News Stories

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

is that acceptable ?
I want my flying car damn it.
maybe if China started producing them, the US will get its ass into gear.

Is it practical? Flying cars would also require the creation of entirely new traffic systems so it would no longer be a matter of competition, but what will be the globally accepted traffic system for these machines. Would they also be accessible to every part of the country? Doubt it, so it would most likely end up being a niche market where there isn't much competition in the first place

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by Tsuyoshi

Is it practical? Flying cars would also require the creation of entirely new traffic systems so it would no longer be a matter of competition, but what will be the globally accepted traffic system for these machines. Would they also be accessible to every part of the country? Doubt it, so it would most likely end up being a niche market where there isn't much competition in the first place

please.
you know perfetly well that the first country to establish a statewide flying car network will forever be held as a model of awesomeness for it.
it would be the greatest thing until someone creates a fully operational gundam.

if it requires a new traffic system, so be it.
if it requires a new energy grid for it, so be it.
those are only obstacles if you allow them to be.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

please.
you know perfetly well that the first country to establish a statewide flying car network will forever be held as a model of awesomeness for it.
it would be the greatest thing until someone creates a fully operational gundam.

if it requires a new traffic system, so be it.
if it requires a new energy grid for it, so be it.
those are only obstacles if you allow them to be.

Methinks that Mr. Paul Moller agrees with you blade.
He's the man behind the Skycar.

New traffic system or no; new energy system or no; the Skycar is the real-deal in flying cars.

[MrTerrorist]

A funny cartoon video explaining about whats happening in the Mid-East

[Ithekro]

The trouble with flying cars (outside of technology) will be vertical lane awareness. If you live in an area near New Jersey and New York you might be familiar with the rudeness of drivers lane changing in the horizontal. Now imagine cars coming from at least two more angles to fill in that spot that suddenly opened in front of you. Car designs will allow you to see up, but what about down?

I figure that either air lanes will need to be compter contolled (extremely high speed freeway systems), or cars will need some automated defenses to keep the driver in his lane, both in the horizontal and the vertical.


Would they be restricted to the air lanes, or are they "off road" capable? meaning free flying as oppose to say a electro-magnetic system that only works in designated places. (A system like that at ground level could be good for highly automated, high speed, long range travel. Cars within a foot of each other so only the one in front need to cut the air resistance, saving fuel and time).

Also, when would a driver's license end and a pilot's license start?

(As for nations, superiority, and such. One trouble in recent years in that many of the First World nations are becomng service based economies, and thus do not manufacture their own goods (as much). Thus innovation becomes less and they have less and less industry to make work. The sciences might still be present, but even when they come up with something, the manufacturing is done in another country. A country that can easily cut them off from their own advances by not shipping the items back. At least in theory.)

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Yes I did read the article, and this is what jumped out at me:



That is totalitarian bullshit IMHO, and it is not indicative of a free society.
When government forces the poplulation to do something that inhibits a right-- and freedom to travel is a right--then they no longer represent their polulation.
Unless of course the population has called for this, which the article doesn't indicate.

As Vexx pointed out, it must come of its own volition, and with the consent of the governed, not at the whim of some elite group of bureaucrats.

I hope you know why representative democracies are called that way. And why the sovereign does not have a direct say in politics.

Usually your rights end where you affect the rights of others. Thus, higher fuel prices are an appropriate means to make alternatives more attractive and to reduce polution in the towns.

In Germany we currently pay 6€ (8,50$) per (US) gallon (98 octan). So, we basically already have what the EU wants to introduce in the euro zone. Of course most people don't really like it.

But this among other things makes people think about means to save gas (and money): like car pooling, using public transport and avoiding needless driving (like driving just for fun, or to pose in your car... you can still do it of course, but it will cost you a lot of money).

The funny thing is you can vote whomever you want in Germany, no party is going to lower these taxes. Driving in your own car and poluting the environment is not seen as your right here, but as a luxury... and is recognized as such, and hence you have to pay a hefty price for your luxury.

