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
x

Cool inventions for the future part 3

  • Recommend tagsx
+1491
Views: 63659
Favorited: 143
Submitted: 09/01/2011
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to aCheekyBurrito submit to reddit

Comments(147):

[ 147 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#105 - commonatrix (09/02/2011) [-]
My first thought when reading the first one
User avatar #107 to #105 - SmoggyDwarf (09/02/2011) [-]
Do want.
#16 - Sylphion (09/01/2011) [-]
Anyone getting the feeling that there will be a real Batman with the first invention?
+41
#65 - Sunset has deleted their comment [-]
#68 to #65 - TENeleven (09/01/2011) [-]
Comment Picture
#147 - brutistroll ONLINE (09/02/2011) [-]
+5
#106 to #102 - myoga **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
+3
#113 to #112 - myoga **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
+6
#110 to #108 - myoga **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#86 - whtsthegame (09/02/2011) [-]
Am i the only one that thinks that the first one should also have a hidden blade?
#122 to #86 - DisTurbdKanYE (09/02/2011) [-]
11/15/11
GEZZUS?!?!!!!!!
#35 - righteousmuffin (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 (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 (09/01/2011) [-]
I'm so glad that there is finally an educated argument FJ
User avatar #70 to #67 - righteousmuffin (09/01/2011) [-]
Please continue your beautiful OC.
User avatar #71 to #70 - aCheekyBurrito (09/01/2011) [-]
with pleasure
User avatar #63 to #53 - righteousmuffin (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 (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 (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 (09/02/2011) [-]
so much text in this thread
User avatar #56 to #35 - midnighttech (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (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 (09/01/2011) [-]
More personal I think...
User avatar #103 to #40 - badmonkey ONLINE (09/02/2011) [-]
If you an afford a flying car you could probably afford 20 personal airplanes
User avatar #17 - splinfinity (09/01/2011) [-]
IT'S NOT THE FUTURE UNTIL WE HAVE FLYING CARS!
#18 to #17 - mrbedrock (09/01/2011) [-]
like...this?
#30 to #18 - splinfinity (09/01/2011) [-]
I already have seven.
#19 to #18 - jaytothap (09/01/2011) [-]
Can I have?
Can I have?
#29 - dramakid (09/01/2011) [-]
Did anyone say multi-purpose-cool-looking sunglasses?
User avatar #75 to #29 - xigdix (09/01/2011) [-]
instead of the bodyguard, i would want his arms. that would be much cooler.
User avatar #9 - hannasolo (09/01/2011) [-]
Screw the bodyguard, I just want a retractable blade.
#24 to #9 - magict (09/01/2011) [-]
<--- House wants those
#23 to #9 - Scizor (09/01/2011) [-]
you... sound like an assassin, here's your blade that you requested
User avatar #27 to #23 - hannasolo (09/01/2011) [-]
Grazie, signor. I am quite the assassin. Or so I try to be, at least. (that's my avatar, me in an assassin cloak. Well, it's meant to look like that anyway)
User avatar #28 to #27 - Scizor (09/01/2011) [-]
you do know that if you go to You need to login to view this link they have assassin's creed hoodies and stuff for sale
#148 - DixieNormis (09/02/2011) [-]
Where does the **** go we wanna know!
User avatar #154 to #148 - XXBIOHAZARDXX (09/02/2011) [-]
i thought it was gonna say Rocket Sauce lol
User avatar #153 to #148 - dovakiin ONLINE (09/02/2011) [-]
i was thinking of envy also lol
User avatar #57 - whatdoboysdoalone (09/01/2011) [-]
When are we going get our damn jet packs
User avatar #76 to #57 - aCheekyBurrito (09/01/2011) [-]
ill post one in the next comp
User avatar #96 - MuffinMan (09/02/2011) [-]
These are all from Popular Science.
#99 - Assaultman (09/02/2011) [-]
Oh hey, here's a great idea! Let's aerosol our 			****		 so we can, quite literally, &quot;breathe that 			****		 in!&quot;
Oh hey, here's a great idea! Let's aerosol our **** so we can, quite literally, "breathe that **** in!"

#117 to #99 - aerosol ONLINE (09/02/2011) [-]
User avatar #85 - ntyoyo (09/02/2011) [-]
how about a camera so i could record people secretly
#89 to #85 - ttothey (09/02/2011) [-]
I think they have that, it's called "a camera"
User avatar #92 to #89 - ntyoyo (09/02/2011) [-]
I meant like people not able to see the camera
User avatar #93 to #92 - highaspinkiepie (09/02/2011) [-]
It's called "a small camera"
User avatar #94 to #93 - ntyoyo (09/02/2011) [-]
**ntyoyo rolls 568** I have so much stupidity
User avatar #79 - paidskin (09/01/2011) [-]
Im still waiting for the flying cars.....
User avatar #139 to #79 - Xedan (09/02/2011) [-]
They've already been invented. The problem is they're expensive as all **** , would require completely separate education from driving, and (most importantly) there is no way to effectively create the equivalent of roads. Yet.
#84 to #79 - hackermcgee (09/02/2011) [-]
Too bad they are a ******* bad idea
[ 147 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)