Is there a point where technology gets stupid?

  • 72 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for lightleggy
lightleggy

16090

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 65

User Lists: 0

#1 lightleggy
Member since 2008 • 16090 Posts

When we just start making technology for the sake of it...stupid technology that is not really necessary and that its actually not improving anything.

I just saw a commercial of a computer which monitor is completly touch controlled, I believe the computer lacks keyboard and mouse (they were nowhere in the ad) and then a family saw the computer and started touching and they got like "OH WOW IM TOUCHING THE MONITOR!"

my point is...is this really necessary? or even useful? why would you want a computer like that? its much much much much better to control it with mouse and keyboard...its just plain stupid.

and then you have other things like voice controlled TVs or lights...why? theres already remote controllers that do the job very simple...while voice control is very limited...imagine if you are surfing channels...with a controller you just have to push a button, with voice it would be like "switch chanel, switch chanel, switch chanel" and repeat that phrase like 100 times...not to mention it would be pretty annoying if there is someone sleeping in your room.

then theres flying cars, which I dont even need to explain why are so stupid.

and even motion gaming...or the robots that they make to take the jobs away from other people...like those waitress robots or even the robot nurse prototype.

seriously too much technology is just plain stupid

Avatar image for Chris_Williams
Chris_Williams

14882

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#2 Chris_Williams
Member since 2009 • 14882 Posts

those things you were talking about are called gimmicks

Avatar image for Omni-Wrath
Omni-Wrath

1970

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 Omni-Wrath
Member since 2008 • 1970 Posts

There is a point where anything can get stupid, technology is no exception to that.
People just love touch screens.

Avatar image for MushroomWig
MushroomWig

11625

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 MushroomWig
Member since 2009 • 11625 Posts
It's the reason why I stay away from products like Kinect, I just don't see the point in saying something like 'Xbox - Pause' when I can just do it myself quicker with a controller. I HATE touch screen computers, no matter how advanced it'll get (ala Minority Report) it's just no substitute for a keyboard and mouse. Sorry but I just can't see many people wearing a glove and waving their hands all over the place just to do something that can be done just as easily as k&m.
Avatar image for Tokugawa77
Tokugawa77

1554

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#5 Tokugawa77
Member since 2009 • 1554 Posts

The ipad

Avatar image for KiIIyou
KiIIyou

27199

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 KiIIyou
Member since 2006 • 27199 Posts
Those are called gimmicks, they'll always be around.
Avatar image for ScottMescudi
ScottMescudi

1550

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#7 ScottMescudi
Member since 2011 • 1550 Posts

The Kindle/Nook. Like seriously?

Avatar image for Overlord93
Overlord93

12602

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 Overlord93
Member since 2007 • 12602 Posts

The ipad

Tokugawa77
Yes, that is a good example
Avatar image for Xtasy26
Xtasy26

5412

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 43

User Lists: 0

#9 Xtasy26
Member since 2008 • 5412 Posts

I agree with you TC. Hence I like PC gaming, I think mouse and keyboard are just fine for gaming, not to mention, you have better and faster accuracy.

I have still have yet to find a toilet that wipes my a$$ though. :P

Avatar image for zeldaluff
zeldaluff

3387

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#10 zeldaluff
Member since 2008 • 3387 Posts

The Kindle/Nook. Like seriously?

ScottMescudi

My mom got one and said it was much easier to go and buy the actual book.

Avatar image for MikeLirette
MikeLirette

4694

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#11 MikeLirette
Member since 2005 • 4694 Posts
I agree with topic creator on all points.. Technology when used inefficiently is not really technology at all.
Avatar image for XaosII
XaosII

16705

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#12 XaosII
Member since 2003 • 16705 Posts
I fail to see how anything you've mentioned is stupid. They arent removing or supplanting existing options; they are only adding options that may or may not be useful to you. I could definitely benefit from a touchscreen. I have 6 computers throughout my house. Some of them dont have a monitor attached to them as they really dont need it (like my file/media server), but once in a while i need to perform some basic menial task like updating and restarting the machine. A touch screen will allow me to do so without having to also have a mouse and keyboard attached. I see nothing wrong with voice activated lights or tv. No you wouldn't use the voice as the primary control method for a tv, but for simple quick actions, its great. Just say "Weather Channel" if you're far from the TV or the remote to get a quick glance at the weather. You find the concept of personal flying transportation stupid? Do you also find the concept of cars stupid? Its the same thing but even better. Motion control gaming has so far been a gimmick, but plenty of hacks using Kinnect have made some pretty useful or cool results. And robots are far better than people for many tasks. Perhaps not so much for social interaction tasks like described, but i know i'd much rather have my car built by a robot than by hand. Its the main contributing factor to cheaper cars today. I think you have no imagination.
Avatar image for ScottMescudi
ScottMescudi

