MAMEWorld Central >> The Loony Bin
View all threads Index   Threaded Mode Threaded  

Pages: 1

URherenow
Reged: 09/21/03
Posts: 3977
Loc: Japan
Send PM


No new years posts yet?
#335575 - 12/31/14 08:13 PM


Guess everyone must be drunk.

3AM here. 2015 and the world didn't explode.




I will be the last person to die in my lifetime.



Tomu Breidah
No Problems, Only Solutions
Reged: 08/14/04
Posts: 6405
Loc: Neither here, nor there.
Send PM


Re: No new years posts yet? new [Re: URherenow]
#335580 - 12/31/14 09:00 PM


> Guess everyone must be drunk.
>
> 3AM here. 2015 and the world didn't explode.


Not drunk. Just couldn't care any less.




cats love mameowrld | ᴀɴᴏᴛʜᴇʀ CoG ɪɴ ᴛʜɪs ᴍᴀᴄʜɪɴᴇ ᴡᴇ ᴄᴀʟʟ ʟɪғᴇ. | 🎀 α 🍒 | 🍃 ♐ 🌙



Sune
Connected
Reged: 09/21/03
Posts: 5487
Loc: Lagoa Santa, Brasil
Send PM


Still five hours to go_nt new [Re: URherenow]
#335585 - 12/31/14 10:57 PM


> Guess everyone must be drunk.
>
> 3AM here. 2015 and the world didn't explode.

S



jeremymtc
Shot Maker
Reged: 01/09/07
Posts: 1257
Loc: Calimammy
Send PM


Re: No new years posts yet? new [Re: URherenow]
#335589 - 01/01/15 01:14 AM


> Guess everyone must be drunk.
>
> 3AM here. 2015 and the world didn't explode.


3PM on the 31st here. Not drunk yet, but I plan to rectify that shortly.



+++ She probably was texting and calling around. Give that kid to a better family. +++



URherenow
Reged: 09/21/03
Posts: 3977
Loc: Japan
Send PM


word crimes new [Re: Tomu Breidah]
#335594 - 01/01/15 03:52 AM



>
> Not drunk. Just couldn't care any less.

umm... that means you do care.




I will be the last person to die in my lifetime.



igamabob
Mixed Nut
Reged: 09/21/03
Posts: 3531
Loc: Ohio
Send PM


Re: word crimes new [Re: URherenow]
#335598 - 01/01/15 06:03 AM


> >
> > Not drunk. Just couldn't care any less.
>
> umm... that means you do care.

Read it again. "Couldn't care less" is the correct usage. "Could care less" means that one does care at least a bit.



Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.



DMala
Sleep is overrated
Reged: 05/09/05
Posts: 3978
Loc: Waltham, MA
Send PM


Re: No new years posts yet? new [Re: URherenow]
#335599 - 01/01/15 07:15 AM


Happy New Year, ya basts!!

/just a little tipsy



B2K24
Evolution is a mystery
Reged: 10/25/10
Posts: 2447
Send PM


Re: No new years posts yet? new [Re: DMala]
#335609 - 01/01/15 10:12 AM


HAPPY BEER! errrr I mean Happy New Years






URherenow
Reged: 09/21/03
Posts: 3977
Loc: Japan
Send PM


Re: word crimes new [Re: igamabob]
#335616 - 01/01/15 02:39 PM


> > >
> > > Not drunk. Just couldn't care any less.
> >
> > umm... that means you do care.
>
> Read it again. "Couldn't care less" is the correct usage. "Could care less" means
> that one does care at least a bit.

"couldn't care less" ≠ "I don't care"



I will be the last person to die in my lifetime.



Naoki
Reged: 11/10/09
Posts: 1980
Loc: UK
Send PM


Re: word crimes new [Re: URherenow]
#335617 - 01/01/15 03:32 PM


> > > >
> > > > Not drunk. Just couldn't care any less.
> > >
> > > umm... that means you do care.
> >
> > Read it again. "Couldn't care less" is the correct usage. "Could care less" means
> > that one does care at least a bit.
>
> "couldn't care less" ≠ "I don't care"

A good point, however, when one says they "Couldn't care less", whatever form of care might be given is such to a low standard that it's almost trivial to even say it is care at all.



----
On a quest for Digital 573 and Dancing Stage EuroMix 2



Sune
Connected
Reged: 09/21/03
Posts: 5487
Loc: Lagoa Santa, Brasil
Send PM


welcome to the dark side new [Re: URherenow]
#335625 - 01/01/15 07:14 PM


> >
> > Not drunk. Just couldn't care any less.
>
> umm... that means you do care.

No.

This is the first time I've seen anyone criticizing the correct usage of "couldn't care less".

S



Tomu Breidah
No Problems, Only Solutions
Reged: 08/14/04
Posts: 6405
Loc: Neither here, nor there.
Send PM


flying car new [Re: URherenow]
#335644 - 01/02/15 02:03 AM


> > > >
> > > > Not drunk. Just couldn't care any less.
> > >
> > > umm... that means you do care.
> >
> > Read it again. "Couldn't care less" is the correct usage. "Could care less" means
> > that one does care at least a bit.
>
> "couldn't care less" ≠ "I don't care"


You would be right if the term "could care less" were to be taken as sarcasm, but I wasn't being sarcastic.... and I can't imagine why anyone would willingly use said term when being sarcastic. They just don't understand what it is they're saying.

Like, double negatives. "I don't care what nobody says." Which would mean you do care what anybody says.

_ Care a Lot
_ could care less
_ could care less
_ Care a little bit
_ could care less
_ could care less
_ Care nothing at all or couldn't care less

_ Negative range for caring (impossible)



URherenow
Reged: 09/21/03
Posts: 3977
Loc: Japan
Send PM


Re: flying car new [Re: Tomu Breidah]
#335656 - 01/02/15 06:34 AM


"I don't care what nobody says." Which would mean you do care
> what anybody says.

don't = "do not"

And this is not the first time you reverted to the "flying car" thing, even after being corrected multiple times. I am the one that said there ARE flying cars.

You don't learn. Kind of makes you a moron.



Tomu Breidah
No Problems, Only Solutions
Reged: 08/14/04
Posts: 6405
Loc: Neither here, nor there.
Send PM


roadable aircraft? new [Re: URherenow]
#335660 - 01/02/15 08:36 AM


> "I don't care what nobody says." Which would mean you do care
> > what anybody says.
>
> don't = "do not"
>
> And this is not the first time you reverted to the "flying car" thing, even after
> being corrected multiple times. I am the one that said there ARE flying cars.


I could care less.


>
> You don't learn. Kind of makes you a moron.


Kind of?

edit for the subject line. Because I care, obviously.

Edited by Tomu Breidah (01/02/15 08:49 AM)



Tomu Breidah
No Problems, Only Solutions
Reged: 08/14/04
Posts: 6405
Loc: Neither here, nor there.
Send PM


whatever. HNY, don't drink and fly [nt] new [Re: Tomu Breidah]
#335661 - 01/02/15 08:52 AM


in ur roadable aircraft.




Vas Crabb
BOFH
Reged: 12/13/05
Posts: 3727
Loc: Melbourne, Australia
Send PM


Re: flying car new [Re: URherenow]
#335668 - 01/02/15 10:09 AM


> And this is not the first time you reverted to the "flying car" thing, even after
> being corrected multiple times. I am the one that said there ARE flying cars.

There are no flying cars. Roadable aircraft are not flying cars.

> You don't learn. Kind of makes you a moron.

