0864: "Flying Cars"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

Maurits
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2010 8:14 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 0864: "Flying Cars"

Postby Maurits » Wed Feb 23, 2011 11:48 pm UTC

The "where's my flying car" reference was used in one of the 2000-era IBM commercials. Paraphrasing from memory:

It's the year 2000. Where's my flying car? I was promised flying cars.
In the year 2000 we have the internet. We have cell phones. We have IBM custom business solutions. We don't need flying cars.

EDIT: found it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzm6pvHPSGo

jordan10la
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 12:26 am UTC

Re: 0864: "Flying Cars"

Postby jordan10la » Thu Feb 24, 2011 12:28 am UTC

In alt text did anyone else initially read "android Realdoll" as meaning a Realdoll powered by Android OS?

User avatar
ImTestingSleeping
Posts: 88
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 3:46 am UTC

Re: 0864: "Flying Cars"

Postby ImTestingSleeping » Thu Feb 24, 2011 12:57 am UTC

JamesGecko wrote:
ImTestingSleeping wrote:I don't care about flying cars. I want holograms. Life would be better with holograms. Blue ones which flicker occasionally.


We have those already. They're called Heliodisplays, and they cost like 58,000 USD.

Although slightly less wavy displays that were actually practical/affordable for normal people would also be cool.

Edit: Oh, wait. These aren't true holograms. Sadness.


That's genius. I'm still happier for seeing that, true hologram or not.

kentonkirk
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 1:54 am UTC

Re: 0864: "Flying Cars"

Postby kentonkirk » Thu Feb 24, 2011 1:55 am UTC

There are flying cars now:

Video:

http://www.eaavideo.org/video.aspx?v=635469588001

Article in Popular Mechanics:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/news/vintage-speed/maverick-flying-car-now-legal

couldbne1
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 2:24 am UTC

Re: 0864: "Flying Cars"

Postby couldbne1 » Thu Feb 24, 2011 2:27 am UTC

Flying cars... yep, those would be swell.

But what I really want is a domesticated otter. How come we haven't gotten around to that yet? Otters have been around for millenia. We've been around for millenia. I can't be the first person who's thought of this.

User avatar
arbivark
Posts: 531
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 5:29 am UTC

Re: 0864: "Flying Cars"

Postby arbivark » Thu Feb 24, 2011 2:39 am UTC

savanik wrote:What need do we have for flying cars when we no longer need to... fly?
Getting groceries? Food delivered to house.

Yeah, but imagine pizza girl had a flying car.

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: 0864: "Flying Cars"

Postby omgryebread » Thu Feb 24, 2011 3:10 am UTC

I'd be fine with just a hovercar. No need to actually fly, just like 5 feet of the ground would be awesome.

More importantly though, is the question of why I'm not a cyborg yet. Brain -> Fingers -> Phone -> Wikipedia is too many steps in that interface.
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

mschmidt62
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 4:09 am UTC

Re: 0864: "Flying Cars"

Postby mschmidt62 » Thu Feb 24, 2011 5:07 am UTC

There are obviously two types of people in the world--people who read this comic and think about flying cars, and people who read this comic and can only think about the female not wearing a shirt.

I'd have to put myself in the second category, I'm afraid.

scarletmanuka
Posts: 533
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 4:29 am UTC
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: 0864: "Flying Cars"

Postby scarletmanuka » Thu Feb 24, 2011 6:38 am UTC

jimhsu wrote:The problem with these assertions is that they could easily apply to regular cars ... back in the 1900s.

2. We certainly didn't have traffic control back then; that was as much of a problem then as flying cars are now.[...]
2B. "You mean we have to enforce our border"? But that's ... hundreds of miles! Same argument applied with motor vehicles as will apply to flying cars.

This is incorrect. Early motor cars went along existing roads, not (usually) cross-country. Yes, traffic control systems have had many refinements since then as the volume of traffic has increased, but the most basic control structure existed before cars. That turns the traffic problem from a two-dimensional area problem to a one-dimensional network problem, simplifying it enormously. Can you imagine how much harder traffic control would be if cars weren't confined to the road network? Now take that and add a vertical dimension as well.

