They're trying to hold onto all those little details that Jobs insisted on through the design and marketing of his babies. Without his vision, they're just a headless giant wandering around, trying to piece together their origins, refusing to progress into territory that seems in any way distant from the shadows cast by the deeper artistic vision that cannot be conveyed or captured. Expect lots of this sort of thing.
Descartes logic seems inherently fallacious - Cogito ergo sum "I think, therefor I am", is not necessarily the bottom-level proposition people make it out to be. It's first-person nature leads to an assumption that the self, "I/me" is somehow a fundamental necessity for experience..."I think"...But it seems more fundamental to consider the "I" part to be a thought, as well...There are thoughts, and the thinker that is thinking them is one of those thoughts.
The closest thing coming to mind right now is: "Thinking is happening, therefor there are thoughts". Questions like: "What/who is thinking those thoughts?" are just further thoughts.
An interesting side-effect of this perspective is that it points to a possible 'fundamental fabric' upon which all experience occurs. If a thought/experience is happening, then anything which has any sort of influence on it is also happening on that same fundamental fabric. In other words: 'An experiencer necessarily shares a causal relationship with that which is experienced. Both must therefor ultimately arise from the same universal mechanism. An experiencer of something which also experiences necessarily shares a causal relationship with that thing. Both must therefor ultimately arise from the same universal mechanism. Ergo: Two experiencers must ultimately arise from the same mechanism if either has any experience of any aspect of the other, regardless of any experiences that imply separateness.'
" In the event of some higher power deceiving you, the only proof you have is of your own existence. So even though you and others say that there's no evidence that I'm existing in a dream or simulation there's no way for me to verify their existence." -"You" don't need to...the mechanism does it automatically, by it's very nature.
So there are two broad categories of people that will read this post:
Roughly speaking: approximately half of us BELIEVE that this is a cultural phenomenon, perpetuated by left-leaning media and left-leaning scientists that has effectively "branded" the idea of "global warming", "global climate change", "etc" and that it is, essentially, a ploy by profiteers and politicians to stage a "moral high-ground" stance on the matter to further their agenda which, generally, has to do with increased regulations and economic sanctions. People who share some semblance of this agenda cite ongoing scientific research by numerous organizations as claim to proof that their view is accurate and that their agenda is justified. Half of us BELIEVE that the scientific research cited, in these cases, is at best a highly biased perspective and at worst has been fabricated to comply with the image and branding necessary to support said agenda.
Roughly speaking: approximately half of us BELIEVE that humanity has somehow reached a level of unmitigated industrialization that is causing "greenhouse gas" emissions to increase, unchecked. Half of us BELIEVE that these emissions CAUSED BY HUMANS are changing atmospheric composition in ways that are, and will continue to, alter the climate of the planet. Half of us BELIEVE that these changes in the climate will have repercussions on things like water supply (rainfall/drought), agriculture, animal habitat dynamics, etc, and that while these repercussions are difficult to predict accurately, they are expected to be generally detrimental in nature. Half of us BELIEVE that these detrimental repercussions are happening now and will continue to compound/increase with further unmitigated greenhouse gas emissions that we, humans, are directly responsible for.
Broadly speaking: Nearly none of us will actually go find out the facts for ourselves. Half of us do not feel the need to verify the facts because the evidence is so overwhelmingly clear and we trust the information to be accurate, we trust the people who claim to have the expertise in these matters of science in the same way we trust the people who designed the airbus A380 enough to board one and let it take us to Japan.
The other half of us do not feel the need to verify the facts because we do not trust the information to be accurate, we do not trust the people who claim to have the expertise in these matters of science.
There are individuals among us who fall somewhere in between:
Some of us BELIEVE that there is scientific consensus on the matter and that there is something happening to the climate but that it is NOT caused by humans.
Some of us BELIEVE that there is scientific consensus on the matter and that there is something happening to the climate which can be directly attributed to human activities, BUT that nothing should be done because it would jeopardize the economy, national security, etc...
Time will ultimately tell:
Of these two major and several minor perspectives on the matter - a consensus has been reached through disagreement, in a manner of speaking:
Those who BELIEVE in the science generally believe that the changes will become ever increasingly apparent within the next 50-100 years - That there is a consensual hypothesis that has been made and is in the process of continuous refinement by the global scientific community. This hypothesis will be proven true or false as time passes and as conditions change, for better or worse...With time, if conditions change for better, diverging from these hypothetical projections, it will be taken less seriously. If conditions change for the worse, converging on these hypothetical projections, it will gain more attention and be taken more seriously by people at large.