1550

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#13 ScottMescudi
Member since 2011 • 1550 Posts

[QUOTE="ScottMescudi"]

The Kindle/Nook. Like seriously?

zeldaluff

My mom got one and said it was much easier to go and buy the actual book.

No offense, but she couldn't just read the thing? I mean does she really need to read a book electronically? :P
Avatar image for markop2003
markop2003

29917

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14 markop2003
Member since 2005 • 29917 Posts
Technology isn't stupid however companies sometimes release stupid products.
Avatar image for deactivated-5e7f8a21de9dd
deactivated-5e7f8a21de9dd

4403

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 144

User Lists: 1

#15 deactivated-5e7f8a21de9dd
Member since 2008 • 4403 Posts

Wall-E

Avatar image for lightleggy
lightleggy

16090

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 65

User Lists: 0

#16 lightleggy
Member since 2008 • 16090 Posts
Wait...kindles are great, great ebook readers, yes I rather have my kindle in my backpack along with my e book collection (around 100) than carrying those 100 books with me all the time. besides kindles do more than reading, and the books are cheaper in digital.
Avatar image for Kcube
Kcube

25392

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#17 Kcube
Member since 2003 • 25392 Posts

I fail to see how anything you've mentioned is stupid. They arent removing or supplanting existing options; they are only adding options that may or may not be useful to you. I could definitely benefit from a touchscreen. I have 6 computers throughout my house. Some of them dont have a monitor attached to them as they really dont need it (like my file/media server), but once in a while i need to perform some basic menial task like updating and restarting the machine. A touch screen will allow me to do so without having to also have a mouse and keyboard attached. I see nothing wrong with voice activated lights or tv. No you wouldn't use the voice as the primary control method for a tv, but for simple quick actions, its great. Just say "Weather Channel" if you're far from the TV or the remote to get a quick glance at the weather. You find the concept of personal flying transportation stupid? Do you also find the concept of cars stupid? Its the same thing but even better. Motion control gaming has so far been a gimmick, but plenty of hacks using Kinnect have made some pretty useful or cool results. And robots are far better than people for many tasks. Perhaps not so much for social interaction tasks like described, but i know i'd much rather have my car built by a robot than by hand. Its the main contributing factor to cheaper cars today. I think you have no imagination.XaosII

^pretty much all of this

Avatar image for zeldaluff
zeldaluff

3387

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#18 zeldaluff
Member since 2008 • 3387 Posts

[QUOTE="zeldaluff"]

[QUOTE="ScottMescudi"]

The Kindle/Nook. Like seriously?

ScottMescudi

My mom got one and said it was much easier to go and buy the actual book.

No offense, but she couldn't just read the thing? I mean does she really need to read a book electronically? :P

It was a gift :P We both prefer physical copies of books.

Avatar image for awesome3496
awesome3496

2208

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#19 awesome3496
Member since 2008 • 2208 Posts
Robots doing our jobs is kinda scary. I don't know if I should trust a robot making my Big Mac.
Avatar image for Overlord93
Overlord93

12602

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#20 Overlord93
Member since 2007 • 12602 Posts
Wait...kindles are great, great ebook readers, yes I rather have my kindle in my backpack along with my e book collection (around 100) than carrying those 100 books with me all the time. besides kindles do more than reading, and the books are cheaper in digital.lightleggy
yeah, I don't understand the kindle hate, my sister has one and it's amazing
Avatar image for KiIIyou
KiIIyou

27199

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#21 KiIIyou
Member since 2006 • 27199 Posts
Robots doing our jobs is kinda scary. I don't know if I should trust a robot making my Big Mac.awesome3496
THey won't drip their juices on your food like people.
Avatar image for kuraimen
kuraimen