You're stupid and stubborn. Not exactly in a position to call someone a moron who doesn't learn.



URherenow
Reged: 09/21/03
Posts: 3977
Loc: Japan
Send PM


Re: flying car new [Re: Vas Crabb]
#335672 - 01/02/15 11:01 AM


http://www.cnet.com/news/meet-the-aeromobil-3-0-a-crazy-beautiful-flying-car/

http://www.flyingmag.com/pilots-places/pilots-adventures-more/video-coolest-flying-car-yet

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technolo...id-air-17374210

http://www.aeromobil.com/video

Need I go on?

Terrafugia is the only company that prefers the term roadable aircraft. So you're saying that all of the other companies, who actually make them (and name them) are stupid? And I'm stubborn?



Vas Crabb
BOFH
Reged: 12/13/05
Posts: 3727
Loc: Melbourne, Australia
Send PM


Re: flying car new [Re: URherenow]
#335673 - 01/02/15 11:15 AM


The SkyCruiser doesn't appear to exist at all, not even in prototype form, and Krossblade doesn't appear to have sought approval for use on roads or controlled airspace. It's the definition of vapourware at present. Besides which, the CEO specifically refers to it as a roadable aircraft and not a flying car. The AeroMobil at least exists, but it's just another roadable aircraft. Roadable aircraft are not what people think of when you say "flying car".



Gor
Giver of truth.
Reged: 09/21/03
Posts: 1895
Loc: The basement
Send PM


Re: word crimes new [Re: URherenow]
#335679 - 01/02/15 02:29 PM


> >
> > Not drunk. Just couldn't care any less.
>
> umm... that means you do care.

Well, this turned into a fun New Year's thread.



igamabob
Mixed Nut
Reged: 09/21/03
Posts: 3531
Loc: Ohio
Send PM


Re: word crimes new [Re: URherenow]
#335680 - 01/02/15 03:05 PM


> > > >
> > > > Not drunk. Just couldn't care any less.
> > >
> > > umm... that means you do care.
> >
> > Read it again. "Couldn't care less" is the correct usage. "Could care less" means
> > that one does care at least a bit.
>
> "couldn't care less" ≠ "I don't care"

From the song "Word Crimes" by Alfred Matthew Yankovic

"I hate these word crimes
Like I could care less
That means you do care
At least a little
Don't be a moron
You'd better slow down
And use the right pronoun
Show the world you're no clown
Everybody wise up!"

Citation: http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/weirdalyankovic/wordcrimes.html



URherenow
Reged: 09/21/03
Posts: 3977
Loc: Japan
Send PM


Re: flying car new [Re: Vas Crabb]
#335681 - 01/02/15 03:22 PM


http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/new...-lives-17295471

That's in addition to the AeroMobil, which ALSO is referred to as a "Flying Car".

on their page: http://www.aeromobil.com/video

and on Popular Mechanics, CNN, Tech Crunch, businessinsider, digitaltrends, Wired, and many other of those idiotic rag sites/publications that all seem to be intellectually beneath you.



redk9258
Regular
Reged: 09/21/03
Posts: 3954
Loc: Troy, Illinois USA
Send PM


Re: flying car new [Re: URherenow]
#335684 - 01/02/15 05:54 PM


This is a flying car...





TriggerFin
Gnu Truth
Reged: 09/21/03
Posts: 5085
Loc: Stuck in a hole
Send PM


Re: flying car new [Re: redk9258]
#335685 - 01/02/15 06:04 PM


> This is a flying car...

Of a sort we should have had... 13 years ago now.



Tomu Breidah
No Problems, Only Solutions
Reged: 08/14/04
Posts: 6405
Loc: Neither here, nor there.
Send PM


Re: flying car new [Re: redk9258]
#335687 - 01/02/15 07:37 PM


To carry on from your example...

Flying cars everywhere in this here...




At points in the vid he even says "flying car", "space car", and even makes a reference to the Jetsons.


Flying Car™


Not 1 single roadable aircraft anywhere in them there ^examples.



Huh-huh-huh. "Them... There."

Edited by Tomu Breidah (01/02/15 09:17 PM)



BIOS-D
MAME Fan
Reged: 08/07/06
Posts: 1548
Send PM


Re: flying car new [Re: URherenow]
#335694 - 01/03/15 01:27 AM


> http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/new...-lives-17295471
>
> That's in addition to the AeroMobil, which ALSO is referred to as a "Flying Car".
>
> on their page: http://www.aeromobil.com/video
>
> and on Popular Mechanics, CNN, Tech Crunch, businessinsider, digitaltrends, Wired,
> and many other of those idiotic rag sites/publications that all seem to be
> intellectually beneath you.

Press release based articles don't count as facts. That's roadable aircraft. Call it a real flying car when you don't need a long straight terrain and high speed to take off/land like current no roadable aircraft does. We could also name it a portable plane, but not a flying car.



URherenow
Reged: 09/21/03
Posts: 3977
Loc: Japan
Send PM


Re: flying car new [Re: redk9258]
#335703 - 01/03/15 06:23 AM


By every dictionary definition, a car has wheels. That is not a car. It's a hover craft.



URherenow
Reged: 09/21/03
Posts: 3977
Loc: Japan
Send PM


Re: flying car new [Re: BIOS-D]
#335704 - 01/03/15 06:25 AM


The AeroMobil is not just a press release. It is on it's own web site, and they can call it what they want (and they call it a flying car).

When you make one yourself, feel free to call it a roadable aircraft.



Tomu Breidah
No Problems, Only Solutions
Reged: 08/14/04
Posts: 6405
Loc: Neither here, nor there.
Send PM


Try again new [Re: URherenow]
#335708 - 01/03/15 10:44 AM


> By every dictionary definition, a car has wheels. That is not a car. It's a hover
> craft.




Then what use are wheels when we no longer require roads?


Yeah, sure. By definition a mere 'Car' has wheels. That's not defining a 'Flying Car'. That's different.

In the above pic I've provided for an example it both hovers and has wheels. At the very least - it would qualify as a 'flying car' (a car that has the ability to fly and/or hover). And by "Flight" - we mean not having to make contact with the ground in order to maintain mobility or momentum.

Methods of hovering ability, floating, flying, or however you wish to define it's state of being off and away from the ground are numerous (don't feel like listing the different possibilities -atm).

Check this out.



Aren't they adorable?


So, I'm not sure if you're wanting to pin down the definition of "flight" as something with wings, that uses speed, and negative air pressure, to gain lift (or however it goes). But, that's seems to be why you're so hard pressed to defend your stance.



URherenow
Reged: 09/21/03
Posts: 3977
Loc: Japan
Send PM


Re: Try again new [Re: Tomu Breidah]
#335712 - 01/03/15 02:43 PM


The video you posted is not unlike the current hoverboard being manufactured and it's completely impractical. All roads would have to be metallic.

I'm so hard pressed in my stance because the people both envisioning and actually making them, call them flying cars, with only 1 or 2 exceptions. Not to mention a dozen or so reputable news sources. Your stance against it is warrantless and pretty much pointless.

Other than for mild entertainment on the forum...



redk9258
Regular
Reged: 09/21/03
Posts: 3954
Loc: Troy, Illinois USA
Send PM


Re: Try again new [Re: URherenow]
#335716 - 01/03/15 05:50 PM


Well to be honest, if a airplane that can fold it's wings back (or remove them) is a flying car, then it's been around since 1945...