A similar objection applies to the border control issue. It's somewhat different because often you'll have people trying to sneak in cross-country, so we have to defend the one-dimensional boundary of a two-dimensional land area (though we can focus our efforts along the road entry points, an advantage that should not be discounted). Once you add an extra dimension of travel, the problem becomes much harder. You also have jurisdictional issues; how high up does national jurisdiction extend?

There's another point I recall from Bob Shaw's Terminal Velocity. Careless or willfully destructive people could cause a great deal of damage by dropping solid objects from great heights. (In this context, imagine the aftereffects of a collision between two flying cars.)

Posthumane wrote:To all those who don't like the idea of "the average Joe" being able to fly around due to security concerns or fear of another "9/11" - what do you think of the thousands of private aircraft flying around north america?

The issue is one of scale. With only a few thousand, the number of interactions is relatively low. If there were a hundred million of them, it would be far different. Remember that, to a first approximation, the number of interactions (and hence collisions) goes as the square of the number in use.

ImTestingSleeping wrote:More than flying cars I would like to see better subways and train systems in the US. I think most people realize incentivized public transportation is the future. They're also being made faster and more efficient which is exciting to see. [...]
What do you think?

As a public transport user myself, it sounds nice, but there are some very serious difficulties; nitePhyyre pointed out some but by no means all of them. (Are you really going to have high-frequency transport operating to all residential areas at all hours of the day and night? That'll waste a huge amount of capacity in non-peak periods, which will eat your cost savings right up. If not, how do you handle the few people who do need to travel at 2am?) Here are some others:
- What are the frail, elderly, or disabled supposed to do - the people who can't walk to their nearest shuttle stop? Families with several small children?
- How are you supposed to manage doing the weekly shopping for a large family?
- How do you go about buying large items that won't fit on public transport? Do you mandate that all retailers of such things offer home delivery, and everyone has to use it?
- How do you move house?
- What do you do if you need to take someone to the hospital urgently? Does everyone have to use an ambulance service? If so, funding that will eat into your cost savings too.
- What do you do if you need to take someone to the hospital non-urgently who is not in a fit condition to use public transport (e.g. vomiting frequently)?
- What about doctors and other professionals who may be on call in the middle of the night?
- How do tradespeople operate?

Basically there are two main areas of difficulty. The first is cargo capacity and the second is flexibility. I'm all for increasing the use of public transport, but it can't replace personal transport unless these problems are solved, and both by nature decrease the efficiency of a transport system (more cargo space means less passenger space; flexibility leads to unused capacity). There's potential for public transport to be increased significantly for routine commuting, but it's not suited to these other uses.

User avatar
Plasma Mongoose
Posts: 213
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 1:09 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 0864: "Flying Cars"

Postby Plasma Mongoose » Thu Feb 24, 2011 9:29 am UTC

couldbne1 wrote:Flying cars... yep, those would be swell.

But what I really want is a domesticated otter. How come we haven't gotten around to that yet? Otters have been around for millenia. We've been around for millenia. I can't be the first person who's thought of this.


We humans have been slack when it comes to domesticating animals in the past several thousand years, if our ancient ancestors could do it, why the hell can't we?

Thye best thing about otters is they don't need tables, they got perfectly good tummies.
A virus walks into a bar, the bartender says "We don't serve viruses in here".
The virus replaces the bartender and says "Now we do!"

User avatar
snowyowl
Posts: 464
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 7:36 pm UTC

Re: 0864: "Flying Cars"

Postby snowyowl » Thu Feb 24, 2011 4:20 pm UTC

omgryebread wrote:More importantly though, is the question of why I'm not a cyborg yet. Brain -> Fingers -> Phone -> Wikipedia is too many steps in that interface.

Hmm... let's say, 2050 before we can remove one of those steps?
The preceding comment is an automated response.