Those who BELIEVE only in the political agendas, chocking it up to alarmism and theatrics generally believe that either nothing is changing, or that the climate is changing but that there is nothing we can do about it because we aren't the cause of it or
It would be cool to use the eyetracker to determine what objects the player is looking at. Measure distance from the player-camera to the object being looked at and adjust the focal dept of the camera in real-time to that constantly changing distance. The result would be a 2D projection which achieves the illusion of continuously variable focal plane based on where you look and what you look at. Combine THAT with stereoscopic equipment like Oculus-rift and you have one hell of a VR setup.
Juggling has a very long, rich, lineage and a well established community-base. Interestingly, It and many other circus-esque artforms involving "object-manipulation", can now in some ways be considered as paralleling/part of a larger movement/subculture that is quickly evolving and gaining steam - It can be thought of as a festival-culture similar to the jam bands of the 60's and onward crossed with martial arts, dance/jazz improvisation, circue-du-soleil and open-source information paradigms. The community at large has many individuals actively working on theories similar to siteswap that systematically define the dynamics of disciplines similar to, but outside of, conventional juggling.
I've had the great fortune of spending the last 10 years working inside this amazing community as an amateur theoretician, my focus is on another type of object manipulation called Poi. Other examples of object manipulation include: yo-yo's, Contact Staff, Diablo, Hooping, etc. In each case, the discipline involves the skillful manipulation of instruments. Juggling has many MANY different sub-categories that involve the implementation of things like choreography, fire, multiple performers working in synchronization, etc. and the myriad aforementioned disciplines do as well.
My main focus as an amateur theoretician in this field as of late has been the study of spinning as a complement to the abstract language of music. Acoustic harmonics, melody, etc., have a remarkable ability (as we're all fully aware) to function as a language that communicates abstract geometric concepts to the listener. Spinning, juggling, object-manipulation at large can be adapted to serve as a spatial equivalent to the acoustic, implementing form, line, and motion to communicate the very same abstract geometries to a viewer.
A great way to illustrate how we think about this as a complement to music:
Singing: Bio-acoustic - The body alone produces sound as the carrier of the abstract language.
Dancing: Bio-spatial - The body produces line, form, and movement as the carrier.
Musical instrumentation: Instrumental-acoustic - A tool is used to produce the carrier sounds.
Spinning: Instrumental-Spatial - A tool is used to produce line, form, and movement as the carrier.
Siteswap aside, there are actually many more substantial (albeit terribly disorganized) sets of theories which we have been developing and that are actually beginning to resemble music-theory in many ways - complete with their own variations on spatial harmony, melody, arpeggios, measures, rhythm, landscape and song-structure, inflection, etc. As I mentioned earlier, perhaps the most interesting element is watching what appears to be a new variation on the language of music evolving everyday; and it is certainly a humbling experience as a practitioner of one of its disciplines. I'm pretty sure that the catalyst for this rapid progression comes from the internet, specifically social networks and youtube - The sense of progress has always seemed very intense to me and many others because we are essentially participating in a massive crowdsourcing of the development process. I suppose that's what the internet does for everything.
When Jazz started to take off in 1900, the USA was primed for its arrival and it spread like wildfire - I strongly suspect that spinning is following suit now that the concerts and music clubs have started to transform into, or at least share substantial space with raves, music festivals, music videos, and so fourth. Performing arts have never been as visual as they are today and this I feel has primed the entertainment/arts for a turn back toward the spatial. Mix that with innumerable blogs, tutorial videos and enthusiast-forums and you have this giant boiling melting pot of young, creative performers
Fit it with optics and integrate it into a pair of glasses... with this tech, surely VR glasses will be getting smaller and lighter while simultaneously improving resolution.
I find it hilariously disturbing that this technology is being applied to a QWERTY keyboard layout.
It is symbolic to all that is human and is just sad.
But the rest of us, stuck with all of our fully-functional brains, are forced to sometimes contemplate serious matters that aren't so happy. Sure, we sometimes get depressed. But humanity probably wouldn't make much scientific, intellectual, or cultural progress if everyone was walking around every day drugged-up and lobotomized, with stupid goddamn grins on their faces.
The thing that makes us "human" is simply the symbols that our neurological processes use to represent our 5 senses and our memories of them. Without our ego, we are no different from a tree. Spirituality for me is simply the sense of letting go of my ego to the best of my ability, to become more like a tree. I'm not interested in becoming an inanimate object but by exercising existence with less ego I find that my sense of oneness with the universe is more tangible... in fact, it would be more accurate to say that WE (or IT) find(s) that OUR (IT's) sense of oneness is more tangible.