[Ithekro]

Depends if the act was passed by the politicians with consent of the people they represent, or by the bureaucracy that was not elected at all.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

3 guesses who's going to be accused of being "behind the plot".

The US and Israel are probably the ''usual suspect'' but who is the third ?

[Ithekro]

European imperialists is generally the third.

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Depends if the act was passed by the politicians with consent of the people they represent, or by the bureaucracy that was not elected at all.

Yeah like politicians were able to pass any tax law with consent of the people. This is not fantasy land the world doesn't work that way, nor do real ideal democracies exist. If you were honest you just fundametally detest the idea because it is somewhat alien to you.

(and if I am honest, I have to say I don't really like these gas prizes very much myself... but I know myself ...and how I would drive more often if the gas prices were lower... so, I think high gas prizes actually bake environmetally friendly citizens (I can't deny the efficiency of that tool)... however, I am not stupid. I know very well, that most politicians just see the extra tax revenues in this whole scheme and actually care little about the environment).

[Decagon]

Originally Posted by Jinto

But this among other things makes people think about means to save gas (and money): like car pooling, using public transport and avoiding needless driving (like driving just for fun, or to pose in your car... you can still do it of course, but it will cost you a lot of money).

I'm curious, but does this ever get seen as something that more adversely affects (or perhaps targets) the poor or thrifty despite the greater social benefit from less pollution or congestion? Sort of like reducing the kind of leisure activities a person might be able to enjoy based on their salary.

[Roger Rambo]

Before anybody starts talking about peoples *right* to have a gasoline driven car, consider this. Does your right to a gasoline driven car also extend to military intervention into the oil producing regions of the world that succumb to war or political instability?


If people in the west want the right to drive gas driven cars, they have to realize this comes with the responsibility that when ether shit flares up in the Mid East, you've got to be prepared to go in and kill people. That's what the West had to do during the First Gulf War and it's what we're finding we have to do with Libiya. Whether we're defending a totalitarian monarchy or a democratic movement, only the oil matters.


Is the right to have a gas driven car worth being forced into a position where you have to fight for people regardless of how much they're morally worth defending?

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by Decagon

I'm curious, but does this ever get seen as something that more adversely affects (or perhaps targets) the poor or thrifty despite the greater social benefit from less pollution or congestion? Sort of like reducing the kind of leisure activities a person might be able to enjoy based on their salary.

Of course, because Germany is basically a car crazy nation. But to put that into perspective, most people would like to drive a supercar, and yet no sane person will be up in arms just because they cannot afford one.

Gas prizes are not the only costs that you have to consider here, you pay a yearly tax for simply having a car with a certain engine size and CO2 footprint (2€ per 100cm³, and for each g of CO2/km thats over 120 g/km another 2€ - small example: car with 2.0L engine and 167g CO2 /km => 20 x [100 cm³] 2€ + (167 -120) x [g CO2/km] 2€ = 134€).
Than we have mandatory safety inspections for cars every two years that cost money (called TÜV - for new cars its 3 years before the first TÜV inspection, the actual costs also depend on how much has to be fixed on your car, so that it meets the safety norms)... service check book (costs for service)... car insurance.

If you sum all this up, you will see the costs for gas only as one of the many money pits that come with owning a car - hence its a luxury to have one even if you do not drive it.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

please.
you know perfetly well that the first country to establish a statewide flying car network will forever be held as a model of awesomeness for it.
it would be the greatest thing until someone creates a fully operational gundam.

if it requires a new traffic system, so be it.
if it requires a new energy grid for it, so be it.
those are only obstacles if you allow them to be.

Have you ever seen someone driving like an idiot in a poorly maintained car that you have to wonder how it's allowed on the road? Imagine that same person with a flying car. Now do you understand why we don't have them?