User avatar
BioTube
Posts: 362
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 2:11 am UTC

Re: 0864: "Flying Cars"

Postby BioTube » Thu Feb 24, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Plasma Mongoose wrote:We humans have been slack when it comes to domesticating animals in the past several thousand years, if our ancient ancestors could do it, why the hell can't we?
The Soviets domesticated the gray fox(getting behavior that matched dogs' by a surprising amount), but I believe that line's died out.
Basically there are two main areas of difficulty. The first is cargo capacity and the second is flexibility. I'm all for increasing the use of public transport, but it can't replace personal transport unless these problems are solved, and both by nature decrease the efficiency of a transport system (more cargo space means less passenger space; flexibility leads to unused capacity). There's potential for public transport to be increased significantly for routine commuting, but it's not suited to these other uses.
As I mentioned earlier, had mass transit not been taken over by the government, the sheer amount of time that could've been used productively there would probably have seen us a solution(or, perhaps, more accommodation for the limitation from other sectors of the economy; without government roads, for example, our demographics would adjust to the last-mile issues(well, they already were, so it'd be more a matter of urban sprawl being prevented)). A lot of our problems today are caused by government bureaucrats deciding "anything you can do I can do better" and then showing the world that no, they can't.
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.

User avatar
J L
Posts: 242
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 11:03 am UTC
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: 0864: "Flying Cars"

Postby J L » Thu Feb 24, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Maurits wrote:The "where's my flying car" reference was used in one of the 2000-era IBM commercials. Paraphrasing from memory:

It's the year 2000. Where's my flying car? I was promised flying cars.
In the year 2000 we have the internet. We have cell phones. We have IBM custom business solutions. We don't need flying cars.

EDIT: found it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzm6pvHPSGo


Cool, it really seems to be from 2000: http://www.slate.com/id/1005883/ Combined with the 2000 movie and the Westwing episode mentioned on tvtropes, I think we got it nailed.

I remember it was rather disappointing when the calendar showed 2000 all of a sudden, and nothing had changed. No wonder there's an increase in complaints like this early in the new millenium.

User avatar
iChef
Posts: 343
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 9:33 pm UTC
Location: About 5 cm. south of the ring finger, USA.

Re: 0864: "Flying Cars"

Postby iChef » Thu Feb 24, 2011 8:51 pm UTC

What we really need is a Rule 34 site about topless women in flying cars. Kinda like wet riffs but with less showers and more flying cars. I guess if you could get a topless women right out of the shower with a guitar in a flying car that would be OK too.
Those whom God loves, he must make beautiful, and a beautiful character must, in some way, suffer.
-Tailsteak author of the Webcomics 1/0 and Leftover Soup

srcmaker
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 12:40 am UTC

Re: 0864: "Flying Cars"

Postby srcmaker » Fri Feb 25, 2011 12:42 am UTC

This reminded me of that old IBM commercial with Sisko from DS9 back in 2000. Found the clip on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8S--TjnLKX0

Faranya
Posts: 259
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 3:10 am UTC

Re: 0864: "Flying Cars"

Postby Faranya » Fri Feb 25, 2011 12:52 am UTC

TO hell with flying cars. I want reasonable, not ridiculously loud and energy inefficient hovercraft. Mostly because I hate parallel parking and hydroplaning...
Image

scarletmanuka
Posts: 533
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 4:29 am UTC
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: 0864: "Flying Cars"

Postby scarletmanuka » Fri Feb 25, 2011 2:00 am UTC

iChef wrote:What we really need is a Rule 34 site about topless women in flying cars. Kinda like wet riffs but with less showers and more flying cars. I guess if you could get a topless women right out of the shower with a guitar in a flying car that would be OK too.

<bender>In fact, forget the guitars and the flying cars.</bender>

User avatar
Eternal Density
Posts: 5580
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 12:37 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 0864: "Flying Cars"

Postby Eternal Density » Fri Feb 25, 2011 4:02 am UTC

Dude, PAY for your flying car :P
Play the game of Time! castle.chirpingmustard.com Hotdog Vending Supplier But what is this?
In the Marvel vs. DC film-making war, we're all winners.

Technical Ben
Posts: 2986
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 10:42 pm UTC

Re: 0864: "Flying Cars"

Postby Technical Ben » Fri Feb 25, 2011 10:56 am UTC

snowyowl wrote:
omgryebread wrote:More importantly though, is the question of why I'm not a cyborg yet. Brain -> Fingers -> Phone -> Wikipedia is too many steps in that interface.

Hmm... let's say, 2050 before we can remove one of those steps?

Well, we can remove step one right now. The other steps break down at this point though...
It's all physics and stamp collecting.
It's not a particle or a wave. It's just an exchange.