The subjective symbols that my brain use to represent the universe are irrelevant to the rest of the universe. They were taught to me by my society or otherwise inherited by the physiological process of growth and instinct. What is it that makes me different from my rollie chair and keyboard? Why do I have this overwhelming sense of individuality from everything around me? How come my cellphone and I aren't one in the same thing? Well, it depends on your perspective... If you are the ultimate objective observer (say the infinite universe and all of it's dimensions of time and space [arguably god]) then we are indistinguishable from our rollie chair, keyboard and cellphone. To the ultimate objective observer who has no symbols attached to anything, there is no such thing as a "hand" or a "foot" or a "body," everything can be considered as being part of something else or can be considered by itself if need be (Of course no consideration would be needed)
Humans are animals, and like any good animal, we must interact with our environment such that we may survive and fulfill other functions like reproduction. In order to achieve this, evolution has caused animals to have neurological traits that help them function as an individual while they go about their day to day business of existing. These traits involve things like our 5 senses, a "sense" of individuality, memory, an ability to extrapolate concepts into the future... So when we ask the question "why do I have this sense of individuality?" or "how come I have this attachment to this hand, these feet, etc. The answer is simply because it helps us survive... By having a tangible sense of self with a self-serving ego, we fulfill our animal nature, no matter how complex or separate from the rest of the animal kingdom we may seem.
Now a tree has no ego. It has no sense of time. arguably, it has no qualia: color, smell, tactile senses, etc. It exists as the rest of the universe does: Timeless and infinite. Ultimate spiritual transcendence for me involves coming to as complete of an understanding as possible that we are all part of the same thing. That the only thing separating us is the symbols that we have been taught by our parents, teachers, books and televisions. Society acts to bring us together as people and allows us to function in large groups without excessive chaos. But it also acts to draw us apart from each other spiritually by reinforcing the symbols our brains use to define sense of self.
So elrous0, here we are... Stuck with all of our fully-functional brains, contemplating serious matters. But I'm happy. I do sometimes get depressed, but we as humanity can make as much scientific, intellectual, and cultural progress as we want. The limits of how far we can take this species is determined only by how many faces we can get those stupid goddamn grins onto:)
Otherwise what's the point?
It's been mentioned on/. before, but worth mentioning in this context:
A UK company called Reaction Engines Limited is developing a reusable single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) spacecraft. It is intended for exactly what NASA wants: Commercialized operations with rapid 2-3 day turnaround times and a high degree of reliability when compared to something like the STS space shuttle.
It uses a very interesting hybrid rocket engine that is capable of breathing air up to 26-ish kilometers and a speed of mach 5.5 before switching to an on-board O2 supply for the orbital insertion. Reaction Engines Limited has been working on the design for over 20 years, and the design is basically a modern rework of an older design called HOTOL from the 60's. If anyone has $10 Billion, I'd highly recommend giving it all to these friendly people:
http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/skylon_overview.html
1. Attack the plan - Futility 2. Attack the alliances - Division 3. Attack the resources - Frustration 4. Attack the army in the field - Attrition 5. Attack the cities - Destruction 6. PROFIT!
I totally agree... Flying cars have been around for about 60 years. They are called helicopters. If you have a problem, you can land and you're all set. In fact, if you have an engine failure, you can land in places that no fixed-wing aircraft could.
The problem is certification. No matter what, if you are flying a large, heavy, aluminum box filled with jet fuel, the government (FAA) is going to make damn sure that you aren't going to fly it into someone's back yard, or bust boston logan's controlled airspace.
This will never go away. And the problem is that this type of certification takes lots of time and money so not many people are apt to do it. Plus, the FAA has strict requirements as to how these flying machines are built and maintained = $$$
The flying car is HERE... it is called a HELICOPTER. and that is the way it will be for at least another 100 years. period.
Ok, so in addition to beowulf clusters, goatse.cx, soviet russia, etc... I am now thoroughly convinced that Haiku deserves its place among the classiest of slashdot memes.
Slashdot Mirror
They're trying to hold onto all those little details that Jobs insisted on through the design and marketing of his babies. Without his vision, they're just a headless giant wandering around, trying to piece together their origins, refusing to progress into territory that seems in any way distant from the shadows cast by the deeper artistic vision that cannot be conveyed or captured. Expect lots of this sort of thing.
