Holographic Michael Jackson

Cure for Parkinson's

Holographic JAWS

Also Hover Boards exist, but they're FUCKHUGE and slow as hell.

JAWS 31 or whatever number it was

>>5837905

Saw that at EuroDisney in the 3d theatre in 1991. Also had that fucked up bug at the end with wings

>>5837890
>Have I mesed anything?

spelling.

>>5837890
Selftying Nike shoes

paying for stuff and opening doors by thumb print, and everything being EXPENSIVE AS FUCK (2 sodas were like 41$ i think or was it more?)

dehidrated pizzas

>>5837890
that future sucked, it had no internet and 3d was worse than it is today

>>5837926

where the fuck can u buy hoverboards?

I never understood why flying cars would be that great. The amount of visual pollution that it would create makes me weep , your outside watching the sunset or somthing then some asshole in his flying car comes and blocks your view then tosses his half eaten big mac out of his car landing on your head

>>5838015

there are no hoverboards, dipshit

>>5837926
>Holographic JAWS

Japanese did that thing with The Water Horse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0TpDxLfjHc

http://akas.imdb.com/title/tt0760329/

>>5838042

It would be great if you drove one

>>5838042
Car accidents would also always involve the sides of buildings and smashing into things/people at ground level.

I Robot and Minority Report had some awesome ideas for the future of transit.

>>5838059
http://www.futurehorizons.net/hoverboard.htm

>>5838042
the fantasy is people assume there would be no traffic, but it would be just as bad unless just a small minority of people could afford them.

>>5838093

>the sides of buildings and smashing into things/people at ground level.

And how is that different to regular cars you dumb fuck

>>5838042
What are you, eighty years old? Who watches the fucking sunset?

I was thinking more a fifth element approach to flying cars

>>5838126
people who go outside

you should try it once

>>5838093
Yeh, run it all off electricity and artificial intelligence.
Sounds like a BRILLIANT idea, i don't see how that could possibly go wrong

>>5837890
nike power laces
the black and decker hydrater
lights in the curb
the robot dog walker
thumb print door knobs
the thing that makes you hang upside down and float when you hurt your back
pepsi perfect

>>5838116
In that it wouldn't be confined to streets, you stupid cunt. Cars would fall out of the sky into parks and back yards and swimming pools and all sorts of places cars don't belong.

>>5838200
>you wouldn't drive into a pool

Immortel had cars and trains on tracks in the sky.

>>5838182
Even people that do go outside, of which of course I am not one of, don't fucking sit and watch the sunset. You're being a silly, silly fagot.

Its possible to have some tracking system in place to avoid collisions in mid-air

>>5838275
Then it's possible to have it for ground level traffic and obviate the need for flying cars.

The only vehicles that should be able to fly in populated areas are emergency response. Fire trucks and ambulances and police.

>>5838189
Thumb print door nobs are here. They are used by government and commercial businesses to secure areas.

>>5838296

Then I see you haven't thought of the concept of higher levelled buildings.

Anyone should know with over-population, one solution would be to build another 'level' onto the city

>>5838384
Build down, stupid.

it would be that way if not for republicans

>>5838339

Still in 5 years time im sure all doors will be electronic (commercially). How many basterding years have we used keys? would be awesome when pissed up just having to open the door without dropping or losing the keys

You are now aware that people always overestimate technological evolution and when you get old things will be pretty much the same.

>>5838422
It would've been that way 1000 years ago if not for Christians.

>>5838439
Did you just imply that technology is pretty much the same now as it was sixty years ago?

We have flying cars, they're called Planes.

I can't wait for the technological singularity.

>>5838439

Keys, Books, cars, snail-mail, buckets and spades.

These will all b aboot in 60 years...

>>5838498
hes partially right, tvs, music, movies, clothes...etc. pretty much the same with a slightly better look.

we wont be technologically better till we get holo decks and flatspace tech and real space travel.

>>5838537
?????????

>>5838566

>>5838523
>We have flying buses, they're called Planes.

Fix'd

>>5838561

what about pizza with cheese inside the crust

>>5837890

>1. Hover Boards
>2. Flying Cars
>3. That Jacket that zips up and self dries

None of those things are worth the ghastly future fashions as predicted by people in the 80s.

>>5837914

haha oh wow

>>5837890
It doesn't matter because we all will die in 2012

Flying cars are unfeasible for a number of reasons.
Anyone who actually expected them or wanted them is a fucking idiot.

What's the point of flying cars anyway?

If you need to get around on the ground you might as well drive a regular car, and if you need to get around in the air you might as well fly in a regular airplane.

Flying cars will never happen.

>>5838641
We already have flying cars, they're called helicopters.

What about dust repellent paper?

>>5838561
With the exception of tv and movies, which you could substitute with plays, the things you listed have been around thousands of years.

