Must be a common thought, first thing that came to my mind was "would anyone notice the pebble if it contained Trump's brain or would it be too small".
American Red Cross doesn't like good English blood! (probably because giants on bean stalks can smell it and get irate at the smell) I've tried several times but they're scared I have mad cow disease.
Don't know if the Aussies would take my blood, they're already mad, but they can't have it now.
Oh please. Spare us your faux evolutionary expertise. Furthermore whatever may be true in trends is not true in the specifics. So even if your pop pseudo-theories about evolution were true, it wouldn't make a bit of difference when talking about individuals - we all know men who can't do a single pull-up.
You look at the population as a whole, not a single outlier. Men are taller than women despite Danny DeVito being short. That's why you try to look at large population sizes.
Of the various antisocial networks, I prefer Twitter to things like Facebook.
Twitter let's you be anonymous. Twitter doesn't track you quite as closely. (I'm sure they still do, but I don't see Twitter getting blocked on my browser for tracking). Twitter doesn't introduce new privacy effacing features and turn them on by default. Twitter doesn't let other people upload your picture and tag it if you're not a member.
Twitter actually serves a purpose other than spreading your vanity. It's a great source to find out "happening now" news and information (understanding much of it is flawed). Twitter connects the world instead of small networks.
Twitter is fairly benign. I'd much rather it survive and facebook die. Shame it is so unprofitable.
I do too... not the ones that display ads on their screens. That's harmless, I don't look at them, I look away.
The ones I avoid are the ones with the supplemental screens and speakers that play at loud volumes advertising their products. A screen I can deal with, a speaker. NOPE. Speakers hijack your ears.
I will never buy a rice cooker with an advertising screen. As long as there is a consumer demand for such products, they shall exist.
You're going to have to lower the price of an application A LOT before someone will accept an ad-only version. 15 years ago they were trying to sell ad-supported PCs on the cheap. People wouldn't touch them. A rice cooker is a much cheaper product than a PC. There isn't enough wiggle room in price to force people to get an ad-supporting version.
Now a refrigerator, maybe. Sell me an ad supported fridge for $100 instead of $500 for the non ad supported version and maybe I'll consider it... MAYBE, depending on how intrusive the ads are and if they don't have sound. (I'd probably sabotage the speaker anyway).
/ I too refuse to shop at petrol stations that play ads. Fewer have them now though than they used to because it does drive away customers.
Actually, I quite like the versatility of the English language, the way one can artistically change word order, and (sometimes) preserve the same meaning.
Well, yes, those too... since the 50's- although the early ones were notoriously crap (there again so are the modern ones).
There's also been flying cars for a few decades now, at least in concept form, not available to public... of course the main problem is, all the concepts had to be tethered to the ground to prevent them crashing... not very practical at all.
1) Safety may never reach that of an automobile- but most designs don't crash if the engine dies or they run out of fuel, most current designs of aircraft/car hybrids will glide to safety. 2) Supercars find a niche market selling cars for hundreds of thousands of dollars. 3) The whole sky is the infrastructure 4) Presumably run on some magic future-batteries... they are improving rapidly. 5) Perhaps.
I think the main reason this idea won't *ahem* take-off any time soon is more down to logistics. Having a few flying-cars is manageable. Having many flying cars would be a logistical nightmare trying to find safe-passage and verify their safety, etc.
Unless this is coming mass-market or semi-mass-market, they're not going to get the FAA's attention to change the laws on these regarding needing pilot license, etc.
What they really want to do is to do to Airtraffic what they did to Taxi services.
Uber is a taxi service that doesn't have to abide by the same laws and regulations that other taxi services do. By not having to follow rules and regulations (By claiming to be ride share).
They want to provide air-traffic service (maybe intra city at first but willing to bet this becomes inter city) without having any of the airtraffic regulations. I bet this has very little to do with "flying cars" and more to do with circumventing laws to get it done cheaper.
They need a big success to life them up after the Note 7.
They have a lot of respect and goodwill from other buyers. I know my wife won't buy any phone that isn't Samsung. (I had one Samsung phone I loved, but I shop around more personally- I'm not brand loyal about anything).
Another mistake like this though would really hurt Samsung. One mistake and most buyers will forgive, a second big mistake and they could rapidly lose market share.
Slashdot Mirror
Not true, at least in the US. It asks about paying for sex, travel, and man on man sex in the history. Not number of partners.
That could still theoretically be bad for a man if he is married to a woman and answers yes to any of those questions.
Must be a typo. Dinosaurs had ménage-et-trois.
Rocks having sex? You're obviously on drugs.
All we need is "Roll" for the "Sex, drugs, rock and Roll" to be complete.
Must be a common thought, first thing that came to my mind was "would anyone notice the pebble if it contained Trump's brain or would it be too small".
American Red Cross doesn't like good English blood! (probably because giants on bean stalks can smell it and get irate at the smell) I've tried several times but they're scared I have mad cow disease.
Don't know if the Aussies would take my blood, they're already mad, but they can't have it now.