Descartes logic seems inherently fallacious - Cogito ergo sum "I think, therefor I am", is not necessarily the bottom-level proposition people make it out to be. It's first-person nature leads to an assumption that the self, "I/me" is somehow a fundamental necessity for experience..."I think"...But it seems more fundamental to consider the "I" part to be a thought, as well...There are thoughts, and the thinker that is thinking them is one of those thoughts.
The closest thing coming to mind right now is: "Thinking is happening, therefor there are thoughts".
Questions like: "What/who is thinking those thoughts?" are just further thoughts.
An interesting side-effect of this perspective is that it points to a possible 'fundamental fabric' upon which all experience occurs. If a thought/experience is happening, then anything which has any sort of influence on it is also happening on that same fundamental fabric.
In other words:
'An experiencer necessarily shares a causal relationship with that which is experienced. Both must therefor ultimately arise from the same universal mechanism.
An experiencer of something which also experiences necessarily shares a causal relationship with that thing. Both must therefor ultimately arise from the same universal mechanism.
Ergo: Two experiencers must ultimately arise from the same mechanism if either has any experience of any aspect of the other, regardless of any experiences that imply separateness.'
" In the event of some higher power deceiving you, the only proof you have is of your own existence. So even though you and others say that there's no evidence that I'm existing in a dream or simulation there's no way for me to verify their existence."
-"You" don't need to...the mechanism does it automatically, by it's very nature.
So there are two broad categories of people that will read this post:
Roughly speaking: approximately half of us BELIEVE that this is a cultural phenomenon, perpetuated by left-leaning media and left-leaning scientists that has effectively "branded" the idea of "global warming", "global climate change", "etc" and that it is, essentially, a ploy by profiteers and politicians to stage a "moral high-ground" stance on the matter to further their agenda which, generally, has to do with increased regulations and economic sanctions. People who share some semblance of this agenda cite ongoing scientific research by numerous organizations as claim to proof that their view is accurate and that their agenda is justified. Half of us BELIEVE that the scientific research cited, in these cases, is at best a highly biased perspective and at worst has been fabricated to comply with the image and branding necessary to support said agenda.
Roughly speaking: approximately half of us BELIEVE that humanity has somehow reached a level of unmitigated industrialization that is causing "greenhouse gas" emissions to increase, unchecked. Half of us BELIEVE that these emissions CAUSED BY HUMANS are changing atmospheric composition in ways that are, and will continue to, alter the climate of the planet. Half of us BELIEVE that these changes in the climate will have repercussions on things like water supply (rainfall/drought), agriculture, animal habitat dynamics, etc, and that while these repercussions are difficult to predict accurately, they are expected to be generally detrimental in nature. Half of us BELIEVE that these detrimental repercussions are happening now and will continue to compound/increase with further unmitigated greenhouse gas emissions that we, humans, are directly responsible for.
Broadly speaking: Nearly none of us will actually go find out the facts for ourselves. Half of us do not feel the need to verify the facts because the evidence is so overwhelmingly clear and we trust the information to be accurate, we trust the people who claim to have the expertise in these matters of science in the same way we trust the people who designed the airbus A380 enough to board one and let it take us to Japan.
The other half of us do not feel the need to verify the facts because we do not trust the information to be accurate, we do not trust the people who claim to have the expertise in these matters of science.
There are individuals among us who fall somewhere in between:
Some of us BELIEVE that there is scientific consensus on the matter and that there is something happening to the climate but that it is NOT caused by humans.
Some of us BELIEVE that there is scientific consensus on the matter and that there is something happening to the climate which can be directly attributed to human activities, BUT that nothing should be done because it would jeopardize the economy, national security, etc...
Time will ultimately tell:
Of these two major and several minor perspectives on the matter - a consensus has been reached through disagreement, in a manner of speaking:
Those who BELIEVE in the science generally believe that the changes will become ever increasingly apparent within the next 50-100 years - That there is a consensual hypothesis that has been made and is in the process of continuous refinement by the global scientific community. This hypothesis will be proven true or false as time passes and as conditions change, for better or worse...With time, if conditions change for better, diverging from these hypothetical projections, it will be taken less seriously. If conditions change for the worse, converging on these hypothetical projections, it will gain more attention and be taken more seriously by people at large.
Those who BELIEVE only in the political agendas, chocking it up to alarmism and theatrics generally believe that either nothing is changing, or that the climate is changing but that there is nothing we can do about it because we aren't the cause of it or
I bet raping and pillaging acumen would make a killing.