URherenow
Reged: 09/21/03
Posts: 3977
Loc: Japan
Send PM


You idiots are driving me crazy new [Re: redk9258]
#335717 - 01/03/15 05:57 PM


Patent granted in 1913. Most shipboard [fixed wing] aircraft had folding wings by the late 1930's. I've worked in Naval Aviation for over 20 years. I know my shit, thank you very much.

car noun \ˈkär, dial also ˈkȯr, ˈkyär\

: a vehicle that has four wheels and an engine and that is used for carrying passengers on roads


1) 4 wheels
2) carries passengers on ROADS

give it up you bunch of twats.



BIOS-D
MAME Fan
Reged: 08/07/06
Posts: 1548
Send PM


Re: You idiots are driving me crazy new [Re: URherenow]
#335718 - 01/03/15 06:48 PM


> Patent granted in 1913. Most shipboard [fixed wing] aircraft had folding wings by the
> late 1930's. I've worked in Naval Aviation for over 20 years. I know my shit, thank
> you very much.
>
> car noun \ˈkär, dial also ˈkȯr, ˈkyär\
>
> : a vehicle that has four wheels and an engine and that is used for carrying
> passengers on roads
>
>
> 1) 4 wheels
> 2) carries passengers on ROADS
>
> give it up you bunch of twats.


Quote:



Flying car may refer to:

Aeronautical:

Flying car (aircraft), an auto as popularized in either science fiction or fantasy, as a personal vehicle that would provide door-to-door aerial transportation

Roadable aircraft, real-world autos that can legally travel on roads and can also take off, fly, and land as certified aircraft




Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_car


Quote:


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article discusses flying cars in science fiction and fantasy; for real-world flying cars see Roadable aircraft. For similar uses, see Flying car.

A flying car is hypothetical personal aircraft that provides door-to-door aerial transportation (e.g., from home to work or to the supermarket) as conveniently as a car but without the requirement for roads, runways or other specially-prepared operating areas.




Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_car_%28aircraft%29

Roadable aircraft has existed for years and are called just like that, Flying cars not, that's only a press stunt. Being old doesn't necessarily make you more wise, only more stubborn.



TriggerFin
Gnu Truth
Reged: 09/21/03
Posts: 5085
Loc: Stuck in a hole
Send PM


Re: You idiots are driving me crazy new [Re: URherenow]
#335719 - 01/03/15 06:49 PM


> Patent granted in 1913. Most shipboard [fixed wing] aircraft had folding wings by the
> late 1930's. I've worked in Naval Aviation for over 20 years. I know my shit, thank
> you very much.
>
> car noun \ˈkär, dial also ˈkȯr, ˈkyär\
>
> : a vehicle that has four wheels and an engine and that is used for carrying
> passengers on roads
>
>
> 1) 4 wheels
> 2) carries passengers on ROADS
>
> give it up you bunch of twats.

Neither of those qualifiers is accurate, if you think about them for even a minute.

1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliant_Robin
2) http://www.dejongsandcars.com/offroad.htm



redk9258
Regular
Reged: 09/21/03
Posts: 3954
Loc: Troy, Illinois USA
Send PM


Re: You idiots are driving me crazy new [Re: URherenow]
#335720 - 01/03/15 07:04 PM


SNIP
> I've worked in Naval Aviation for over 20 years. I know my shit, thank
> you very much.

NAVY doesn't have flying cars. They have ships, subs and airplanes.

> give it up you bunch of twats.

Name calling. Nice. Lick me!



URherenow
Reged: 09/21/03
Posts: 3977
Loc: Japan
Send PM


Wikipedia? Really? new [Re: BIOS-D]
#335729 - 01/04/15 12:56 AM


Wikipedia can be edited by ANYBODY with a US IP address. The ONLY thing it is good for is finding actual references. Any academic institution in the world would fail you for quoting it.



URherenow
Reged: 09/21/03
Posts: 3977
Loc: Japan
Send PM


Re: You idiots are driving me crazy new [Re: redk9258]
#335731 - 01/04/15 01:01 AM


But the Navy DOES have hover craft



URherenow
Reged: 09/21/03
Posts: 3977
Loc: Japan
Send PM


Re: You idiots are driving me crazy new [Re: TriggerFin]
#335732 - 01/04/15 01:05 AM


Again, Wikipedia. My definition comes straight out of the Webster dictionary.

Your web page that labels it "Three-wheeled car" counts and not my half-dozen pages that say "Flying car"?


riiiiight...

edit:
Then again, why the need to specify "three-wheeled"? Because you just can't simply call it a CAR. Not even the government considers(considered?) it to be a car:

"Despite its size, by being a three-wheeler with an official mass below 450 kg (992 lb), the Robin could traditionally be driven by holders of a B1 category driving licence[4] in the United Kingdom, and registered and taxed at motorcycle rates, which gives a saving of 55 GBP per year over a conventional car."

It doesn't matter for the offroad one in the slightest. You can drive it on roads as easily as you can drive a car on the dirt. You can't (legally) drive a small airplane, with or without folding wings, down the road.

So in conclusion, and after thinking about it a minute, I could eat a bowl of alphabet soup and shit a better argument than yours.



BIOS-D
MAME Fan
Reged: 08/07/06
Posts: 1548
Send PM


Re: Wikipedia? Really? new [Re: URherenow]
#335733 - 01/04/15 01:15 AM


> Wikipedia can be edited by ANYBODY with a US IP address. The ONLY thing it is good
> for is finding actual references. Any academic institution in the world would fail
> you for quoting it.

Feel free to edit it with your own "trusted" references then, if you have any. Let's see how long it lasts before it gets reverted back.

I present you the "Talk" page, something you won't find in an old library book:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Flying_car_%28aircraft%29#.22Flying_car.22_definition

BTW, didn't you bite your tongue? So you trust a random magazine editor or a press release online, but not a group who have discussed and tried to find references since 2006.



krick
Get Fuzzy
Reged: 02/09/04
Posts: 4128
Send PM


Re: You idiots are driving me crazy new [Re: URherenow]
#335734 - 01/04/15 01:27 AM





URherenow
Reged: 09/21/03
Posts: 3977
Loc: Japan
Send PM


Re: Wikipedia? Really? new [Re: BIOS-D]
#335736 - 01/04/15 01:57 AM


"In order to justify a clear distinction between the two, there would, in my opinion, need to be a clearly referenced solid definition for "flying car" that at least partially excludes roadable aircraft. That is, we'd need to demonstrate that they are clearly different things. So far as I can see, there is no such definition, and I think we all agree on that much, at least."



BIOS-D
MAME Fan
Reged: 08/07/06
Posts: 1548
Send PM


Re: Wikipedia? Really? new [Re: URherenow]
#335737 - 01/04/15 02:33 AM


> "In order to justify a clear distinction between the two, there would, in my opinion,
> need to be a clearly referenced solid definition for "flying car" that at least
> partially excludes roadable aircraft. That is, we'd need to demonstrate that they are
> clearly different things. So far as I can see, there is no such definition, and I
> think we all agree on that much, at least."


Quote:


A Google search for "flying car", for example, provides almost nothing but hits for what are essentially "roadable aircraft", many of them for their developer's websites, rather than from general media reporting.




You also point to Popular Mechanics article which states:


Quote:


Krossblade CEO Dan Lubrich argues that the SkyCruiser is not just another flying car. It’s a roadable aircraft that’s optimized for flight, rather than a hybrid vehicle that’s not really great at either.




So far you haven't proved us wrong.