User avatar
BioTube
Posts: 362
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 2:11 am UTC

Re: 0864: "Flying Cars"

Postby BioTube » Fri Feb 25, 2011 4:43 pm UTC

Faranya wrote:TO hell with flying cars. I want reasonable, not ridiculously loud and energy inefficient hovercraft. Mostly because I hate parallel parking and hydroplaning...
At least one flying car design would have the ability to parallel land(think "Osprey", only with jets instead of propellers). It's also supposed to get sixty miles to the gallon at 300 MPH.
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.

alreadytaken4536
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 10:56 pm UTC

Re: 0864: "Flying Cars"

Postby alreadytaken4536 » Fri Feb 25, 2011 7:32 pm UTC

jordan10la wrote:In alt text did anyone else initially read "android Realdoll" as meaning a Realdoll powered by Android OS?

Yes.

This whole discussion on future technological advancements reminds me of a website my friend showed me called Future Time Line. It makes predictions about how the rest of the 21st century will play out based on articles that have been written about what the future could possibly hold. There are also a few events listed that are set in stone (eclipses and whatnot). Once you start reading into the 22nd century and beyond it's pretty much all speculation that we will be a race ruled by AI that colonizes other planets. Then it has descriptions of the geological future, and the cosmic future several thousands and millions of years into the future.

21st century is the most fun to read of course. With nanotechnology in our clothing, we could all walk around wearing funny .GIFs on our shirts!

bbotany
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 6:39 pm UTC

Re: 0864: "Flying Cars"

Postby bbotany » Fri Feb 25, 2011 10:44 pm UTC

It's the poor quality engine computers. If you upgrade to an open source ECU, then þe work remaining is trivial.

Code: Select all

import antigravity
Ich bin etwas, was etwas egal ist.

jfriesne
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 8:00 am UTC

Re: 0864: "Flying Cars"

Postby jfriesne » Sat Feb 26, 2011 5:59 am UTC

iChef wrote:When the bottom finally falls out on the economy and these revolts turn into WW3 we're going to realize the future lasted from 1955 - 2010. Now we're living in the soon to be, war torn waste land of the future.


Blessed are the pessimists, for they are the ones most likely to be pleasantly surprised.

jfriesne
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 8:00 am UTC

Re: 0864: "Flying Cars"

Postby jfriesne » Sat Feb 26, 2011 6:07 am UTC

cjdrum wrote:Wait. Did he just choose flying cars over a video call with a shirtless female?


Well... she is rather flat.

alreadytaken4536
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 10:56 pm UTC

Re: 0864: "Flying Cars"

Postby alreadytaken4536 » Sat Feb 26, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

jfriesne wrote:
cjdrum wrote:Wait. Did he just choose flying cars over a video call with a shirtless female?


Well... she is rather flat.


And :D ?

User avatar
Plasma Mongoose
Posts: 213
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 1:09 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 0864: "Flying Cars"

Postby Plasma Mongoose » Sun Feb 27, 2011 8:03 am UTC

alreadytaken4536 wrote:
jfriesne wrote:
cjdrum wrote:Wait. Did he just choose flying cars over a video call with a shirtless female?


Well... she is rather flat.


And :D ?


Not everyone likes DFCs you know.

And on the subject of flying cars, I would rather wait until they invent passive anti-gravity like what they had in Back To The Future Part II.
A virus walks into a bar, the bartender says "We don't serve viruses in here".
The virus replaces the bartender and says "Now we do!"

MrConor
Posts: 101
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2011 10:19 am UTC

Re: 0864: "Flying Cars"

Postby MrConor » Sun Feb 27, 2011 12:33 pm UTC

neoliminal wrote:Why do people point out that a joke has been made before, in another form, by another creator?
[...]
I don't get why people do it. Can someone who does it please explain to me what you are getting out of it?


Personally, I see it as a: "You found this joke amusing, you'll probably like this one too." Like glasnt's post in the Learning to Cook thread, which actually introduced me to The Oatmeal and for which I am thus grateful.

Lawton
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 7:57 am UTC

Re: 0864: "Flying Cars"

Postby Lawton » Sun Feb 27, 2011 1:09 pm UTC

To me, "Where's my flying car?" sounds like a metaphor for "Why can't I do whatever the hell I like?". Until everyone can follow all existing traffic laws perfectly, we'll never be ready for flying cars.

