5 ms·

I much prefer Wikipedia, Linux, Google, Github, Twitter, smartphones and other modern wonders to flying cars. Flying cars would be annoying and noisy and danger

I much prefer Wikipedia, Linux, Google, Github, Twitter, smartphones and other modern wonders to flying cars. Flying cars would be annoying and noisy and dangerous. Whereas having most of the worlds knowledge and people instantly accessible in the palm of my hand is really rather useful.

Qantourisc 13y ago
Not to mention bad for the environment ... unless they are hovering and not flying.
- InclinedPlane 13y ago
  On par, probably still better for the environment. Higher energy use would be troublesome but the ability to trash a bunch of parking lots, roadways, and highways paving over nature would probably be fairly significant.
  - WatchDog 13y ago
    Wouldn't you still have the same problems with parking lots?
    - jwoah12 13y ago
      Of course not! They would be attached to extremely long poles coming out of the ground, just like in the Jetsons.
tokenadult 13y ago
I hear you. But it makes my head hurt to see Wikipedia listed before Google (I'm a Wikipedian). Much of the crud in Wikipedia articles is an example of "semantic attacks on the Web" just like the fake "news" story on the hacked Twitter account.
- codeulike 13y ago
  But the fact that Wikipedia exists is amazing, right? Imagine if the main reference site on the web was corporate controlled. Actually, I've often wondered: Was it inevitable (due to the nature of the internet) that the primary reference site on the web would be open, free and wiki-style, or are we just incredibly lucky that that happened?
  - StavrosK 13y ago
    Ten years ago, if someone had a not-completely-obvious question, they had to go to the library and spend at least an hour researching. That always blows my mind.
    - tokenadult 13y ago
      They still have to go to a library after reading the Wikipedia article, if they don't want to be misled.
    - eitland 13y ago
      For certain (history, science) topics Internet was usable more than 10 years ago. (1998 comes to mind.) I was a teenager back then and it all happened so gradually I didn't understand until later what I had witnessed. (Then came some dark years of webspam before Google. Web rings were a good way of navigating. : )
  - DanBC 13y ago
    It'd be interesting to see how the future-people interpret the dominance of Wikipedia. I guess other people made mistakes. MS didn't think the Internet was important early enough; they didn't make Encarta available sensibly; MS was deeply unpopular with a sizable section of the population. Other people got stuck in a reference library mode - and thus they concentrated on selling DVDs to libraries rather than making access public. I will, grudgingly[1], admit that Wikipedia is amazing. Probably a Wonder of the World. [1] I actually hate it, and try to avoid it where possible. If I had the money I'd fork it and create a lower-cruft, more accurate, closed for edits, version. Every article would have a 3 sentence 'elevator pitch' style introduction. Sourcing would be fixed. And the focus would be on "accurate", not "verifiable".
mtgx 13y ago
Flying cars will never be accepted in our societies until they completely eliminate the reliance on the user. If they are fully automated from point A to point B, all the time, then I could see us having flying cars eventually. But it could take another few decades at least.
- Houshalter 13y ago
  Even then flight is extremely inefficient.
- ysekand 13y ago
  Jetsons? :)
- Shivetya 13y ago
  its not the user, its the technology. Flying cars will not viable till they land one hundred percent of the time without crashing. Simple way of phrasing it, you cannot fall off the earth, you can fall out of the sky.
LandoCalrissian 13y ago
Considering the shape some of my cars have been in when they finally ate it, I wouldn't trust me with a flying car. Think how serious maintenance actually is or running out of gas. With cars you don't have to worry about 2 tons of steel falling on your head. I think it's actually kind of a stupid dream.
signalsignal 13y ago
Ultralight aviation(1) is available to the masses, but people don't want to replace their cars with them. Why? It is an unsolvable problem, so nobody knows. 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultralight_aviation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultralight_aviation
- gjm11 13y ago
  > people don't want to replace their cars with them. Why? It is an unsolvable problem Unsolvable? You aren't allowed to fly them at night, or over any populated area. They can't have more than a single seat. They have severe weight restrictions that mean you can't take much in them besides yourself. (Note: the previous few sentences describe the US regulations; other jurisdictions are different but all have similar kinds of restriction.) You can only travel to and from places that have a substantial length of runway for takeoff and landing. Do you really find it difficult to imagine why someone might not find an ultralight aircraft a suitable replacement for their car?

