Login or register


Last status update:
Gender: male
Age: 22
Date Signed Up:2/26/2010
Location:Las Vegas
Comment Ranking:#14536
Highest Content Rank:#5356
Highest Comment Rank:#2329
Content Thumbs: 25 total,  54 ,  29
Comment Thumbs: 3819 total,  4314 ,  495
Content Level Progress: 35.59% (21/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 9% (9/100)
Level 235 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz → Level 236 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Content Views:3951
Times Content Favorited:5 times
Total Comments Made:867
FJ Points:2378

latest user's comments

#5 - Yeah, can you believe someone piloting over 1000 lbs of metal …  [+] (25 replies) 06/19/2016 on He was defiantly in the... +19
#86 - ogthegreat (06/19/2016) [-]
10/10 comeback.
User avatar
#69 - clannadqs (06/19/2016) [-]
Other user is kind of right. We'll find a way to improve on everything in time, but flying cars for everyone is bullshit. I haven't seen it mentioned yet, but how many cars do you see on the side of the road broken down? Quite a few if you pay attention. Now, imagine if you apply that to flying vehicles. A small error in the engine or some other part of the car would literally mean death of you or people below. And to have them as safe as airliners it would cost people hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy and have extremely strict regulations on them (which no one would be down for and not many would have the money). It's not practical at all unless our technology advances quite a bit.
User avatar
#70 - zramn (06/19/2016) [-]
I understand you saying kind of right, and you know our technology advances quite fast. So, just like the car, we will have flying ones soon enough. Old cold crank motors broke down and stalled quite often, huge lumbering sputtering machines. Now look at our cars today, getting over 40mpg city, having features to stop them if the car ahead is decelerating too fast... We will get to flying cars, don't you worry, and it may be more dangerous at first, but so were the first cars.
User avatar
#71 - clannadqs (06/19/2016) [-]
That's the point though. When a car stalls or fails in some way literally nothing will happen other than the driver being salty and having to pull off of the road (unless the brakes fail). With flying cars you could literally have a small 9/11 happen just because someone's engine gave out...
User avatar
#72 - zramn (06/19/2016) [-]
And you have small 9/11's happen when someone brings a bomb into a building. A bit harder to get a permit to fly a plane, just as it was then to drive a car. As for stalling out, you are missing the point of how rare that is, how many cars pass that disabled vehicle? If we were to let people fly their personal plane somewhere, we get a traffic controller to approve a travel vector, a takeoff, and a landing location. We won't let many have these flying cars until they are safe for the general populace. Maybe it will only be when we can reliably have self driving cars that we let those self driving cars fly, but it will happen.
User avatar
#76 - clannadqs (06/19/2016) [-]
I'm not saying it won't happen ever. I don't believe it will happen in our lifetime, though. It's just not practical where we are at right now and we are nowhere close to having them being a popular travel option. You do realize that the only reason passenger airliners are so safe is due to how frequently they are checked, right? As in, they spend tens of thousands of dollars every few months to maintain a single airliner and use multi-million dollar equipment to check up on the airplanes (probably weekly) which requires dozens of professional staff on hand. It's not realistic at all. As I said, it could happen but here are a few reasons why it won't happen in our lifetime:
- Would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars for a single "Car"
- Would cost the user thousands upon thousands of dollars for maintenance
- Requires an entire revamp of air traffic control
- Users would be required to abide by such strict regulations that it wouldn't even be worth it (talking about having weekly maintenance done and regulations for flying)
- Entire revamp of how towns are structured (Which is INCREDIBLY hard especially for cities/towns that are already planned/completed)