User avatar
Plasma Mongoose
Posts: 213
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 1:09 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 0864: "Flying Cars"

Postby Plasma Mongoose » Mon Feb 28, 2011 2:47 am UTC

It's lucky that transporters like in Star-Trek don't exist, then there would be constant criticism about the use of a device that many theorists believe kills the original and creates a copy elsewhere everytome it is used.
A virus walks into a bar, the bartender says "We don't serve viruses in here".
The virus replaces the bartender and says "Now we do!"

ijuin
Posts: 1110
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Re: 0864: "Flying Cars"

Postby ijuin » Mon Feb 28, 2011 7:30 am UTC

Not to mention the fact that Star Trek type transporters would allow a person to beam into any building that is not shielded against it, which makes most passive security measures such as doors, locks, fences, and walls obsolete. Unless transporter-blocking or tracing technology becomes available to the masses, any thief or attacker will be able to come and go as they please in most locations--or simply lock their transporter onto the item that they want to steal and beam it out without ever actually setting foot on the premises. Even worse nightmare scenarios include being kidnapped from inside your own home with no warning, or being assassinated by having a bomb beamed inside your body . . . or your heart, lungs, or brain beamed OUT of your body. Very clearly, we will need to be able to block unwanted transporter use.

User avatar
Plasma Mongoose
Posts: 213
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 1:09 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 0864: "Flying Cars"

Postby Plasma Mongoose » Mon Feb 28, 2011 8:14 am UTC

ijuin wrote:Not to mention the fact that Star Trek type transporters would allow a person to beam into any building that is not shielded against it, which makes most passive security measures such as doors, locks, fences, and walls obsolete. Unless transporter-blocking or tracing technology becomes available to the masses, any thief or attacker will be able to come and go as they please in most locations--or simply lock their transporter onto the item that they want to steal and beam it out without ever actually setting foot on the premises. Even worse nightmare scenarios include being kidnapped from inside your own home with no warning, or being assassinated by having a bomb beamed inside your body . . . or your heart, lungs, or brain beamed OUT of your body. Very clearly, we will need to be able to block unwanted transporter use.


All true if theoretical concerns.

It might seem presumptuous on my part to state this, but even if they were able to make a useful transporter, it would only be from Transporter A to Transporter B up to Z.

You would need to reassemble someone or something after you 'beam them' and somehow I believe it could only be done at another transporter, otherwise the matter and energy would go boom or reassemble randomly.
A virus walks into a bar, the bartender says "We don't serve viruses in here".
The virus replaces the bartender and says "Now we do!"

User avatar
BioTube
Posts: 362
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 2:11 am UTC

Re: 0864: "Flying Cars"

Postby BioTube » Mon Feb 28, 2011 6:39 pm UTC

Lawton wrote:To me, "Where's my flying car?" sounds like a metaphor for "Why can't I do whatever the hell I like?". Until everyone can follow all existing traffic laws perfectly, we'll never be ready for flying cars.
As I mentioned before, most traffic laws don't contribute anything to traffic safety. If you don't believe me, they've actually tried removing a number of restrictions in some places and found they ended up safer and with better traffic flow. Turns out people are much better at cooperating than most people think.
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.

MrConor
Posts: 101
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2011 10:19 am UTC

Re: 0864: "Flying Cars"

Postby MrConor » Mon Feb 28, 2011 8:56 pm UTC

Plasma Mongoose wrote:
You would need to reassemble someone or something after you 'beam them' and somehow I believe it could only be done at another transporter, otherwise the matter and energy would go boom or reassemble randomly.


And, of course, if you can create an identical copy of a person from light which has been beamed from Point A to Point B, then why can't the reassembling device do the same with any other sufficient store of energy? I'm unconvinced that anyone could really survive transformation into energy or another form of matter. You wouldn't catch me getting into one of those long-distance kill-then-clone devices.

Faranya
Posts: 259
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 3:10 am UTC

Re: 0864: "Flying Cars"

Postby Faranya » Mon Feb 28, 2011 9:15 pm UTC

MrConor wrote:
Plasma Mongoose wrote:
You would need to reassemble someone or something after you 'beam them' and somehow I believe it could only be done at another transporter, otherwise the matter and energy would go boom or reassemble randomly.