Qantourisc 13y ago

Not to mention bad for the environment ... unless they are hovering and not flying.

InclinedPlane 13y ago
On par, probably still better for the environment. Higher energy use would be troublesome but the ability to trash a bunch of parking lots, roadways, and highways paving over nature would probably be fairly significant.
- WatchDog 13y ago
  Wouldn't you still have the same problems with parking lots?
  - jwoah12 13y ago
    Of course not! They would be attached to extremely long poles coming out of the ground, just like in the Jetsons.

tokenadult 13y ago

I hear you. But it makes my head hurt to see Wikipedia listed before Google (I'm a Wikipedian). Much of the crud in Wikipedia articles is an example of "semantic attacks on the Web" just like the fake "news" story on the hacked Twitter account.

codeulike 13y ago
But the fact that Wikipedia exists is amazing, right? Imagine if the main reference site on the web was corporate controlled. Actually, I've often wondered: Was it inevitable (due to the nature of the internet) that the primary reference site on the web would be open, free and wiki-style, or are we just incredibly lucky that that happened?
- StavrosK 13y ago
  Ten years ago, if someone had a not-completely-obvious question, they had to go to the library and spend at least an hour researching. That always blows my mind.
  - tokenadult 13y ago
    They still have to go to a library after reading the Wikipedia article, if they don't want to be misled.
  - eitland 13y ago
    For certain (history, science) topics Internet was usable more than 10 years ago. (1998 comes to mind.) I was a teenager back then and it all happened so gradually I didn't understand until later what I had witnessed. (Then came some dark years of webspam before Google. Web rings were a good way of navigating. : )
- DanBC 13y ago
  It'd be interesting to see how the future-people interpret the dominance of Wikipedia. I guess other people made mistakes. MS didn't think the Internet was important early enough; they didn't make Encarta available sensibly; MS was deeply unpopular with a sizable section of the population. Other people got stuck in a reference library mode - and thus they concentrated on selling DVDs to libraries rather than making access public. I will, grudgingly[1], admit that Wikipedia is amazing. Probably a Wonder of the World. [1] I actually hate it, and try to avoid it where possible. If I had the money I'd fork it and create a lower-cruft, more accurate, closed for edits, version. Every article would have a 3 sentence 'elevator pitch' style introduction. Sourcing would be fixed. And the focus would be on "accurate", not "verifiable".

mtgx 13y ago

Flying cars will never be accepted in our societies until they completely eliminate the reliance on the user. If they are fully automated from point A to point B, all the time, then I could see us having flying cars eventually. But it could take another few decades at least.

Houshalter 13y ago
Even then flight is extremely inefficient.
ysekand 13y ago
Jetsons? :)
Shivetya 13y ago
its not the user, its the technology. Flying cars will not viable till they land one hundred percent of the time without crashing. Simple way of phrasing it, you cannot fall off the earth, you can fall out of the sky.

LandoCalrissian 13y ago

Considering the shape some of my cars have been in when they finally ate it, I wouldn't trust me with a flying car. Think how serious maintenance actually is or running out of gas. With cars you don't have to worry about 2 tons of steel falling on your head. I think it's actually kind of a stupid dream.

signalsignal 13y ago

Ultralight aviation(1) is available to the masses, but people don't want to replace their cars with them. Why? It is an unsolvable problem, so nobody knows. 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultralight_aviation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultralight_aviation

gjm11 13y ago
> people don't want to replace their cars with them. Why? It is an unsolvable problem Unsolvable? You aren't allowed to fly them at night, or over any populated area. They can't have more than a single seat. They have severe weight restrictions that mean you can't take much in them besides yourself. (Note: the previous few sentences describe the US regulations; other jurisdictions are different but all have similar kinds of restriction.) You can only travel to and from places that have a substantial length of runway for takeoff and landing. Do you really find it difficult to imagine why someone might not find an ultralight aircraft a suitable replacement for their car?