28078

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#22 kuraimen
Member since 2010 • 28078 Posts
Development of technology has followed a cycle historically. That means that we create technology to fulfill a necessity, that technology creates further necessities in turn and then we create more technology to fulfill those necessities and the cycle perpetuates. What happens now is that the capitalist system has given companies the obligation to create necessities so it is the job of many companies to do that. Some succeed some don't either way, IMO, humanity looks more stupid every minute specially considering how useless is all the technology we have in solving some of the most pressing issues and in fact, technology is probably helping to create them.
Avatar image for awesome3496
awesome3496

2208

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#23 awesome3496
Member since 2008 • 2208 Posts
[QUOTE="awesome3496"]Robots doing our jobs is kinda scary. I don't know if I should trust a robot making my Big Mac.KiIIyou
THey won't drip their juices on your food like people.

Yes that's true, but what if they take over and start killing us through fast food?
Avatar image for KiIIyou
KiIIyou

27199

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#24 KiIIyou
Member since 2006 • 27199 Posts
[QUOTE="KiIIyou"][QUOTE="awesome3496"]Robots doing our jobs is kinda scary. I don't know if I should trust a robot making my Big Mac.awesome3496
THey won't drip their juices on your food like people.

Yes that's true, but what if they take over and start killing us through fast food?

That only happens when wizards make robots, putting all the secret science things inside em and all that. :3
Avatar image for awesome3496
awesome3496

2208

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#25 awesome3496
Member since 2008 • 2208 Posts
[QUOTE="awesome3496"][QUOTE="KiIIyou"]THey won't drip their juices on your food like people.KiIIyou
Yes that's true, but what if they take over and start killing us through fast food?

That only happens when wizards make robots, putting all the secret science things inside em and all that. :3

I'm pretty sure our world is smart enough to do that. Haha I'm funny.
Avatar image for pokemondude2012
pokemondude2012

5938

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#26 pokemondude2012
Member since 2010 • 5938 Posts
Kindles and ipads are great tech. Why is there hate?
Avatar image for parkurtommo
parkurtommo

28295

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 23

User Lists: 0

#27 parkurtommo
Member since 2009 • 28295 Posts

A touch monitor is awsome, pitty you can't use a pen to draw. Or can you? Those things are more usefull then a 360, that's for sure.

Avatar image for ad1x2
ad1x2

8398

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#28 ad1x2
Member since 2005 • 8398 Posts

You would be surprised what people said was stupid 20 years ago that EVERYBODY feels they can't do without now. For example, 3D was considered a gimmick but it's still here and even put into video games and phones now. I bet the original concept of Facebook was considered dumb to most people (some still consider it dumb now) but that didn't stop it from being embraced by hundreds of millions of people around the world.

The fact of the matter is that not everybody will have the same tastes in technology. One man's trash is another man's treasure, for example. I bought Kinect and to this day I haven't bought a single game for it. But I know other people who are in love with it and think it's the best thing since sliced bread. Touch screen computers may suck to you but other people are in love with them (also, you can get a keyboard with the computer if you don't want to use the screen).

There are stupid things that get invented and go the way of the Betamax. That doesn't mean every single thing you don't like is stupid.

Avatar image for CHOASXIII
CHOASXIII

14715

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#29 CHOASXIII
Member since 2009 • 14715 Posts

Yeah, I think we are at the point where technology has gotten stupid to a point.

Avatar image for Ikouze
Ikouze

2027

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#30 Ikouze
Member since 2009 • 2027 Posts

The Kindle/Nook. Like seriously?

ScottMescudi
Are you serious? The Kindle is a great piece of tech. You'd rather carry around all of your favorite books physically then having them all on one device digitally? And not to mention digital boos are much cheaper than actual copies. It's also convenient for people who don't want to carry around all their favorite books and it also saves up on cash. How is that stupid tech?
Avatar image for sonicare
sonicare

57457

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#31 sonicare
Member since 2004 • 57457 Posts

Electronic backscratcher.