And, of course, if you can create an identical copy of a person from light which has been beamed from Point A to Point B, then why can't the reassembling device do the same with any other sufficient store of energy? I'm unconvinced that anyone could really survive transformation into energy or another form of matter. You wouldn't catch me getting into one of those long-distance kill-then-clone devices.


What the hell does it matter? I'm still there on the other end. The exact mechanics of the process are irrelevant.
Image

User avatar
Plasma Mongoose
Posts: 213
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 1:09 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 0864: "Flying Cars"

Postby Plasma Mongoose » Mon Feb 28, 2011 10:52 pm UTC

Faranya wrote:What the hell does it matter? I'm still there on the other end. The exact mechanics of the process are irrelevant.


Only if you don't mind that you wouldn't be at the other end, your exact clone who thinks s/he is you will be.

You will be dead.
A virus walks into a bar, the bartender says "We don't serve viruses in here".
The virus replaces the bartender and says "Now we do!"

MrConor
Posts: 101
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2011 10:19 am UTC

Re: 0864: "Flying Cars"

Postby MrConor » Tue Mar 01, 2011 1:08 am UTC

Faranya wrote:What the hell does it matter? I'm still there on the other end. The exact mechanics of the process are irrelevant.


'You' to a given value of 'you', certainly. I'm reminded of the SMBC strip regarding this very scenario, but alas I cannot find it to post it.

EDIT: Ahah!

Spoiler:
Image


http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1677#comic

scarletmanuka
Posts: 533
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 4:29 am UTC
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: 0864: "Flying Cars"

Postby scarletmanuka » Wed Mar 02, 2011 10:00 am UTC

ijuin wrote:Not to mention the fact that Star Trek type transporters would allow a person to beam into any building that is not shielded against it, which makes most passive security measures such as doors, locks, fences, and walls obsolete. Unless transporter-blocking or tracing technology becomes available to the masses, any thief or attacker will be able to come and go as they please in most locations--or simply lock their transporter onto the item that they want to steal and beam it out without ever actually setting foot on the premises. Even worse nightmare scenarios include being kidnapped from inside your own home with no warning, or being assassinated by having a bomb beamed inside your body . . . or your heart, lungs, or brain beamed OUT of your body. Very clearly, we will need to be able to block unwanted transporter use.

See Scott Adams on why "In the Future Life Will Not Be Like Star Trek". With particular reference to the transporter:
Scott Adams wrote:Transporter
It would be great to be able to beam your molecules across space and then reassemble them. The only problem is that you have to trust your co-worker to operate the transporter. These are the same people who won't add paper to the photocopier or make a new pot of coffee after taking the last drop. I don't think they'll be double-checking the transporter coordinates. They'll be accidentally beaming people into walls, pets, and furniture. People will spend all their time apologizing for having inanimate objects protruding from parts of their bodies.

'Pay no attention to the knickknacks; I got beamed into a hutch yesterday.'

If I could beam things from one place to another, I'd never leave the house. I'd sit in a big comfy chair and just start beaming groceries, stereo equipment, cheerleaders, and anything else I wanted right into my house. I'm fairly certain I would abuse this power. If anybody came to arrest me, I'd beam them into space. If I wanted some paintings for my walls, I'd beam the contents of the Louvre over to my place, pick out the good stuff, and beam the rest into my neighbor's garage.

If I were watching the news on television and didn't like what I heard, I would beam the anchorman into my living room during the commercial break, give him a vicious wedgie, and beam him back before anybody noticed. I'd never worry about 'keeping up with the Joneses,' because as soon as they got something nice, it would disappear right out of their hands. My neighbors would have to use milk crates for furniture. And that's only after I had all the milk crates I would ever need for the rest of my life. There's only one thing that could keep me from spending all my time wreaking havoc with the transporter: the holodeck.

doggitydogs
Posts: 38
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 5:52 pm UTC
Location: 42.39561°, -71.13051°

Re: 0864: "Flying Cars"

Postby doggitydogs » Sat Aug 13, 2011 6:51 am UTC

couldbne1 wrote:Flying cars... yep, those would be swell.

But what I really want is a domesticated otter. How come we haven't gotten around to that yet? Otters have been around for millenia. We've been around for millenia. I can't be the first person who's thought of this.


my friend Catherine feels like an otter. No, really. He's very soft.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cephalopod9 and 44 guests