Cool inventions for the future part 3. part 5: /funny_pictures/2561530/Cool+inventions+for+the+future+part+5/ Part4: /funny_pictures/2560893/Cool+inventions+for cool inventions of the future
Upload
Login or register

Cool inventions for the future part 3

+1491
Views: 63841 Submitted: 09/01/2011
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (147)
[ 147 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
#35 - righteousmuffin
Reply +79 123456789123345869
(09/01/2011) [-]
I, personally, do not want flying cars. "Why?", you ask? Well...
>You would have to pass 2 driving tests, flying and driving.
>There would have to be more policemen.
>Car crashes would be more lethal, killing not only the drivers, but the people below them.
>Somehow we would have to invent away for traffic to be smoother and not just going where ever the hell you feel like.
>The flying cars would cost a ******** of cash.
>Some people would die from stupidity, like trying to fly to the moon.
>You'd have to check the weather before you left the house.
>Pop a tire and you have to pull over; Bust a blade and you crash down to Earth at 200 MPH.
>Say "Hey I just got a new Ferrari!" and you'll be made fun of for not having a flying car.

I could go all day with this. Oh no! Here comes the Red thumb Hurricane!
#53 to #35 - anon id: 4271ed84
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/01/2011) [-]
I'm sure morons like you said similar things like this when cars were first being thought of:

That would never work! we would have to make some sort of hard flat surface going to every destination!
User avatar #67 to #53 - aCheekyBurrito [OP]
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/01/2011) [-]
I'm so glad that there is finally an educated argument FJ
User avatar #70 to #67 - righteousmuffin
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/01/2011) [-]
Please continue your beautiful OC.
User avatar #71 to #70 - aCheekyBurrito [OP]
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/01/2011) [-]
with pleasure
User avatar #63 to #53 - righteousmuffin
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/01/2011) [-]
LOL.
1) We had already had paved roads to begin with, tracing back to the Inca societies.
2) Even if we didn't have flat, hard, surfaces to drive on, we could just drive on the grass. It's not rocket science.
3) We had already had horse carriages, bicycles, and many other vehicles driving.
4) Trying to disprove cars:
"That would never work! How would you power them?"
Trying to disprove flying cars:
"That would never work! How would you achieve order in the sky without thousands of people being killed each day? What about all the time it would take for lessons? What about the cost in making them? What about the other modes of transportation, like planes, cars, bikes, subways, trains, or even boats? What about? What about?"
Moron.
#95 to #35 - themanta
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2011) [-]
"o herp i guess i should say something about my post probably getting red thumbs since i have an opinion"
User avatar #46 to #35 - Hydrocircuit
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/01/2011) [-]
Or you know, just don't use them and still use ground cars.
But really the 'non-retarded' reason is because we can't really control 3 dimensional traffic.
User avatar #87 to #35 - iambill
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/02/2011) [-]
so much text in this thread
User avatar #56 to #35 - midnighttech
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(09/01/2011) [-]
You assume flying car means that it has to be high off the ground. However by using magnets and super conductors cars can float inches of the ground. Reducing friction to almost 0 allowing us to go faster than ever before. By the time we find a super conductor we should have been able to make a mandatory auto pilot system similar to the gps. That solves the crashing problem. Also any kind of flying cars would have to come with more than needed flying devcies in order to prevent them falling in the case of failure. You would still use roads as somewhere to put the super conductor. Weather wouldnt be a problem as you dont touch the ground anymore. Also, I beleive the terminol velocity is below 200mph. You fail to recognize that there would be safety regulations and ways to stop what you say could happen. Yes there would still be fails but everything fails once in a while.
User avatar #58 to #56 - righteousmuffin
Reply -5 123456789123345869
(09/01/2011) [-]
I see your point. But let me verify mine...
>Who would want to fly a car only a few inches off the ground?
>Where is your auto pilot when the battery dies/wing busts/blade breaks/engine dies/gas runs out?
>Super conductor? Isn't driving cars on the ground much easier?
>Thunderstorms result in lightening, which results in a broken flying car.
>I was exaggerating to prove a point.
>Safety regulations? Ha. There are "safety regulations" now, but you see people still go on high speed chases.
>Are you serious? There would be more crashes than a Windows 98 PC with trojans.
User avatar #62 to #58 - midnighttech
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(09/01/2011) [-]
>Reduce Friction=Faster, besides driving a car dosent have to be "fun" its job is to get you from point A to point B
>Why wouldnt you fill up your car?
>Super conductor produce a powerful magnetic force, Driving cars in the air would have the same controls as you wouldnt control the up down motion
>Lightnin breaks a lot of things why specifically a car 5 inches off the ground?
>Exactly, so why is is safer if your not 5 inches up rather then on the ground? You are going faster but by the time we find super conductors im sure we would be able to have a harder metal or something els in case of a crash
>XD, Why would it cause more crashes? ITs the same things only it can go faster with less moving parts therefore less failures
User avatar #64 to #62 - righteousmuffin
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(09/01/2011) [-]
>My opinion is that cars 5 inches off the ground is ridiculous. There's no difference in traffic, or anything in that matter, but the friction of the tires against the road.
>Cars break down all the time because people run out of gas, like having no gas stations around where you are, no money for gas, etc..
>Good point.
>I was talking about cars high in the air.
>Also a good point.
>Again, I was talking about unorganized free flying in the air.
User avatar #69 to #64 - midnighttech
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/01/2011) [-]
You make lots of good points if the car was flying high in the air. If we ever get there I dont think they would be as available as normal cars as it would be extremely dangerous as you said.