Avatar image for DarthJohnova
DarthJohnova

4599

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#32 DarthJohnova
Member since 2010 • 4599 Posts
Wait...kindles are great, great ebook readers, yes I rather have my kindle in my backpack along with my e book collection (around 100) than carrying those 100 books with me all the time. besides kindles do more than reading, and the books are cheaper in digital.lightleggy
Why would you need 100 books with you all the time? Also, I don't believe digital copies are much cheaper than paperbacks...they tend to be pretty similar. Obviously it's just down to personal preference.
Avatar image for DarthJohnova
DarthJohnova

4599

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#33 DarthJohnova
Member since 2010 • 4599 Posts

I shan't bother with a touchscreen computer until someone develops one like Tony Stark's ;)

Avatar image for cd_rom
cd_rom

13951

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#34 cd_rom
Member since 2003 • 13951 Posts

[QUOTE="lightleggy"]Wait...kindles are great, great ebook readers, yes I rather have my kindle in my backpack along with my e book collection (around 100) than carrying those 100 books with me all the time. besides kindles do more than reading, and the books are cheaper in digital.DarthJohnova
Why would you need 100 books with you all the time? Also, I don't believe digital copies are much cheaper than paperbacks...they tend to be pretty similar. Obviously it's just down to personal preference.

Carrying around 100 books isn't necessary for anybody, but it's more intuitive to use a Kindle than a book. It's also very nice to just download a book on the fly rather than hunt one down at the book store.

A lot of times, technology is developed before people know how to use them. Touch screens have been around in some form for years. They were nothing more than glorified mice. Then in 2006, some university researchers showed off touch-screen gesture based user-interfaces during a TED talk that became the foundation of a lot of mobile interfaces (that Apple likes to take credit for). Things like pinch to zoom, while a simple idea, took people a long time to think up. Then it took a little longer to think up uses for it.

Avatar image for lightleggy
lightleggy

16090

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 65

User Lists: 0

#35 lightleggy
Member since 2008 • 16090 Posts
[QUOTE="XaosII"]I fail to see how anything you've mentioned is stupid. They arent removing or supplanting existing options; they are only adding options that may or may not be useful to you. I could definitely benefit from a touchscreen. I have 6 computers throughout my house. Some of them dont have a monitor attached to them as they really dont need it (like my file/media server), but once in a while i need to perform some basic menial task like updating and restarting the machine. A touch screen will allow me to do so without having to also have a mouse and keyboard attached. I see nothing wrong with voice activated lights or tv. No you wouldn't use the voice as the primary control method for a tv, but for simple quick actions, its great. Just say "Weather Channel" if you're far from the TV or the remote to get a quick glance at the weather. You find the concept of personal flying transportation stupid? Do you also find the concept of cars stupid? Its the same thing but even better. Motion control gaming has so far been a gimmick, but plenty of hacks using Kinnect have made some pretty useful or cool results. And robots are far better than people for many tasks. Perhaps not so much for social interaction tasks like described, but i know i'd much rather have my car built by a robot than by hand. Its the main contributing factor to cheaper cars today. I think you have no imagination.

wait...you actually like the concept of flying cars? how dare you say they are the same as regular cars? im sorry but regular cars dont require crazy amounts of fuel to leave the ground, the city is designed for normal cars, I dont expect anyone to fly over my gate and park his car in my house, and Im sure you wouldnt like to park a flying car in some underground parking lot, also if you crash in a regular car theres a high chance that you survive, and if your car malfunctions you can just pull over, if you crash your flying car not only would you be definitly dead meat at the moment you crash but you would also cause a chain reaction that will make every other flying car near you crash and then you have the falling debris that will fall onto people's head and if your flying car malfunctions you can already saying goodbye to your sorry buttcheeks. flying cars are stupid...try to investigate more about the subject, even renowed engineers say the idea is completly stupid and that it should not even be compared to the invention of regular cars.
Avatar image for coolkid93
coolkid93

6749

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 51

User Lists: 0

#36 coolkid93
Member since 2007 • 6749 Posts
Yes. Just like everything else, technology does have a point where it "gets stupid". I agree that some of the things are useless but they sure can be fun though.:P
Avatar image for lightleggy
lightleggy

16090

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 65

User Lists: 0

#37 lightleggy
Member since 2008 • 16090 Posts
[QUOTE="lightleggy"]Wait...kindles are great, great ebook readers, yes I rather have my kindle in my backpack along with my e book collection (around 100) than carrying those 100 books with me all the time. besides kindles do more than reading, and the books are cheaper in digital.DarthJohnova
Why would you need 100 books with you all the time? Also, I don't believe digital copies are much cheaper than paperbacks...they tend to be pretty similar. Obviously it's just down to personal preference.