It's just not going to happen in our lifetime bro.
User avatar
#77 - zramn (06/19/2016) [-]
I agree it may not happen in our lifetimes at all, but most in this thread believe it will never happen. All of your positions are valid, and it seems our positions do not truly clash, as both of us are looking into the future that we do not know. Think of it this way, when a LAN network was proposed for universities to connect their computers, they thought it was inefficient, costly, and hard to maintain for something that could be done by a fax machine. Now most people have two computers that they use frequently, if not more. In the future it may be so easy to automate self-driving cars that we permit them to fly, we just don't know. For a breakdown of your points though:
User avatar
#78 - zramn (06/19/2016) [-]
(Hit ctrl-enter):
-Cost several thousands for the first computers
-Several tubes replaced weekly
-An entire new communications system was built
-You have to obey laws on the internet too
-New fibers were laid down in even America's oldest cities.
User avatar
#92 - clannadqs (06/20/2016) [-]
No no no, you're missing what I'm saying. We've been treating airplanes like that for decades. Not much has changed because they will probably never truly let airplanes go unchecked just for safety reasons. They truly don't need to check airplanes that often as they are almost as reliable as cars, but they HAVE to because it's so much more dangerous if there is a failure. Same will FOREVER be the case with flying cars. No matter how far out technology advances it will always be safer to be on the ground.
User avatar
#93 - zramn (06/20/2016) [-]
Of course they will not let airplanes go unchecked... They don't let cars go unchecked either. Yes there is much more danger in a failure of a plane than a car, but that is expected when it has so much more rigorous operation, but unlike a car, planes fly at a very high altitude and are actually safer in terms of chance of collisions. This is by no means a small feat, but this same principle is with trains as well, and we already drive over their tracks. A train cannot deviate from the track due to a fault, but a plane can glide and emergency land, or abort over a non-populated area. When we are flying our cars we will have the same safety measures and I am assured warning systems for locations. Telemetry of what your flight vector is versus your current velocity means you are in a sense driving over the solid white line, only with much more risk. We can regulate and enforce these things, just as we do our drivers. Think of OnStar, only more invasive.

Lastly, yes it will be always safer to be on the ground, however the same could be said about walking to your destination vs driving to it, more risk and higher regulation/training, for a reward of less time spent.
#30 - donfailed (06/19/2016) [-]
Imagine, if you will, traffic in three dimensions instead of on a flat road. Visualize all the traffic of New York was in the air with destinations relatively close so there's no point going too far into the air and how crowded the sky would be. Then think of maintaining your lane, controlling a vehicle going at the very least 200 MPH because you're gonna need some fucking speed to stay airborne if that car's got any weight, then imagine gang wars and car chases where they're fucking dogfighting through all that.
User avatar
#9 - steampoweredbot (06/19/2016) [-]
I mean, I get what you're saying, but the damage caused by mass use of flying vehicles would be much worse than the damage caused by the mass use of automobiles.
Automobile incidents can be- and generally are- survived. I don't think the same could be said for flying vehicle accidents, which would involve an unhealthy dose of plummeting to the ground in your twisted cage of steel.
User avatar
#73 - zramn (06/19/2016) [-]
Current jumbojets have automated landing systems, and when a loss of power is detected, the pilot can manually fly it. Yes it may be a bit more deathly than a flat tire, but we will have training for that, just as we had training for our cars to pump the brakes before anti-lock brakes were a thing. We will get to the point where it is safe enough, I'm sure.
User avatar
#12 - SoraDono (06/19/2016) [-]
brah, crashes happen because it's crowded

you know how many crashes are gonna happen in air? next to none

I agree with the point that people would need to learn a lot more than what they need for driving a car though

Then again, the flying cars could be simplified or automated so that user input is not needed, or completely denied
#43 - anon (06/19/2016) [-]
Want to make terrorists mobile enough, to not having to hijack a plane anymore, eh?
#40 - lolmart (06/19/2016) [-]
i dont know where you live but im in texas and drunk driving is not that uncommon, i dont want to imagine the havoc every weekend when drunk drivers are already having single car accidents and crashing into other cars without the added danger of being in the sky
User avatar
#25 - pokemonstheshiz (06/19/2016) [-]
A lot of crashes would happen in the air.
Know why they don't now? Because there's not that many planes in the sky, and they're usually traveling to different destinations, so some kind of order and spacing can be kept.
Imagine all the cars in rush hour traffic. Now imagine that many planes in the sky, all trying to get downtown on a Friday night in time for happy hour
#44 - shamblerdk (06/19/2016) [-]
Why settle for imagining it? A movie already did it
User avatar
#18 - brokentrucker (06/19/2016) [-]
Flying cars/devices for every fucktard is just impractical.Most people live close enough to shopping and work. And everyone else probably has the means for trains and helicopters.

I think teh priority is increasing efficiency of current modes of transportation.
User avatar
#63 - buddywuggle (06/19/2016) [-]
Adding the ability to fly is sure a good efficiency boost to cars.
#15 - cyclewar (06/19/2016) [-]
Yes, because self-flying cars is such a small step up from self-driving ones.