MooglyGuy
Renegade MAME Dev
Reged: 09/01/05
Posts: 1532
Send PM


Autistic twat *nt* new [Re: URherenow]
#335738 - 01/04/15 02:41 AM





Tomu Breidah
No Problems, Only Solutions
Reged: 08/14/04
Posts: 6405
Loc: Neither here, nor there.
Send PM


Re: You idiots are driving me crazy new [Re: URherenow]
#335741 - 01/04/15 03:09 AM


> Patent granted in 1913. Most shipboard [fixed wing] aircraft had folding wings by the
> late 1930's. I've worked in Naval Aviation for over 20 years. I know my shit, thank
> you very much.
>
> car noun \ˈkär, dial also ˈkȯr, ˈkyär\
>
> : a vehicle that has four wheels and an engine and that is used for carrying
> passengers on roads
>
>
> 1) 4 wheels
> 2) carries passengers on ROADS
>
> give it up you bunch of twats.


Nobody is disputing the definition of a car. Edit to remove pointless banter.


...Here's where you can get into 3 styles of these types of vehicles, or Transitions.


1st incarnation: (no pun intended there). Most of the (other) people in this discussion (debate? lol) would agree that a "flying car" is being used to describe the types of vehicles commonly seen in science fiction. Numerous examples have been given already. Jetson car, Star-Wars landspeeder, Wipeout vehicles (although, these are closer to hovercraft since they can't stay airborne, or over a certain elevation), Delorean time-machine (when it had levitation hovering capabilities), etc. Most may have no apparent method of staying aloft, or floating while being idle. That might be the key attribute that you're not getting the gist of. Having a method of levitation. The standard of nomenclature that you'd attribute to this type of vehicle... I'm not sure what YOU would categorize it as. But the consensus seems to be that this is what we mean when we say "flying car". I'll axe you a question regarding ^this at the end of this post.


2nd incarnation: A vehicle with the body of a car, but instead of having a method of levitation, this requires speed to gain lift. Think of the car from M.A.S.K.



Or any other example that requires wings + speed to get off the ground. I, personally, would qualify this as a 'Flying Car'... maybe you would too. A more precise name could be Flyable Car. In order to FLY - this method would be an example of evolving (given, that I'm abusing that term in the sense of equating it with "improving") to a higher, more complex structure.


3rd incarnation: Roadable aircraft. These are vehicles with the BODY of an airplane, but in order to traverse roads, it conceals or 'ditches' it's wings so the wings don't come into contact with other drivers on the road. This can qualify as a 'Flying Car'. For it to take to the roads would be an example of de-evolution (again, equating it with something that is lesser, but I guess added ability wouldn't necessarily be a negative aspect).





The point is: The 1st/prime example uses a method of levitation. This can be anti-gravity, magnetism, or just vertical propulsion to get it up/away from the ground. To involve the ground in any way is to introduce an element that is foreign. Wheels aren't necessary.

2nd example: It's birth/origin... it's HOME is on the road/ground. To take to the skies is an advancement. But, it requires speed and lacks the ability to stay stationary while being aloft. They will have wheels just like a car.

3rd example: It's home or natural habitat IS the sky. For it to take it's mobility to the ground... Actually making contact with the ground!!! is to lower or lessen it's state of being. Not to mention that it needs to subtract it's wings. It's an example of condescension.





Q: So, what would you call the 1st example?

Note: there are some examples I gave that would be more of a hybrid between the 1st and 2nd example. Heck, you could even throw in a helicopter with 4 wheels into the mix.

Edited by Tomu Breidah (01/04/15 07:47 AM)



TriggerFin
Gnu Truth
Reged: 09/21/03
Posts: 5085
Loc: Stuck in a hole
Send PM


Re: You idiots are driving me crazy new [Re: URherenow]
#335749 - 01/04/15 05:03 AM


> Again, Wikipedia. My definition comes straight out of the Webster dictionary.

Arguing that "Wikipedia" means "wrong" is just stupid.
Webster is where, last time the veracity of a definition was cited, I found the incorrectly defined "dekameter." I contacted them, and it is fixed.
The "definition" you're claiming comes from them... it's on the web site, but NOT part of the actual full definition, and even then followed by something you omitted. The definition you chose is geared toward telling someone who has never heard the word before what kind of thing you're talking about, not determining if a thing fits the word.


Quote:


Full Definition of CAR
1: a vehicle moving on wheels: as
a archaic : carriage, chariot
b : a vehicle designed to move on rails (as of a railroad)
c : automobile

2: the passenger compartment of an elevator

3: the part of an airship or balloon that carries the passengers and cargo




To get your "four wheels" back, you need to go to "automobile," where you still only get


Quote:


a usually four-wheeled automotive vehicle designed for passenger transportation




"Usually."

If you want to argue that the Robin isn't a car because of the modifying "3-wheeled" in front of the word, you'll just have to give up entirely, because "flying car" has a modifier in the same place. You'll find it called a car just about everywhere else.


Quote:


In 1998 just before closing down their Tamworth plant Reliant produced a Commemorative edition Reliant Robin that marked the last 50 cars that were made at the Tamworth plant.




Quote:


The car's distinctive shape arose from not wanting a boot sticking out at the back, which had made the car version of the Regal look like three boxes stuck together.




Quote:


Its steering wheel came off, its doors cracked in the wind, and it was voted the worst car ever.




The government definition is for tax and licensing purposes.

To get "road," well, good luck with that.

> It doesn't matter for the offroad one in the slightest. You can drive it on roads as easily as you can drive
> a car on the dirt. You can't (legally) drive a small airplane, with or without folding wings, down the road.

Right. You can't defend it, so forget it.

> So in conclusion, and after thinking about it a minute, I could eat a bowl of alphabet soup
> and shit a better argument than yours.

No, I think you couldn't, really.



Gor
Giver of truth.
Reged: 09/21/03
Posts: 1895
Loc: The basement
Send PM


Re: You idiots are driving me crazy new [Re: URherenow]
#335756 - 01/04/15 03:13 PM


> Patent granted in 1913. Most shipboard [fixed wing] aircraft had folding wings by the
> late 1930's. I've worked in Naval Aviation for over 20 years. I know my shit, thank
> you very much.
>
> car noun \ˈkär, dial also ˈkȯr, ˈkyär\
>
> : a vehicle that has four wheels and an engine and that is used for carrying
> passengers on roads
>
>
> 1) 4 wheels
> 2) carries passengers on ROADS
>
> give it up you bunch of twats.

Your inherent need to be right all the time must be a hoot at parties. That goes for all of you. And everyone else who posts in the comments section of anything these days.

I hope your new year is going a lot better than your New Year's thread.



URherenow
Reged: 09/21/03
Posts: 3977
Loc: Japan
Send PM


Re: You idiots are driving me crazy new [Re: Tomu Breidah]
#335759 - 01/04/15 09:25 PM


Currently, I would call it fantasy. As in the Wikipedia references "science fiction".

I already stated my thoughts on the Jetsons' thing. It's not a car. Not in any way.

But I know someone will want to chime in again and say that it has a carriage for passengers... So does a submarine. It's not a fucking car.



URherenow
Reged: 09/21/03
Posts: 3977
Loc: Japan
Send PM


Re: You idiots are driving me crazy new [Re: TriggerFin]
#335760 - 01/04/15 09:29 PM


>
> > It doesn't matter for the offroad one in the slightest. You can drive it on roads
> as easily as you can drive
> > a car on the dirt. You can't (legally) drive a small airplane, with or without
> folding wings, down the road.
>
> Right. You can't defend it, so forget it.
>

Uhhh... it was perfectly defended there. You're just too stubborn to admit it.