I dont know about you, but I like reading, and I can finish a book rather fast, plus I have a varied library to choose from, and I can make annotations in my kindle, study the text or recheck a part, and digital books ARE cheaper than paperback, as a matter of fact most of the old, classic books are free in digital edition while they cost around 10 dollars in paperback...I just got dracula from the kindle store for free, and there are tons of great free books, plus imagine you are on a train and you want to read something you dont have, you just have to get to the kindle store and download the book you want. kindles are much better, one of the most common arguments against is "OH BUT IT HAS TEH BATTERY IT NEEDS TO BE CHARGED" yeah well the kindle battery lasts 1 month per charge, yes, 1 month, and 3 weeks if you have the wireless/3g on the kindle is much better than paperback
Avatar image for XaosII
XaosII

16705

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#38 XaosII
Member since 2003 • 16705 Posts

wait...you actually like the concept of flying cars? how dare you say they are the same as regular cars? im sorry but regular cars dont require crazy amounts of fuel to leave the ground, the city is designed for normal cars, I dont expect anyone to fly over my gate and park his car in my house, and Im sure you wouldnt like to park a flying car in some underground parking lot, also if you crash in a regular car theres a high chance that you survive, and if your car malfunctions you can just pull over, if you crash your flying car not only would you be definitly dead meat at the moment you crash but you would also cause a chain reaction that will make every other flying car near you crash and then you have the falling debris that will fall onto people's head and if your flying car malfunctions you can already saying goodbye to your sorry buttcheeks. flying cars are stupid...try to investigate more about the subject, even renowed engineers say the idea is completly stupid and that it should not even be compared to the invention of regular cars.lightleggy

Or you dont manually drive a flying car but instead pick a destination and it'll automatically get you there in autopilot. Considering the requirements for flight are much higher than that of a regular car, most people wouldn't bother getting a flying license - take out of the equation the need for hands-on piloting and a pilots license - and you've got yourself a fantastic personal transportation system.

The fact that a flying car wouldn't need to deal with the complexities of traffic, turns, manuvering cities, etc, and its far simpler system to automate. In fact, most jets are pretty much on autopilot for take-off, flying, and landing requiring minimal intervention from an actual pilot.

So no, none of your points have any validity to a well done system. You lack imagination. You're thinking of a car with wings. Thats not practical, and you're right.

50 years ago who the hell imagine a car getting 50 MPG like the prius? Well, why not a system for handling private air transportation.

Avatar image for TonyDanzaFan
TonyDanzaFan

2973

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#39 TonyDanzaFan
Member since 2010 • 2973 Posts

[QUOTE="ScottMescudi"]

The Kindle/Nook. Like seriously?

zeldaluff

My mom got one and said it was much easier to go and buy the actual book.

How? You can buy 5 books right on the device at different times. Orrrrrrr you can go and drive to the bookstore, sit in traffic, search the store for the book. Gee, which is easier?
Avatar image for Easports48
Easports48

1761

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#40 Easports48
Member since 2005 • 1761 Posts
I think Tech is making Humans Stupid. Just Sayin...
Avatar image for cd_rom
cd_rom

13951

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#41 cd_rom
Member since 2003 • 13951 Posts
I think Tech is making Humans Stupid. Just Sayin...Easports48
People said the same thing about books.
Avatar image for lightleggy
lightleggy

16090

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 65

User Lists: 0

#42 lightleggy
Member since 2008 • 16090 Posts

[QUOTE="lightleggy"] wait...you actually like the concept of flying cars? how dare you say they are the same as regular cars? im sorry but regular cars dont require crazy amounts of fuel to leave the ground, the city is designed for normal cars, I dont expect anyone to fly over my gate and park his car in my house, and Im sure you wouldnt like to park a flying car in some underground parking lot, also if you crash in a regular car theres a high chance that you survive, and if your car malfunctions you can just pull over, if you crash your flying car not only would you be definitly dead meat at the moment you crash but you would also cause a chain reaction that will make every other flying car near you crash and then you have the falling debris that will fall onto people's head and if your flying car malfunctions you can already saying goodbye to your sorry buttcheeks. flying cars are stupid...try to investigate more about the subject, even renowed engineers say the idea is completly stupid and that it should not even be compared to the invention of regular cars.XaosII