[Vexx]

In other news of the "let's attack the groups that represent our key voting base", senior GOP lawmakers are demanding an investigation of the AARP (for demanding healthcare reform apparently though the GOP is appalled, yes, appalled I say at the possible that the AARP might have gained from the passage of the new laws)...

http://www.npr.org/2011/03/30/134985...rp?ft=1&f=1001

[Roger Rambo]

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

please.
you know perfetly well that the first country to establish a statewide flying car network will forever be held as a model of awesomeness for it.
it would be the greatest thing until someone creates a fully operational gundam.

if it requires a new traffic system, so be it.
if it requires a new energy grid for it, so be it.
those are only obstacles if you allow them to be.

The average person is dangerious enough driving a regular car. Now you want to give them all VTOL craft.


This is a horrible idea.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Jinto

I hope you know why representative democracies are called that way. And why the sovereign does not have a direct say in politics.

Usually your rights end where you affect the rights of others. Thus, higher fuel prices are an appropriate means to make alternatives more attractive and to reduce polution in the towns.

In Germany we currently pay 6€ (8,50$) per (US) gallon (98 octan). So, we basically already have what the EU wants to introduce in the euro zone. Of course most people don't really like it.

But this among other things makes people think about means to save gas (and money): like car pooling, using public transport and avoiding needless driving (like driving just for fun, or to pose in your car... you can still do it of course, but it will cost you a lot of money).

The funny thing is you can vote whomever you want in Germany, no party is going to lower these taxes. Driving in your own car and poluting the environment is not seen as your right here, but as a luxury... and is recognized as such, and hence you have to pay a hefty price for your luxury.

The United States is quite different than Germany it would seem.
Here in Colorado we have a constitutional provision (for the state constitution) called TABOR (Taxpayer's Bill Of Rights).

Under this voter approved law:

Colorado's TABOR amendment restricts revenues for all levels of government (state, local, and schools). Under TABOR, state and local governments cannot raise tax rates without voter approval and cannot spend revenues collected under existing tax rates if revenues grow faster than the rate of inflation and population growth, without voter approval.

Therefore, the voters in this state would have to approve any kind of tax hike on gasoline.
If they did, then that would be just in my view.
However, if the federal government attempted to force it on the 50 states without the consent of their populations, that would be seen as tyrannical and many states would sue the feds (like with the Health Care Law).

So you see, in the United State voters do actually have a say in some states on what kinds of taxes we will tolerate.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

Before anybody starts talking about peoples *right* to have a gasoline driven car, consider this. Does your right to a gasoline driven car also extend to military intervention into the oil producing regions of the world that succumb to war or political instability?


If people in the west want the right to drive gas driven cars, they have to realize this comes with the responsibility that when ether shit flares up in the Mid East, you've got to be prepared to go in and kill people. That's what the West had to do during the First Gulf War and it's what we're finding we have to do with Libiya. Whether we're defending a totalitarian monarchy or a democratic movement, only the oil matters.


Is the right to have a gas driven car worth being forced into a position where you have to fight for people regardless of how much they're morally worth defending?

I'll answer that question.
The wars are not the problem, the problem rests with the "not in my backyard' attitude of Americans.
We have oil in the US, in fact we have huge deposits.
We just haven't developed them into useful oil.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

I'll answer that question.
The wars are not the problem, the problem rests with the "not in my backyard' attitude of Americans.
We have oil in the US, in fact we have huge deposits.
We just haven't developed them into useful oil.

we have 2% of the worlds deposit. which once use will take millions of years to make again.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

Before anybody starts talking about peoples *right* to have a gasoline driven car, consider this. Does your right to a gasoline driven car also extend to military intervention into the oil producing regions of the world that succumb to war or political instability?

If people in the west want the right to drive gas driven cars, they have to realize this comes with the responsibility that when ether shit flares up in the Mid East, you've got to be prepared to go in and kill people. That's what the West had to do during the First Gulf War and it's what we're finding we have to do with Libiya. Whether we're defending a totalitarian monarchy or a democratic movement, only the oil matters.

Is the right to have a gas driven car worth being forced into a position where you have to fight for people regardless of how much they're morally worth defending?

It isn't just about gasoline cars. Crude oil has many functions, it is also used to make plastic figurines, lay roads, etc.