Well... If you can do it with congressmen and senators, then of course you can do it with lower-level stateworkers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Stack a bunch of these screens into a cube or sphere to create a volumetric display.
It would be cool to use the eyetracker to determine what objects the player is looking at. Measure distance from the player-camera to the object being looked at and adjust the focal dept of the camera in real-time to that constantly changing distance. The result would be a 2D projection which achieves the illusion of continuously variable focal plane based on where you look and what you look at. Combine THAT with stereoscopic equipment like Oculus-rift and you have one hell of a VR setup.
How about running for office?
Beehives
Juggling has a very long, rich, lineage and a well established community-base. Interestingly, It and many other circus-esque artforms involving "object-manipulation", can now in some ways be considered as paralleling/part of a larger movement/subculture that is quickly evolving and gaining steam - It can be thought of as a festival-culture similar to the jam bands of the 60's and onward crossed with martial arts, dance/jazz improvisation, circue-du-soleil and open-source information paradigms. The community at large has many individuals actively working on theories similar to siteswap that systematically define the dynamics of disciplines similar to, but outside of, conventional juggling.
I've had the great fortune of spending the last 10 years working inside this amazing community as an amateur theoretician, my focus is on another type of object manipulation called Poi.
Other examples of object manipulation include: yo-yo's, Contact Staff, Diablo, Hooping, etc. In each case, the discipline involves the skillful manipulation of instruments. Juggling has many MANY different sub-categories that involve the implementation of things like choreography, fire, multiple performers working in synchronization, etc. and the myriad aforementioned disciplines do as well.
My main focus as an amateur theoretician in this field as of late has been the study of spinning as a complement to the abstract language of music. Acoustic harmonics, melody, etc., have a remarkable ability (as we're all fully aware) to function as a language that communicates abstract geometric concepts to the listener. Spinning, juggling, object-manipulation at large can be adapted to serve as a spatial equivalent to the acoustic, implementing form, line, and motion to communicate the very same abstract geometries to a viewer.
A great way to illustrate how we think about this as a complement to music:
Singing: Bio-acoustic - The body alone produces sound as the carrier of the abstract language.
Dancing: Bio-spatial - The body produces line, form, and movement as the carrier.
Musical instrumentation: Instrumental-acoustic - A tool is used to produce the carrier sounds.
Spinning: Instrumental-Spatial - A tool is used to produce line, form, and movement as the carrier.
Siteswap aside, there are actually many more substantial (albeit terribly disorganized) sets of theories which we have been developing and that are actually beginning to resemble music-theory in many ways - complete with their own variations on spatial harmony, melody, arpeggios, measures, rhythm, landscape and song-structure, inflection, etc. As I mentioned earlier, perhaps the most interesting element is watching what appears to be a new variation on the language of music evolving everyday; and it is certainly a humbling experience as a practitioner of one of its disciplines. I'm pretty sure that the catalyst for this rapid progression comes from the internet, specifically social networks and youtube - The sense of progress has always seemed very intense to me and many others because we are essentially participating in a massive crowdsourcing of the development process. I suppose that's what the internet does for everything. When Jazz started to take off in 1900, the USA was primed for its arrival and it spread like wildfire - I strongly suspect that spinning is following suit now that the concerts and music clubs have started to transform into, or at least share substantial space with raves, music festivals, music videos, and so fourth. Performing arts have never been as visual as they are today and this I feel has primed the entertainment/arts for a turn back toward the spatial. Mix that with innumerable blogs, tutorial videos and enthusiast-forums and you have this giant boiling melting pot of young, creative performers
Fit it with optics and integrate it into a pair of glasses... with this tech, surely VR glasses will be getting smaller and lighter while simultaneously improving resolution.
Phase 1: Reduce vertical screen resolution.
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!
I find it hilariously disturbing that this technology is being applied to a QWERTY keyboard layout. It is symbolic to all that is human and is just sad.
It would be funny if the pirates in question took Rockstar to court for gainfully distributing their code without prior permission.
Give it a keyboard and it'll kill the Ipad.
But the rest of us, stuck with all of our fully-functional brains, are forced to sometimes contemplate serious matters that aren't so happy. Sure, we sometimes get depressed. But humanity probably wouldn't make much scientific, intellectual, or cultural progress if everyone was walking around every day drugged-up and lobotomized, with stupid goddamn grins on their faces.