People need to stop thinking that the average person is smart enough to pilot a fucking flying vehicle, they are not, think of an average person, half of the people in this world are stupid than they are.
User avatar
#16 - SoraDono (06/19/2016) [-]
great usage of carlin quotes, but i still disagree
User avatar
#13 - steampoweredbot (06/19/2016) [-]
Sometimes that's why crashes happen- sometimes it's because somebody is just being an idiot and not paying attention, or going too fast to stop in time.

Automation of the vehicles would be a pretty good way to go- in fact, I can't imagine them being created without being automatic at this point with technology.
User avatar
#14 - SoraDono (06/19/2016) [-]
i'm going from the point of

planes use air space, and collisions are... well, has there ever been a collision of two commercial flights?

if cars use the same space, there's a lot of room to not crash into one another, sensors could be used for warnings etc.

there's also nothing to fuck up in air, like, there's no cliffside you can fall off from, there's no trees to hit, no kids running out on the road etc.

I mean, it's got it's risks, but overall, if we can make it efficient enough to be commonplace, it'd be safer than ground based transport imo
User avatar
#23 - steampoweredbot (06/19/2016) [-]
I don't think comparing them to planes is a good way to go.
With planes, it's all very controlled- they take of when they're told to go, they go on the route they're going to go, and there's simply not that many of them (relatively speaking). There's going to be a large amount of space between airplanes.

With flying cars, however, it'd be different.
Let's take America, right? 95% of households own a car, and 85% of Americans use cars to get to work photos.state.gov/libraries/cambodia/30486/Publications/everyone_in_america_own_a_car.pdf . Even at the lowest point (New York City), 50% of households own cars.

So let's act as if they all became flying cars- they wouldn't, of course, due to costs and whatnot, but this is more just to illustrate a point. The average American household size is 3.14, as of 2015 www.statista.com/statistics/183657/average-size-of-a-family-in-the-us/ . The population of New York is 8,550,405 as of 2015 www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/data-maps/nyc-population/current-future-populations.page with 56000 homeless people as of 2015 www.bowery.org/homelessness/facts-homelessness/ .
So, using those numbers, we can arrive at a very rough number of 2705224 households, rounded down. With 50% of them owning cars, that gives us 1352612 cars (assuming each household has a single car), rounding down.
That's a lot of flying vehicles in a relatively small area. There's going to be an incredibly higher chance of the two flying vehicles crashing there. To compare it to the amount of airplane crashes would be like comparing the amount of car crashes in new york compared to the amount of car crashes in, say, Ketchikan, alaska (a very non-dense city).

As for nothing to fuck up with in the air, really just depends on the height of the car area (because I can't imagine there not being designated heights- having cars at all different heights would be very chaotic), only places I can think of that would be different than what you say would be more dense cities, with tall buildings.

As far as safety goes, though, I think metros are the way to go. Large quantities of people, small quantities of crashing, and a fast way to get around a city.
#29 - If you mean reasonable as nothing of value was lost, it used t…  [+] (1 reply) 06/10/2016 on Japan has a pedal powered... +2
#33 - anon (06/10/2016) [-]
>some faggot stops on the tracks for 2 hours to enjoy the view
>you are that faggot
#15 - Legoland California had one of these as well. Then too …  [+] (3 replies) 06/10/2016 on Japan has a pedal powered... +4
User avatar
#24 - iqequalzero (06/10/2016) [-]
Reasonable corrections to a system.


User avatar
#29 - zramn (06/10/2016) [-]
If you mean reasonable as nothing of value was lost, it used to be a ride where you needed to exert force to move along the ride. Now you can simply sit back and do nothing, and go the same speed. You can appreciate the view of the park no longer, nor shorter, than anyone else taking the ride. I do not enjoy the thought of that, it loses the control that one would have over the ride.
If you meant reasonable for safety reasons, because this track is nearly entirely horizontal, and the crafts weigh as much as they do, you really can't pedal up enough speed to crash into anyone. Well, yes you could pin someone between you and the next car, but the system that is in place now can do that as well, not to mention the more likely scenario of just falling out.
I simply said "America" [sic] because it is in America, and well, we need some actual exercise in those theme parks.
#33 - anon (06/10/2016) [-]
>some faggot stops on the tracks for 2 hours to enjoy the view
>you are that faggot
#14 - <-loud keys <quiet keys Cheaper direct from …  [+] (1 reply) 06/06/2016 on Admin got a new gaming rig +2
User avatar
#34 - reaperslayer (06/06/2016) [-]
I have gotten the stealth after having the regular, and I can confirm people on teamspeak are thankful and can no longer hear my keyboard.