TriggerFin
Gnu Truth
Reged: 09/21/03
Posts: 5085
Loc: Stuck in a hole
Send PM


Re: You idiots are driving me crazy new [Re: URherenow]
#335761 - 01/04/15 10:43 PM


> >
> > > It doesn't matter for the offroad one in the slightest. You can drive it on roads
> > as easily as you can drive
> > > a car on the dirt. You can't (legally) drive a small airplane, with or without
> > folding wings, down the road.
> >
> > Right. You can't defend it, so forget it.
> >
>
> Uhhh... it was perfectly defended there. You're just too stubborn to admit it.

Excuse me? You specifically said exactly what I quoted you as saying:

Quote:


It doesn't matter for the offroad one in the slightest. You can drive it on roads
as easily as you can drive a car on the dirt.




So, yeah. You "defended" what with that?


Quote:


You can't (legally) drive a small airplane, with or without folding wings, down the road.




And here you've said that the very things you're claiming are flying cars, are NOT flying cars, because you can't drive them on a road, which you've claimed is an essential part of anything qualifying as a "car."

So,


Quote:


You're just too stubborn to admit it.





Tomu Breidah
No Problems, Only Solutions
Reged: 08/14/04
Posts: 6405
Loc: Neither here, nor there.
Send PM


Re: You idiots are driving me crazy new [Re: URherenow]
#335762 - 01/04/15 11:07 PM


> Currently, I would call it fantasy. As in the Wikipedia references "science fiction".


I asked for a name, but you merely categorized it as an abstract idea. Well, what if you were the person to invent such a contraption? Then, what would you call it?

No need to answer that one. It's just something to contemplate; and, we all know that by you answering it, you would then have to admit defeat. Simply because there is only one, logical answer. Give the Devil (its) due.


>
> I already stated my thoughts on the Jetsons' thing. It's not a car. Not in any way.
>


In your_opinion™. eta: I wouldn't pigeon hole it as a "car" exclusively, just a TYPE of car. And that's MY opinion.


> But I know someone will want to chime in again and say that it has a carriage for
> passengers... So does a submarine. It's not a fucking car.


Wait, I thought we were discussing flying cars. Now you have to go an introduce fucking cars? Warning: possibly NSFW. j/k


I'll just leave this here. You said I was wrong about the "I couldn't care less" phrase. You say that I, or anyone else is wrong about flying cars. Therefore, I'm confident that that alone settles this dispute.



*cue the end credits theme*


























Edited by Tomu Breidah (01/05/15 01:34 AM)



URherenow
Reged: 09/21/03
Posts: 3977
Loc: Japan
Send PM


Re: You idiots are driving me crazy new [Re: Tomu Breidah]
#335767 - 01/05/15 04:22 AM


>
> I asked for a name, but you merely categorized it as an abstract idea. Well, what if
> you were the person to invent such a contraption? Then, what would you call it?

If you're talking Back to the Future, It would be a flying car. If you're talking Jetsons, it wouldn't have anything resembling "car" in the name. Most likely something with the word "transport" in it.

> No need to answer that one. It's just something to contemplate; and, we all know that
> by you answering it, you would then have to admit defeat.

Not in the slightest.



URherenow
Reged: 09/21/03
Posts: 3977
Loc: Japan
Send PM


Re: You idiots are driving me crazy new [Re: TriggerFin]
#335768 - 01/05/15 04:28 AM


> > >
> > > > It doesn't matter for the offroad one in the slightest. You can drive it on
> roads
> > > as easily as you can drive
> > > > a car on the dirt. You can't (legally) drive a small airplane, with or without
> > > folding wings, down the road.
> > >
> > > Right. You can't defend it, so forget it.
> > >
> >
> > Uhhh... it was perfectly defended there. You're just too stubborn to admit it.
>
> Excuse me? You specifically said exactly what I quoted you as saying:
> It doesn't matter for the offroad one in the slightest. You can drive it on roads
> as easily as you can drive a car on the dirt.
>
> So, yeah. You "defended" what with that?
>

Yes. The off-road vehicle is legal to drive on roads. What don't you understand here? How is it in any way an argument against what I was saying?

> And here you've said that the very things you're claiming are flying cars, are NOT
> flying cars, because you can't drive them on a road, which you've claimed is an
> essential part of anything qualifying as a "car."
>

You're a teacher, aren't you? Your stupidity astonishes me. Were you watching the same promo videos as I was? Showing them driving down the road, to the airport, taking flight, then driving down the road again? There are videos that show the entire trip of people demonstrating their models. Starting from the garage of a home.

This one doesn't start from the garage of a home, but I can't be bothered at this point to find it. This video at least shows a public highway...



Or you could just concede with the manufacturer's own description:

"AeroMobil is a flying car that perfectly makes use of existing infrastructure created for automobiles and planes, and opens doors to real door-to-door travel. As a car it fits into any standard parking space, uses regular gasoline, and can be used in road traffic just like any other car. As a plane it can use any airport in the world, but can also take off and land using any grass strip or paved surface just a few hundred meters long."

This is from no media group whatsoever (even though it's regurgitated on several). It's from the manufacturer's web page. It meets ALL requirements to be called a car. And it flies. It's a Flying Car. Case closed.



Tomu Breidah
No Problems, Only Solutions
Reged: 08/14/04
Posts: 6405
Loc: Neither here, nor there.
Send PM


Re: You idiots are driving me crazy new [Re: URherenow]
#335771 - 01/05/15 08:59 AM


> >
> > I asked for a name, but you merely categorized it as an abstract idea. Well, what
> if
> > you were the person to invent such a contraption? Then, what would you call it?
>
> If you're talking Back to the Future, It would be a flying car.


Thank You. You've admitted (maybe, conceded?) that much -at least.

I'm going to guess you said that because it has wheels, and can drive on a road.


> If you're talking
> Jetsons, it wouldn't have anything resembling "car" in the name. Most likely
> something with the word "transport" in it.


And likewise, you say it ISN'T a car because it doesn't have wheels, and traveling on roads isn't possible.

Well, what if Doc Brown drove the DeLorean to a rough part of the neighborhood and the tires got jacked?


I will assume, at this point, that you're putting too much weight into the definition of what a "car" is (what parts and features make it up), rather than what it can DO (the functionality). As for the (for your sake I'll refer to it as a) 'Hovering Transport Vehicle' (a'la "The Jetsons") ....the idea of a 'Hovering Transport Vehicle' would essentially replace what we typically refer to as a 'car' (has wheels and goes vroom, vroom on the road). So, if one thing is done away with to make way for something more advanced - typically the NEW item takes upon the name of the old item. Please note that I'm referring to it's functionality, not necessarily its physical construction.

An example might be the Wheel. The 1st wheel was carved out of stone. By the time an inflatable, rubberized, doughnut shaped object came along.... An example of what you're doing/the way you're acting would be you stating that the newly rubberized, inflatable doughnut shaped object is NOT a wheel, simply because the traditional definition of a wheel is a doughnut shape carved out of a rock.

Well, that's what you look like you're doing anyway. If you can't agree that a Jetson type of Hovering Transport Vehicle is a flying car (or just another TYPE of car), then at least understand why we think you appear to be so stubborn when sticking by your definition of what a car is.