Or you dont manually drive a flying car but instead pick a destination and it'll automatically get you there in autopilot. Considering the requirements for flight are much higher than that of a regular car, most people wouldn't bother getting a flying license - take out of the equation the need for hands-on piloting and a pilots license - and you've got yourself a fantastic personal transportation system.

The fact that a flying car wouldn't need to deal with the complexities of traffic, turns, manuvering cities, etc, and its far simpler system to automate. In fact, most jets are pretty much on autopilot for take-off, flying, and landing requiring minimal intervention from an actual pilot.

So no, none of your points have any validity to a well done system. You lack imagination. You're thinking of a car with wings. Thats not practical, and you're right.

50 years ago who the hell imagine a car getting 50 MPG like the prius? Well, why not a system for handling private air transportation.

do you really think someone would entrust their life to a computer? and you know, not only you would have a flying car, hundreds of other would have the car as well...it will look like a star wars movie, everybody using flying cars, behind you, below you, above you, in front of you, next to you, fly cars surrounding you in every direction, so many on auto pilot, an accident is bound to happen, jets dont have hundreds of other jets at the same altitude/proximity. and yes there would have to be an established altitude, having everyone flying where they please would be extremely dangerous, and not to mention flying cars are bird killing machines. and the cities are not even designed for flying cars, whole cities would have to be redesigned, would you imagine new york with flying cars? do you think it would look as close it is now? its impossible. its a stupid idea which I hope never succeeds. oh and 50 years ago, we didnt had the analyst and technology we have now, so now we CAN tell how bad it would be to use a flying car, while when the car was invented, and even 50 years ago (note: im not saying cars are 50 years old) people could pretty much just speculate. and its a fact that flying cars require more than twice the amount of gasoline just to take off, beating gravity aint cheap, and they are much much more contaminant. believe me I've actually researched a lot on the subject. flying cars are stupid, they will never work, period.
Avatar image for deactivated-5e7f8a21de9dd
deactivated-5e7f8a21de9dd

4403

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 144

User Lists: 1

#43 deactivated-5e7f8a21de9dd
Member since 2008 • 4403 Posts
[QUOTE="XaosII"]

[QUOTE="lightleggy"] wait...you actually like the concept of flying cars? how dare you say they are the same as regular cars? im sorry but regular cars dont require crazy amounts of fuel to leave the ground, the city is designed for normal cars, I dont expect anyone to fly over my gate and park his car in my house, and Im sure you wouldnt like to park a flying car in some underground parking lot, also if you crash in a regular car theres a high chance that you survive, and if your car malfunctions you can just pull over, if you crash your flying car not only would you be definitly dead meat at the moment you crash but you would also cause a chain reaction that will make every other flying car near you crash and then you have the falling debris that will fall onto people's head and if your flying car malfunctions you can already saying goodbye to your sorry buttcheeks. flying cars are stupid...try to investigate more about the subject, even renowed engineers say the idea is completly stupid and that it should not even be compared to the invention of regular cars.lightleggy

Or you dont manually drive a flying car but instead pick a destination and it'll automatically get you there in autopilot. Considering the requirements for flight are much higher than that of a regular car, most people wouldn't bother getting a flying license - take out of the equation the need for hands-on piloting and a pilots license - and you've got yourself a fantastic personal transportation system.

The fact that a flying car wouldn't need to deal with the complexities of traffic, turns, manuvering cities, etc, and its far simpler system to automate. In fact, most jets are pretty much on autopilot for take-off, flying, and landing requiring minimal intervention from an actual pilot.

So no, none of your points have any validity to a well done system. You lack imagination. You're thinking of a car with wings. Thats not practical, and you're right.