>Cars using magnets would be able to go much faster. Ever been a on a launch rollercoaster? See how they go so fast in such a short amount of time? Most of them use magnets. Not in the same way though.

>I dont know what we could do about running out of fuel. The best thing we could do is to make the car automatically park on the shoulder when they have 1% fuel left or something along the lines of that. But it is a good point. A good idea would be to put the magnets in the ground and the super conductors in the ca but that would be much more work to create or modify roads.

#37 to #35 - fjmod
Reply +29 123456789123345869
(09/01/2011) [-]
How is a flying car any different from an airplane?...
How is a flying car any different from an airplane?...
#40 to #37 - IrishReaper
Reply +30 123456789123345869
(09/01/2011) [-]
More personal I think...
User avatar #103 to #40 - badmonkey
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/02/2011) [-]
If you an afford a flying car you could probably afford 20 personal airplanes
#65 - Sunset
+41 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#77 to #65 - YouAreReadingThis
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/01/2011) [-]
#74 to #65 - moldypirate
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/01/2011) [-]
#78 to #65 - baconinthemakin
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(09/01/2011) [-]
#72 to #65 - TheOriginal
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(09/01/2011) [-]
#91 to #65 - tehsteak
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(09/02/2011) [-]
#68 to #65 - TENeleven
Reply +11 123456789123345869
(09/01/2011) [-]
Comment Picture
#123 to #68 - herptyderpies
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/02/2011) [-]
#86 - whtsthegame
Reply +39 123456789123345869
(09/02/2011) [-]
Am i the only one that thinks that the first one should also have a hidden blade?
#122 to #86 - DisTurbdKanYE
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/02/2011) [-]
11/15/11
GEZZUS?!?!!!!!!
#111 to #86 - cubanwhiteman
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(09/02/2011) [-]
I did.
#109 to #86 - indeedsir
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(09/02/2011) [-]
#105 - commonatrix
Reply +32 123456789123345869
(09/02/2011) [-]
My first thought when reading the first one
User avatar #107 to #105 - SmoggyDwarf
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/02/2011) [-]
Do want.
#120 to #105 - mybodyasashield
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/02/2011) [-]
#16 - Sylphion
Reply +24 123456789123345869
(09/01/2011) [-]
Anyone getting the feeling that there will be a real Batman with the first invention?
User avatar #17 - splinfinity
Reply +20 123456789123345869
(09/01/2011) [-]
IT'S NOT THE FUTURE UNTIL WE HAVE FLYING CARS!
#18 to #17 - mrbedrock
Reply +22 123456789123345869
(09/01/2011) [-]
like...this?
#30 to #18 - splinfinity
Reply +13 123456789123345869
(09/01/2011) [-]
I already have seven.
#19 to #18 - jaytothap
Reply +11 123456789123345869
(09/01/2011) [-]
Can I have?
Can I have?
#147 - brutistroll
Reply +20 123456789123345869
(09/02/2011) [-]
#161 to #147 - technocrazynick
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2011) [-]
#156 to #147 - internetjesus
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/02/2011) [-]
#158 to #156 - internetjesus
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/02/2011) [-]
#159 to #158 - internetjesus
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/02/2011) [-]
#164 to #159 - captainrattrap
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2011) [-]
#162 to #159 - vansfoo
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/02/2011) [-]
#102 - KingBlackDragon
Reply +18 123456789123345869
(09/02/2011) [-]
#106 to #102 - myoga **User deleted account**
+5 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#112 to #106 - josieabby
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(09/02/2011) [-]
#113 to #112 - myoga **User deleted account**
+3 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#108 to #106 - indeedsir
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(09/02/2011) [-]
#110 to #108 - myoga **User deleted account**
+6 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #85 - ntyoyo
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(09/02/2011) [-]
how about a camera so i could record people secretly
#89 to #85 - ttothey
Reply +13 123456789123345869
(09/02/2011) [-]
I think they have that, it's called "a camera"
User avatar #92 to #89 - ntyoyo
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(09/02/2011) [-]
I meant like people not able to see the camera
User avatar #93 to #92 - highaspinkiepie
Reply +18 123456789123345869
(09/02/2011) [-]
It's called "a small camera"
User avatar #94 to #93 - ntyoyo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/02/2011) [-]
**ntyoyo rolls 568** I have so much stupidity
#29 - dramakid
Reply +14 123456789123345869
(09/01/2011) [-]
Did anyone say multi-purpose-cool-looking sunglasses?
User avatar #75 to #29 - xigdix
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/01/2011) [-]
instead of the bodyguard, i would want his arms. that would be much cooler.