> > No need to answer that one. It's just something to contemplate; and, we all know
> that
> > by you answering it, you would then have to admit defeat.
>
> Not in the slightest.




j/k





Edited by Tomu Breidah (01/05/15 09:02 AM)



URherenow
Reged: 09/21/03
Posts: 3977
Loc: Japan
Send PM


Re: You idiots are driving me crazy new [Re: Tomu Breidah]
#335772 - 01/05/15 09:26 AM


>
> Thank You. You've admitted (maybe, conceded?) that much -at least.
>
I have never argued that the BTTF version was not a flying car.

> I'm going to guess you said that because it has wheels, and can drive on a road.

Among a few other nuances that don't matter, yes.


>
> And likewise, you say it ISN'T a car because it doesn't have wheels, and traveling on
> roads isn't possible.

Yes. And I will also admit that it does seem quite obtuse but it's the reasoning for my argument that matters (see my closing).

> Well, what if Doc Brown drove the DeLorean to a rough part of the neighborhood and
> the tires got jacked?

Then it couldn't fly anymore. If you look closely, while the forward propulsion comes out of the back of the vehicle, it's ability to overcome gravity seems to be coming from the wheels (which is why they rotate downward; operating concept not unlike the AV-8B or V-22)

>
> An example might be the Wheel. The 1st wheel was carved out of stone. By the time an
> inflatable, rubberized, doughnut shaped object came along.... An example of what
> you're doing/the way you're acting would be you stating that the newly rubberized,
> inflatable doughnut shaped object is NOT a wheel, simply because the traditional
> definition of a wheel is a doughnut shape carved out of a rock.

I get what you're saying, but not the best of examples. A wheel is still a wheel. It has the same function. It could be square for all I care. The rubber just made things more comfortable.

> Well, that's what you look like you're doing anyway. If you can't agree that a Jetson
> type of Hovering Transport Vehicle is a flying car (or just another TYPE of car),
> then at least understand why we think you appear to be so stubborn when sticking by
> your definition of what a car is.
>

Now, the entire argument from the beginning is that I said flying cars are real (they exist). That's it. Period.

Everything after that is in response to the relatively few people here who emphatically say that isn't true. They say it's a "Roadable Aicraft". I say now "Whatever. It's still a flying car". I'm glad you brought up the wheel thing since the square wheel actually sets my view firmer in stone. What you said about it actually explains what those people are saying, not what I've been saying. I really don't care if you classify the Jetson's thing as a flying car or not. Just concede that factual products that actually exist today, are as well, whether they meet your expectations and dreams or not.



TriggerFin
Gnu Truth
Reged: 09/21/03
Posts: 5085
Loc: Stuck in a hole
Send PM


Re: You idiots are driving me crazy new [Re: URherenow]
#335774 - 01/05/15 10:10 AM


> Just concede
> that factual products that actually exist today, are as well, whether they meet your
> expectations and dreams or not.


A product needs to be in production.



URherenow
Reged: 09/21/03
Posts: 3977
Loc: Japan
Send PM


Re: You idiots are driving me crazy new [Re: TriggerFin]
#335775 - 01/05/15 10:20 AM


> > Just concede
> > that factual products that actually exist today, are as well, whether they meet
> your
> > expectations and dreams or not.
>
>
> A product needs to be in production.

Haha! Says who? Wikipedia? How about a business dictionary? Sure, that is part of the definition, but not a requirement. See definition #1.

1.A good, idea, method, information, object or service created as a result of a process and serves a need or satisfies a want. It has a combination of tangible and intangible attributes (benefits, features, functions, uses) that a seller offers a buyer for purchase. For example a seller of a toothbrush not only offers the physical product but also the idea that the consumer will be improving the health of their teeth.

2.Law: A commercially distributed good that is (1) tangible personal property, (2) output or result of a fabrication, manufacturing, or production process, and (3) passes through a distribution channel before being consumed or used.

3.Marketing: A good or service that most closely meets the requirements of a particular market and yields enough profit to justify its continued existence. As long as cars are manufactured, companies such as Michelin that produce tires fill the market need and continue to be profitable.


Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/product.html#ixzz3NvviWnas


Change the word products to "things", if makes you feel better. Doesn't make it any less real.



hmmmmmm
MAME Fan
Reged: 02/27/08
Posts: 56
Send PM


Re: You idiots are driving me crazy new [Re: URherenow]
#335776 - 01/05/15 01:38 PM


> But I know someone will want to chime in again and say that it has a carriage for
> passengers... So does a submarine. It's not a fucking car.

I would say that this is a car...



And it goes under water...fits both the car and submarine requirements.

/Sorry



URherenow
Reged: 09/21/03
Posts: 3977
Loc: Japan
Send PM


Re: You idiots are driving me crazy new [Re: hmmmmmm]
#335777 - 01/05/15 01:57 PM


Would be pretty cool if it was real. Closest thing that is real (and one of the coolest things a redneck can buy)is a camper boat. named in various ways, of course. Here's one: http://www.camillc.com/terrawind.htm

Edit:

Holy crap! I guess it IS real:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...abed-75mph.html

Product page: http://www.hammacher.com/Product/12531



Tomu Breidah
No Problems, Only Solutions
Reged: 08/14/04
Posts: 6405
Loc: Neither here, nor there.
Send PM


Time to invoke Godwin's Law new [Re: URherenow]
#335778 - 01/05/15 03:57 PM







TriggerFin
Gnu Truth
Reged: 09/21/03
Posts: 5085
Loc: Stuck in a hole
Send PM


Re: You idiots are driving me crazy new [Re: URherenow]
#335797 - 01/06/15 07:51 AM


> > > Just concede
> > > that factual products that actually exist today, are as well, whether they meet
> > your
> > > expectations and dreams or not.
> >
> >
> > A product needs to be in production.
>
> Haha! Says who? Wikipedia? How about a business dictionary? Sure, that is part of the
> definition, but not a requirement. See definition #1.
>
> 1.A good, idea, method, information, object or service created as a result of a
> process and serves a need or satisfies a want. It has a combination of tangible and
> intangible attributes (benefits, features, functions, uses) that a seller offers a
> buyer for purchase
. For example a seller of a toothbrush not only offers the physical
> product but also the idea that the consumer will be improving the health of their
> teeth.

What was that again?

> 2.Law: A commercially distributed good that is (1) tangible personal property, (2)
> output or result of a fabrication, manufacturing, or production process, and (3)
> passes through a distribution channel before being consumed or used.
>
> 3.Marketing: A good or service that most closely meets the requirements of a
> particular market and yields enough profit to justify its continued existence. As
> long as cars are manufactured, companies such as Michelin that produce tires fill the
> market need and continue to be profitable.
>
>
> Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/product.html#ixzz3NvviWnas
>
>
> Change the word products to "things", if makes you feel better. Doesn't make it any
> less real.

If it can't be purchased, it is in fact a whole lot "less real."

You, in particular, cannot use any but the legal definition. Because you are the one relying on a legal definition of "car" to make your argument. A legal definition that undermines the concept of language, because it only applies in places controlled by governments using that exact definition. If the Aeromobil, since that's the closest thing you have, is not street legal in a given place, it stops being a "car" by your reasoning when it gets there.