The thing that makes us "human" is simply the symbols that our neurological processes use to represent our 5 senses and our memories of them. Without our ego, we are no different from a tree. Spirituality for me is simply the sense of letting go of my ego to the best of my ability, to become more like a tree. I'm not interested in becoming an inanimate object but by exercising existence with less ego I find that my sense of oneness with the universe is more tangible... in fact, it would be more accurate to say that WE (or IT) find(s) that OUR (IT's) sense of oneness is more tangible.
The subjective symbols that my brain use to represent the universe are irrelevant to the rest of the universe. They were taught to me by my society or otherwise inherited by the physiological process of growth and instinct. What is it that makes me different from my rollie chair and keyboard? Why do I have this overwhelming sense of individuality from everything around me? How come my cellphone and I aren't one in the same thing? Well, it depends on your perspective... If you are the ultimate objective observer (say the infinite universe and all of it's dimensions of time and space [arguably god]) then we are indistinguishable from our rollie chair, keyboard and cellphone. To the ultimate objective observer who has no symbols attached to anything, there is no such thing as a "hand" or a "foot" or a "body," everything can be considered as being part of something else or can be considered by itself if need be (Of course no consideration would be needed)
Humans are animals, and like any good animal, we must interact with our environment such that we may survive and fulfill other functions like reproduction. In order to achieve this, evolution has caused animals to have neurological traits that help them function as an individual while they go about their day to day business of existing. These traits involve things like our 5 senses, a "sense" of individuality, memory, an ability to extrapolate concepts into the future... So when we ask the question "why do I have this sense of individuality?" or "how come I have this attachment to this hand, these feet, etc. The answer is simply because it helps us survive... By having a tangible sense of self with a self-serving ego, we fulfill our animal nature, no matter how complex or separate from the rest of the animal kingdom we may seem.
Now a tree has no ego. It has no sense of time. arguably, it has no qualia: color, smell, tactile senses, etc. It exists as the rest of the universe does: Timeless and infinite. Ultimate spiritual transcendence for me involves coming to as complete of an understanding as possible that we are all part of the same thing. That the only thing separating us is the symbols that we have been taught by our parents, teachers, books and televisions. Society acts to bring us together as people and allows us to function in large groups without excessive chaos. But it also acts to draw us apart from each other spiritually by reinforcing the symbols our brains use to define sense of self.
So elrous0, here we are... Stuck with all of our fully-functional brains, contemplating serious matters. But I'm happy. I do sometimes get depressed, but we as humanity can make as much scientific, intellectual, and cultural progress as we want. The limits of how far we can take this species is determined only by how many faces we can get those stupid goddamn grins onto :)
Otherwise what's the point?
It's been mentioned on /. before, but worth mentioning in this context:
A UK company called Reaction Engines Limited is developing a reusable single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) spacecraft. It is intended for exactly what NASA wants: Commercialized operations with rapid 2-3 day turnaround times and a high degree of reliability when compared to something like the STS space shuttle.
It uses a very interesting hybrid rocket engine that is capable of breathing air up to 26-ish kilometers and a speed of mach 5.5 before switching to an on-board O2 supply for the orbital insertion. Reaction Engines Limited has been working on the design for over 20 years, and the design is basically a modern rework of an older design called HOTOL from the 60's. If anyone has $10 Billion, I'd highly recommend giving it all to these friendly people:
http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/skylon_overview.html
Wayland-Yutani, "Building better X-servers"
1. Attack the plan - Futility
2. Attack the alliances - Division
3. Attack the resources - Frustration
4. Attack the army in the field - Attrition
5. Attack the cities - Destruction
6. PROFIT!
1.) Slide rocks across desert... 2.) ??? 3.) Profit!!!
I totally agree...
Flying cars have been around for about 60 years. They are called helicopters.
If you have a problem, you can land and you're all set. In fact, if you have an engine failure, you can land in places that no fixed-wing aircraft could.
The problem is certification. No matter what, if you are flying a large, heavy, aluminum box filled with jet fuel, the government (FAA) is going to make damn sure that you aren't going to fly it into someone's back yard, or bust boston logan's controlled airspace.
This will never go away. And the problem is that this type of certification takes lots of time and money so not many people are apt to do it. Plus, the FAA has strict requirements as to how these flying machines are built and maintained = $$$
The flying car is HERE... it is called a HELICOPTER. and that is the way it will be for at least another 100 years. period.
"R2! We lost number two cupholder! See if you can't lock it down!"
Ok, so in addition to beowulf clusters, goatse.cx, soviet russia, etc... I am now thoroughly convinced that Haiku deserves its place among the classiest of slashdot memes.