To be fair, they probably protested Kmart buying Sears and then going out of business because only old people go there.
When most people will be dead, I will be a scared brain in a jar attached to a robot looking at the desert in Spain.
In less than 100 years doctors will be extracting my brain to put it in a jar and connect it to a robot.
In billions of years I will be a brain in a jar attached to a robot on a portable mini-planet circling a different star.
I'll still be alive. I'll be a brain in a jar connected to a robot, but I'll still be alive.
Oh please. Spare us your faux evolutionary expertise.
Furthermore whatever may be true in trends is not true in the specifics.
So even if your pop pseudo-theories about evolution were true, it wouldn't make a bit of difference when talking about individuals - we all know men who can't do a single pull-up.
You look at the population as a whole, not a single outlier. Men are taller than women despite Danny DeVito being short. That's why you try to look at large population sizes.
No one is saying that men and women are the same. When we talk about equality we're talking about neither being superior to the other.
I must have signed up before that happened. I most certainly have never given Twitter my phone number.
Anyone not white gets painted as a muslim by the racists though. That's partially what makes them racist and the whole point.
Of the various antisocial networks, I prefer Twitter to things like Facebook.
Twitter let's you be anonymous. Twitter doesn't track you quite as closely. (I'm sure they still do, but I don't see Twitter getting blocked on my browser for tracking). Twitter doesn't introduce new privacy effacing features and turn them on by default. Twitter doesn't let other people upload your picture and tag it if you're not a member.
Twitter actually serves a purpose other than spreading your vanity. It's a great source to find out "happening now" news and information (understanding much of it is flawed). Twitter connects the world instead of small networks.
Twitter is fairly benign. I'd much rather it survive and facebook die. Shame it is so unprofitable.
I do too... not the ones that display ads on their screens. That's harmless, I don't look at them, I look away.
The ones I avoid are the ones with the supplemental screens and speakers that play at loud volumes advertising their products. A screen I can deal with, a speaker. NOPE. Speakers hijack your ears.
I will never buy a rice cooker with an advertising screen. As long as there is a consumer demand for such products, they shall exist.
You're going to have to lower the price of an application A LOT before someone will accept an ad-only version. 15 years ago they were trying to sell ad-supported PCs on the cheap. People wouldn't touch them. A rice cooker is a much cheaper product than a PC. There isn't enough wiggle room in price to force people to get an ad-supporting version.
Now a refrigerator, maybe. Sell me an ad supported fridge for $100 instead of $500 for the non ad supported version and maybe I'll consider it... MAYBE, depending on how intrusive the ads are and if they don't have sound. (I'd probably sabotage the speaker anyway).
/ I too refuse to shop at petrol stations that play ads. Fewer have them now though than they used to because it does drive away customers.
Actually, I quite like the versatility of the English language, the way one can artistically change word order, and (sometimes) preserve the same meaning.
Well, yes, those too... since the 50's- although the early ones were notoriously crap (there again so are the modern ones).
There's also been flying cars for a few decades now, at least in concept form, not available to public... of course the main problem is, all the concepts had to be tethered to the ground to prevent them crashing... not very practical at all.
1) Safety may never reach that of an automobile- but most designs don't crash if the engine dies or they run out of fuel, most current designs of aircraft/car hybrids will glide to safety.
2) Supercars find a niche market selling cars for hundreds of thousands of dollars.
3) The whole sky is the infrastructure
4) Presumably run on some magic future-batteries... they are improving rapidly.
5) Perhaps.
I think the main reason this idea won't *ahem* take-off any time soon is more down to logistics. Having a few flying-cars is manageable. Having many flying cars would be a logistical nightmare trying to find safe-passage and verify their safety, etc.
Unless this is coming mass-market or semi-mass-market, they're not going to get the FAA's attention to change the laws on these regarding needing pilot license, etc.
What they really want to do is to do to Airtraffic what they did to Taxi services.
Uber is a taxi service that doesn't have to abide by the same laws and regulations that other taxi services do. By not having to follow rules and regulations (By claiming to be ride share).
They want to provide air-traffic service (maybe intra city at first but willing to bet this becomes inter city) without having any of the airtraffic regulations. I bet this has very little to do with "flying cars" and more to do with circumventing laws to get it done cheaper.
They need a big success to life them up after the Note 7.
They have a lot of respect and goodwill from other buyers. I know my wife won't buy any phone that isn't Samsung. (I had one Samsung phone I loved, but I shop around more personally- I'm not brand loyal about anything).
Another mistake like this though would really hurt Samsung. One mistake and most buyers will forgive, a second big mistake and they could rapidly lose market share.
Antigrav technology would be cool. I don't think we're near any breakthroughs with that yet sadly.
Oh, and I forgot:
Maglev.
Well, we've had flying cars for a couple decades now. We just haven't had any practical flying cars.
Yes, we'll never beat gravity!
Aeroplanes,
Helicopters,
Zeppelin,
Blimps,
Hot Air Balloons,
Rockets,
Shuttles,
jet packs
None of the above exist.