Tomu Breidah
No Problems, Only Solutions
Reged: 08/14/04
Posts: 6405
Loc: Neither here, nor there.
Send PM


Re: You idiots are driving me crazy new [Re: Tomu Breidah]
#335821 - 01/07/15 06:18 AM


> As for the 'Hovering Transport Vehicle' (a'la "The Jetsons") ....the idea would
> essentially replace what we typically refer to as a 'car' (has wheels
> and goes vroom, vroom on the road). So, if one thing is done away with to make way
> for something more advanced - typically the NEW item takes upon the name of the old
> item. Please note that I'm referring to it's functionality, not necessarily its
> physical construction.
>


Expanding on this idea: If 'Hovering Transport Vehicles' (or "flying cars") replace the function of cars - they would then, over time, just be called "cars". I would imagine that if one were to refer to present day cars, they might say 'old cars', 'automobiles', (ha-ha) maybe even 'roadable cars'.


Like, if 2 cans connected by a string could be called a 'phone' (not saying they are, it's just for the sake of an example), then calling cell phones "phones" would be like adopting the term/title of 'phone', simply due to its functionality, not how it's made or what parts make it up.

Edited by Tomu Breidah (01/07/15 10:00 PM)



BIOS-D
MAME Fan
Reged: 08/07/06
Posts: 1548
Send PM


I think I found the root of the problem new [Re: Tomu Breidah]
#335822 - 01/07/15 08:42 AM


At this rate this topic will be closed or moved to the war room, so this is my last post in the thread.

Citing Webster's dictionary 1913 edition, among the many definitions of car, there are some interesting ones.


Quote:


1. A small vehicle moved on wheels; usually, one having but two wheels and drawn by one horse; a cart.

2. A vehicle adapted to the rails of a railroad. [U. S.] &hand; In England a railroad passenger car is called a railway carriage; a freight car a goods wagon; a platform car a goods truck; a baggage car a van. But styles of car introduced into England from America are called cars; as, tram car. Pullman car. See Train.
.
.
.
5. The cage of a lift or elevator.

6. The basket, box, or cage suspended from a ballon to contain passengers, ballast, etc.




From definition four onward it describes "cars" that don't even have wheels, neither four wheels only. Those concepts have been updated or commonly replaced with new words. That's why his concept of "flying car" are what we actually know as "roadable aircraft". Something that has been invented in the 1930's and through the time has acquired such term. And it's also the reason current concepts of "car" include definitions like "(dated) A wheeled vehicle, drawn by a horse or other animal" or "archaic: carriage, chariot".

So, and just like Tomu Breidah says, if such contraptions like "Hovering Transport Vehicles" ever exist they will be simply called "cars" too. And the four wheeled motor car will be yet another dated or archaic term.

In short, all this time we were defining current terms to a guy thinking as if he still lives in the beginning of the past century. An so far, given the people who has participated in this thread, few or almost no one shares his definition of a flying car. Also, if I were a magazine or salesman trying to bring attention to my product, of course I will be calling "flying car" to something that essentially is "roadable aircraft".






URherenow
Reged: 09/21/03
Posts: 3977
Loc: Japan
Send PM


Re: You idiots are driving me crazy new [Re: TriggerFin]
#335850 - 01/08/15 01:09 PM


>
> What was that again?
>

That was you. ASSUMING that nobody has purchased one from them. Both their 2.0 prototype and their 2.5 prototype was sold. If you offered them enough, I'm sure they'd sell you the 3.0.

But you just couldn't stand to change the word to "things" in your head. Either way, the joke is on you.

>
> If it can't be purchased, it is in fact a whole lot "less real."
>

Mute point, but if they had never sold anything... was the video CG? Was the guy driving his imagination down the highway?

I'll just add this to the mix too before leaving the thread alone for good:

http://www.terrafugia.com/
"We make Flying Cars"

You can give them money to 'reserve' yours right now. So... they've demonstrated it, some company members OTHER THAN the test pilot have flown it, and you can put money down on it. Lets see... one of those definitions was an "idea", even, wasn't it? I guess this is a product!

No more replies from me either. This was ridiculous a week ago.

Lock it, move it, or Delete it Smitt!



Gor
Giver of truth.
Reged: 09/21/03
Posts: 1895
Loc: The basement
Send PM


Re: Autistic twat *nt* new [Re: MooglyGuy]
#335853 - 01/08/15 04:46 PM


Uh oh, uh oh. On December 31st, 2014, Tom said he couldn't care any less. Yeah, that definitely, definitely means he does care.



BIOS-D
MAME Fan
Reged: 08/07/06
Posts: 1548
Send PM


Re: You idiots are driving me crazy new [Re: URherenow]
#335858 - 01/08/15 09:41 PM


> I'll just add this to the mix too before leaving the thread alone for good:
>
> http://www.terrafugia.com/
> "We make Flying Cars"
>

http://web.archive.org/web/20060415012251/http://terrafugia.com/vehicle.htm


Quote:


People have dreamed of roadable aircraft since 1918 when Felix Longobardi was issued the first patent for a vehicle capable of both driving on surface roads and flying through the air. The most well known, and arguably most successful roadable aircraft was developed in the 1950s and 60s by Molt Taylor. Although his design was never mass produced and does suffer from a number of practical drawbacks, there are a handful of prototypes that were built and are capable of both flying and driving. There are also many visionaries developing their own concepts for a roadable aircraft. A fairly comprehensive listing of vehicles of this type along with their espousers is available at the Roadable Times website.

This plurality of concepts shows that there is a perceived need for a vehicle of this type. Unfortunately, the cost/benefit of these vehicles (both in terms of development and design compromises that must be made to build a vehicle like this) never justified serious financial backing – the real need was not sufficiently acute to justify the performance sacrifices of a dual use vehicle. Consequently, the ‘flying car' was relegated to the realm of lone inventors or visionaries that had the desire but not the resources/capability to build a practical, commercially viable entity around its sale to the global general aviation community.

Terrafugia is the company that will change this paradigm and be the first to successfully bring a roadable personal air vehicle to the general aviation marketplace.




The only use of 'flying car' has quotes as a nickname. My guess is that some PR came and said "hey!, let's call it a flying car so we can call for investors". Of course a public relations agency, a person without knowledge in the field or a man living in the mid-past century won't tell the difference between both terms.



TriggerFin
Gnu Truth
Reged: 09/21/03
Posts: 5085
Loc: Stuck in a hole
Send PM


Re: You idiots are driving me crazy new [Re: URherenow]
#335859 - 01/08/15 09:51 PM


> >
> > What was that again?
> >
>
> That was you. ASSUMING that nobody has purchased one from them.

No. That was in fact, as the highlighted text you didn't quote demonstrates, you directly contradicting yourself.

Also, "moot."



Tomu Breidah
No Problems, Only Solutions
Reged: 08/14/04
Posts: 6405
Loc: Neither here, nor there.
Send PM


Shuddup... eh.... HITLER! new [Re: Gor]
#335867 - 01/09/15 12:40 AM


> Uh oh, uh oh. On December 31st, 2014, Tom said he couldn't care any less. Yeah, that
> definitely, definitely means he does care.




I claimed to not care (where caring less would be impossible), yet, by replying, or giving attention to the matter, revealed that I did indeed care to some infinitesimally small degree, therefore, contradicting myself.



Tomu Breidah
No Problems, Only Solutions
Reged: 08/14/04
Posts: 6405
Loc: Neither here, nor there.
Send PM


Hitler, Schmittler... come on! new [Re: Tomu Breidah]
#335868 - 01/09/15 12:56 AM


> > Uh oh, uh oh. On December 31st, 2014, Tom said he couldn't care any less. Yeah,
> that
> > definitely, definitely means he does care.
>
>
> I claimed to not care (where caring less would be impossible), yet, by replying, or
> giving attention to the matter, revealed that I did indeed care to some
> infinitesimally small degree, therefore, contradicting myself.