50 years ago who the hell imagine a car getting 50 MPG like the prius? Well, why not a system for handling private air transportation.

do you really think someone would entrust their life to a computer? and you know, not only you would have a flying car, hundreds of other would have the car as well...it will look like a star wars movie, everybody using flying cars, behind you, below you, above you, in front of you, next to you, fly cars surrounding you in every direction, so many on auto pilot, an accident is bound to happen, jets dont have hundreds of other jets at the same altitude/proximity. and yes there would have to be an established altitude, having everyone flying where they please would be extremely dangerous, and not to mention flying cars are bird killing machines. and the cities are not even designed for flying cars, whole cities would have to be redesigned, would you imagine new york with flying cars? do you think it would look as close it is now? its impossible. its a stupid idea which I hope never succeeds. oh and 50 years ago, we didnt had the analyst and technology we have now, so now we CAN tell how bad it would be to use a flying car, while when the car was invented, and even 50 years ago (note: im not saying cars are 50 years old) people could pretty much just speculate. and its a fact that flying cars require more than twice the amount of gasoline just to take off, beating gravity aint cheap, and they are much much more contaminant. believe me I've actually researched a lot on the subject. flying cars are stupid, they will never work, period.

How about hovercars? I think THEY are possible. But I have limited knowledge on the subject.
Avatar image for ad1x2
ad1x2

8398

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#44 ad1x2
Member since 2005 • 8398 Posts

flying cars are stupid, they will never work, period.lightleggy

Flying cars will not work with today's technology. However, that doesn't mean a hundred years from now we won't have the technology to have a safe flying car with safety features for if it starts to fall. Also, for all we know by 2050 we could have massive wireless electricity connections powering cars so gas is no longer needed. Only time will tell and while it may not happen in our lifetimes it's naive to assume it will never, ever happen, period.

We have things today that we could have never imagined 30 years ago (who would have ever thought you could watch thousands of movies on your cell phone via Netflix in 1981?) and at the same time even more things we could have never thought of could be here in the year 2081, 2181, or the year 3000. Things you think are stupid now may grow on people in a few years and may feel like a requirement several years later.

Avatar image for 22Toothpicks
22Toothpicks

12546

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#45 22Toothpicks
Member since 2005 • 12546 Posts
This tech talk makes me think of Back to the Future II. What year did they go to? 2010 I think? Where the ass are my self-tying shoes?
Avatar image for ad1x2
ad1x2

8398

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#46 ad1x2
Member since 2005 • 8398 Posts

This tech talk makes me think of Back to the Future II. What year did they go to? 2010 I think? Where the ass are my self-tying shoes?22Toothpicks

2015. We still have four years, so keep hope alive we'll make it to Jaws 19 and Laserdiscs will make a comeback.....

Avatar image for 22Toothpicks
22Toothpicks

12546

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#47 22Toothpicks
Member since 2005 • 12546 Posts

[QUOTE="22Toothpicks"]This tech talk makes me think of Back to the Future II. What year did they go to? 2010 I think? Where the ass are my self-tying shoes?ad1x2

2015. We still have four years, so keep hope alive we'll make it to Jaws 19 and Laserdiscs will make a comeback.....

If I don't get my self-tying shoes the world is in deep caca. Oh, and hover boards, can't forget the hover boards.
Avatar image for XaosII
XaosII

16705

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#48 XaosII
Member since 2003 • 16705 Posts

do you really think someone would entrust their life to a computer? and you know, not only you would have a flying car, hundreds of other would have the car as well...it will look like a star wars movie, everybody using flying cars, behind you, below you, above you, in front of you, next to you, fly cars surrounding you in every direction, so many on auto pilot, an accident is bound to happen, jets dont have hundreds of other jets at the same altitude/proximity. and yes there would have to be an established altitude, having everyone flying where they please would be extremely dangerous, and not to mention flying cars are bird killing machines. and the cities are not even designed for flying cars, whole cities would have to be redesigned, would you imagine new york with flying cars? do you think it would look as close it is now? its impossible. its a stupid idea which I hope never succeeds. oh and 50 years ago, we didnt had the analyst and technology we have now, so now we CAN tell how bad it would be to use a flying car, while when the car was invented, and even 50 years ago (note: im not saying cars are 50 years old) people could pretty much just speculate. and its a fact that flying cars require more than twice the amount of gasoline just to take off, beating gravity aint cheap, and they are much much more contaminant. believe me I've actually researched a lot on the subject. flying cars are stupid, they will never work, period.lightleggy

Uhh, you entrust your life to a computer every time you fly in the air.

