic precept of human nature which, despite our relavant tech, has not changed significantly. That people are not arrogant, ignorant morons in general that ignore all safety regulations and requirements. While you are at it, might as well wish for world peace. But you are right, go far enough into the future and who knows where we’ll end up. Might as well shit in one hand and wish in another and see which fills up first.
      4) Don’t call me kiddo. You don’t know me, but, given your inane comments, I know you and I can say you are younger than I am and don’t have a goddamn clue about what you think you are talking about, young man. Get over it. You’ve lost this argument. Your continued attempts make you look even more ignorant than you probably are. Tell you what, stick whatever you’d like up your ass. I don’t care. I don’t have the time to care. You have an outstanding day my young friend. You have a lot to learn about the world you live in.

      Reply

    38. Die, this entire argument was engineered to turn you on. That’s why I’m doing it. Wookie is too short bus for me to actually give a shit what he thinks, it’s all for you bebe. The fact that he’s an idiot and wrong just makes it sweeter. I have two loves. My Stacey and you my Austrian Angel. Your beligerant nature just fuels the fire. heh hehehehhehehehe. Stacey wants to meet you in person.

      Reply

    39. Stacey! Ah, how lovely. I was wondering what her name is for days now.
      This is all too good, I feel like I’m somehow doing something forbidden just by thinking of her.

      Well yes, there are a few people who want to meet me in person. Some of them want to rip my head off, others just my clothes. I can’t blame them.

      All I need is an opportunity. If school weren’t so goddamn expensive in America, I would be already there studying law.

      I like how her name sounds when I say it. I’m good with S words.

      Reply

    40. Sorry, belligerent. I still think the wookie is a big, furry, nerfherder.

      Reply

    41. Die, school is relatively cheap in Canada. We live here. We would sponsor you. Happily. Canada loves the student immigrants. Think about it. What is your real name? She deserves to hear how it sounds. AS for the ripping, clothes will do.

      Reply

    42. OH. You’re in Canadia?! Oh snap. This is just crazy. It’s probably the most insane thing anyone has ever told me. I’m not one who accepts offers like that, but if it has to do with education, man. Well I do have a nice amount of money at the bank. Mostly what I inherited from various relatives, over the past years.
      I have already planned to go to England and Ireland to see what it’s like there. It would be cheaper for me to study in Ireland, than it is in my own country. I’ll have to read up on how things look in Canadia.

      My name is Maya. You pronounce it like the singer’s name: Mya.

      But the fact that you said all this, really just made my day. Quality human beings. Life is sweet.

      Reply

    Leave a Comment




    Advertisements Alcohol Animated Images Art Awesome Things Batman Cars Comic Books Computers Cosplay Cute As Hell Animals Dark Humor Donald Trump Fantasy - Science Fiction Fashion Food Forum Fodder Gaming Humor Interesting LOLcats Military Motorcycles Movie Posters Movies Music Nature NeSFW Politics Religion Sad :( Science! Sexy Space Sports Star Trek Star Wars Technology Television Vertical Wallpaper Wallpaper Weapons Women WTF X-Mas