No. The focus of caring wasn't on 'celebrating new years', to which, I care nothing of, but rather to notifying Urherenow that I didn't care. Emphasis on informing Urherenow of how much New Years is just another day, and is no more worthy of a celebration than 'Happy New Second'.

I mean, why put emphasis on a mere year? Why not a Happy New Day?



365 parties would get old pretty quick.



Tomu Breidah
No Problems, Only Solutions
Reged: 08/14/04
Posts: 6405
Loc: Neither here, nor there.
Send PM


Re: Hitler, Schmittler... come on! new [Re: Tomu Breidah]
#335869 - 01/09/15 01:02 AM


> > > Uh oh, uh oh. On December 31st, 2014, Tom said he couldn't care any less. Yeah,
> > that
> > > definitely, definitely means he does care.
> >
> >
> > I claimed to not care (where caring less would be impossible), yet, by replying, or
> > giving attention to the matter, revealed that I did indeed care to some
> > infinitesimally small degree, therefore, contradicting myself.
>
>
> No. The focus of caring was on 'celebrating new years', to which, I care nothing of,
> but rather to notifying Urherenow that I didn't care. Emphasis on informing Urherenow
> of how much New Years is just another day, and is no more worthy of a celebration
> than 'Happy New Second'.
>
> I mean, why put emphasis on a mere year? Why not a Happy New Day?
>
>
> 365 parties would get old pretty quick.


I'm going to pretend to not know what you're talking about in order to prop up my own argument. I know people that have a similar opinion to mine. I promise you this... If I was your next door neighbor I'd come over, knock on your door, and as you come up to the window to peek outside to see who's knocking - I'd thrust a chainsaw through the door and gut your stupid ass from the outdoors... on your fucking porch!



Traso
MAME Fan
Reged: 01/15/13
Posts: 2688
Send PM


Re: Hitler, Schmittler... come on! new [Re: Tomu Breidah]
#335873 - 01/09/15 01:32 AM


> I'm going to pretend to not know what you're talking about in order to prop up my own argument. I know people that have a similar opinion to mine. I promise you this... If I was your next door neighbor I'd come over, knock on your door, and as you come up to the window to peek outside to see who's knocking - I'd thrust a chainsaw through the door and gut your stupid ass from the outdoors... on your fucking porch!



Uummm. So, who fucking cares about these plane cars, or car planes, or...... They're not going to contribute one wit of benefit to life at large.....



Vas Crabb
BOFH
Reged: 12/13/05
Posts: 3727
Loc: Melbourne, Australia
Send PM


Re: You idiots are driving me crazy new [Re: URherenow]
#335877 - 01/09/15 02:08 AM


> Mute point, but if they had never sold anything...

Considering this whole thing started with you accusing T0M of "word crimes", it's pretty funny that you get "moot point" wrong.



Tomu Breidah
No Problems, Only Solutions
Reged: 08/14/04
Posts: 6405
Loc: Neither here, nor there.
Send PM


Re: Hitler, Schmittler... come on! new [Re: Traso]
#335879 - 01/09/15 02:20 AM


> > I'm going to pretend to not know what you're talking about in order to prop up my
> own argument. I know people that have a similar opinion to mine. I promise you
> this... If I was your next door neighbor I'd come over, knock on your door, and as
> you come up to the window to peek outside to see who's knocking - I'd thrust a
> chainsaw through the door and gut your stupid ass from the outdoors... on your
> fucking porch!
>
>
> Uummm. So, who fucking cares about these plane cars, or car planes, or...... They're
> not going to contribute one wit of benefit to life at large.....


It has nothing to do with flying fark. Its the Keyboard Warrior battle-ground in the spirit of one-up-man ship and getting the last word in. What's not to love about that?




BIOS-D
MAME Fan
Reged: 08/07/06
Posts: 1548
Send PM


Re: Hitler, Schmittler... come on! new [Re: Traso]
#335880 - 01/09/15 03:00 AM


> Uummm. So, who fucking cares about these plane cars, or car planes, or...... They're
> not going to contribute one wit of benefit to life at large.....

If you're talking about roadable aircraft that's right, car or not is just another plane who could be driven on roads. You need a pilot license, flight experience and take many risks other than driving because that thing doesn't brake in air. If people have problems driving cars and are potential projectiles, imagine a whole bunch of roadable aircraft on highways and airports.

That's why people care about the current idea of a flying car. A vehicle that hovers somehow at fixed altitudes and speeds. Capable of stabilize and move at worst like a quadcopter, with proximity detectors and optionally have an automatic navigation system which connects to a locale traffic control network for in between communication. Basically something that can be driven by anyone with minor requirements like a wheeled car and it doesn't require a commercial pilot career to use like current roadable aircraft does.

Is it science fiction? Yes. Are we far away from that? Of course. But that's what people on this century understands as a 'flying car'. Right now it's called 'flying car' because like in the 1930's, the concept of roadable aircraft wasn't known. 'Flying car' is the equivalent to say "that thing that flies and looks like a car" when it hasn't been conceived before, you're not a military professional or you haven't heard about the correct term before.



Traso
MAME Fan
Reged: 01/15/13
Posts: 2688
Send PM


Re: Hitler, Schmittler... come on! new [Re: BIOS-D]
#335900 - 01/10/15 06:22 AM


> Is it science fiction? Yes. Are we far away from that? Of course. But that's what people on this century understands as a 'flying car'. Right now it's called 'flying car' because like in the 1930's, the concept of roadable aircraft wasn't known. 'Flying car' is the equivalent to say "that thing that flies and looks like a car" when it hasn't been conceived before, you're not a military professional or you haven't heard about the correct term before.


I'm apparently a bit more intelligent than that. Top-down, yo. As for automated air travel, if the travel lanes aren't shorter-route, then it's a ridiculous idea.

All this little boy hubbub to make nonsensical toys.......



Bad A Billy
Oop Ack!
Reged: 12/27/07
Posts: 851
Loc: Outland
Send PM


Any seconds? new [Re: URherenow]
#335901 - 01/10/15 06:23 AM





Traso
MAME Fan
Reged: 01/15/13
Posts: 2688
Send PM


Re: You idiots are driving me crazy new [Re: Vas Crabb]
#335902 - 01/10/15 06:27 AM


> Considering this whole thing started with you accusing T0M of "word crimes", it's pretty funny that you get "moot point" wrong.


I don't what's up with Bobbie...... (just came to mind, and seems to fit....)



BIOS-D
MAME Fan
Reged: 08/07/06
Posts: 1548
Send PM


Re: Hitler, Schmittler... come on! new [Re: Traso]
#335904 - 01/10/15 08:14 AM


> I'm apparently a bit more intelligent than that. Top-down, yo. As for automated air
> travel, if the travel lanes aren't shorter-route, then it's a ridiculous idea.
>
> All this little boy hubbub to make nonsensical toys.......

Not ridiculous at all. If a destiny lane is busy then a locale traffic system would create a new route or the same at a different altitude. The point would be to short travel by time and distance and avoid traffic jams as possible. No one would like countless of cars filling the airspace without a control tower. But again, everything is still fiction. There are many things to fix first with current cars to get there.


Pages: 1

MAMEWorld Central >> The Loony Bin
View all threads Index   Threaded Mode Threaded  

Extra information Permissions
Moderator:  Gatinho 
0 registered and 36 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is enabled
UBBCode is enabled
Thread views: 8139