Yes, with a well done system, hundreds of others would also have flying cars. That would be the goal: cheap personal flying transportation. Your exact arguments are that same ones someone 100 years ago would propose for regular cars "everyone would have them! They would all crash! fuel would be expensive! where you put them?!"

Which is exactly why im saying that a well done system would make flying personal transportation possible.

Yes, i can easily see a city like NYC having them especially to be able to put to use their rooftops as parking spaces. Who cares if it doesn't look like anything as it would today. Thats the price of progress.

Your argument is "I dont like the idea therefore its impossible. Also, i dont like progress."

No, i dont believe that you've done any research. All you've done was come to a conclusion based on your prejudice. You seriously have no imagination. What if they were electric flyiung cars that were launched from a magnetic "cannon" into flying heights and then using long range induction to keep them charged in the air until they reach their destination? That would cost exactly 0 gallons of fuel.

Avatar image for dissonantblack
dissonantblack

34009

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#49 dissonantblack
Member since 2005 • 34009 Posts

yeah. makes me wonder if the human race is just getting too lazy.

Avatar image for lightleggy
lightleggy

16090

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 65

User Lists: 0

#50 lightleggy
Member since 2008 • 16090 Posts

[QUOTE="lightleggy"] do you really think someone would entrust their life to a computer? and you know, not only you would have a flying car, hundreds of other would have the car as well...it will look like a star wars movie, everybody using flying cars, behind you, below you, above you, in front of you, next to you, fly cars surrounding you in every direction, so many on auto pilot, an accident is bound to happen, jets dont have hundreds of other jets at the same altitude/proximity. and yes there would have to be an established altitude, having everyone flying where they please would be extremely dangerous, and not to mention flying cars are bird killing machines. and the cities are not even designed for flying cars, whole cities would have to be redesigned, would you imagine new york with flying cars? do you think it would look as close it is now? its impossible. its a stupid idea which I hope never succeeds. oh and 50 years ago, we didnt had the analyst and technology we have now, so now we CAN tell how bad it would be to use a flying car, while when the car was invented, and even 50 years ago (note: im not saying cars are 50 years old) people could pretty much just speculate. and its a fact that flying cars require more than twice the amount of gasoline just to take off, beating gravity aint cheap, and they are much much more contaminant. believe me I've actually researched a lot on the subject. flying cars are stupid, they will never work, period.XaosII

Uhh, you entrust your life to a computer every time you fly in the air.

Yes, with a well done system, hundreds of others would also have flying cars. That would be the goal: cheap personal flying transportation. Your exact arguments are that same ones someone 100 years ago would propose for regular cars "everyone would have them! They would all crash! fuel would be expensive! where you put them?!"

Which is exactly why im saying that a well done system would make flying personal transportation possible.

Yes, i can easily see a city like NYC having them especially to be able to put to use their rooftops as parking spaces. Who cares if it doesn't look like anything as it would today. Thats the price of progress.

Your argument is "I dont like the idea therefore its impossible. Also, i dont like progress."

No, i dont believe that you've done any research. All you've done was come to a conclusion based on your prejudice. You seriously have no imagination. What if they were electric flyiung cars that were launched from a magnetic "cannon" into flying heights and then using long range induction to keep them charged in the air until they reach their destination? That would cost exactly 0 gallons of fuel.

Lol no, theres a pilot, and yes, the pilot does a lot of work and without him the plane would crash, the computer does something but most of the time is the pilot working, I know my uncle is a pilot. your "well done system" is literally something that only appears in sci fi books...you know current day computers, and yes we have great computers and have advanced a lot in the field, have trouble calculating the trajectory of a baseball traveling at more than 30 kmh? now imagine how would it be trying to calculate the trajectory of more than 300 vehicles flying at like 70kmh. it would be crazyness, and yes there would be traffic because there would be designated virtual highways so that not everyone go where they please. and that just shows you know nothing about architecture...ok so you are saying that the empire state just needs to place cars on the roof? how many cars fit on the roof of that? how many cars fit on a roof? 20 as much, and parking lots have capacity for over 2000 cars, great replacement huh?