I wouldn't exactly consider life today to be "pretty much the same" as life a thousand years ago. The basics are there, but the way in which we interact with and experience them have changed drastically.

>>5838645
also why if you have a hover car do they still have skyways? isnt the purpose of a hover car is to avoid traffic on city streets, so what was the point of the Skyway?

only thing for flying vehicles that i would say we need would be for medical, police and public transit....thats it. everyone else can use solar or electric cars.

the prediction of how 2015 sees 1985 is spot on

>>5838296
>>5838275

Contrary to popular belief, if people had flying cars, there would be less accidents not more. Even if they would drive them as idiotically as people drive cars today. This is because flying cars would have a lot more space around them as a buffer. It is statistically less probable to come in contact with something else.

If you take the airspace around the busiest airports and program the autopilots in all the planes to randomly choose a heading and altitude (staying above the terrain of course) they would have to fly for months before there would be any good chance of two planes colliding. You see the same thing with huge swarms of birds or flies. There are very few, if any, mid-air collisions.

Mr Fusion.

>>5838537
>I can't wait for the technological singularity.
It's not going to happen

>>5838678
Only fags drive electric cars. I want my flying Hummer.

>>5838694
BEEFBEEFBEEF OR PORK

>>5838699
There might be fewer accidents, but the accidents would be spectacularly more destructive.

>>5838702
It's already happening.

>>5838725
no but doc almost hit a cab on the skyway

The hoverboards'd be cool, but video games are sure gonna suck. Buncha blinking and rapid eye movement. Bullshit.

>>5838699
You're assuming that flying cars would be as easy to navigate as regular ones.

>>5838645
>>5838667

This. Unless the cars can fly at least 10 meters in the air there would be no point.

>>5838702

O RLY?

>>5838725
>It's already happening.
Yes, but I highly doubt we will make it to the actual singularity/technological utopia

>>5838701
We already have that, it's called RECYCLING

>>5838699

It would be easier if they just had a series of tubes like they did in Futurama.

>>5838786

I'm more in tune with Hans Morevac's vision of the singularity, which would be the inevitable obsolescence of organic life.

Filthy meatbags.

>>5838786
2035, friendo.

>>5838831
We're made out of meat!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaFZTAOb7IE

>>5838793
no. not at all.

>>5838725
> There might be fewer accidents, but the accidents would be spectacularly more destructive.

The air crashes you see one the news are spectacular because they involved giant planes carrying lots of people and fuel. A small plane crash is nowhere near as destructive.

>>5838754
> You're assuming that flying cars would be as easy to navigate as regular ones.
What does navigating have to do with anything. We're talking about mid-air collisions, not whether people can figure out how to get to their destination.

>>5838927
Every fender bender would become a high speed impact, not between the vehicles themselves but between the vehicles and the ground below. Flying Buicks would smash into buildings and ricochet debris into the streets below, flaming cars would hit the ground and cartwheel for hundreds of metres. Lose control of your Prius and you could take out a corner office, or fall through the skylight of a mall into the food court.

>>5838927
If they're more difficult to drive than regular cars, wouldn't that suggest more accidents would occur? Especially in and around cities where large obstacles are commonplace.

>>5838927
it would rain car parts on houses, would you want a car engine falling through your roof?

>>5838974
How is this any different from a truck loosing control taking out pedestrians on the sidewalk and smashing through your house, sending shrapnel, wood, and brick flying in all directions.

>>5838982
Large obstacles are easier to see. How many cars crash though the ground floor of office buildings vs. how many cars crash into pedestrians.

why the fuck would you want a hoverboard

>>5839025
It isn't that different, but not every vehicle on the road is the equivalent of truck. Add flying to the mix and they are.

>>5839070
why the fuck would you want a regular skateboard?

DOUBLE TIES

>>5839087
I don't, I ride one of these.

>>5839111
Hipster faggot

>>5837945
Not a hologram, you fucking moron.

I don't, I ride one of these.

>>5839152
Floor tiles? Is that what she's riding?

>>5839078
A flying car would have to be a lot lighter than a truck. It takes a lot of energy to keep something in the air.

If flying cars ever get invented, they would not work like an airplane. So I don't think you can look at the difficulty of flying a plane to judge the difficulty of navigating a flying car. The technology would have to be more advanced so that the flying car would be very compact, quiet, and be able to hover. The controls would have to be something very simple, like a 3D joystick that you push in the direction you want to move.

>>5839056
If they're difficult to control flying through the narrow confines of city blocks seems like it would tricky. There's a reason you don't see helicopters flying around in tight areas like that.

Of course, maybe I'm just envisioning them being more difficult to fly than they would be.

People can barely pay attention let alone drive a car in two plains so why would you even want to give them a third plain of motion

>>5839118
How am I a Hipster faggot? it's not a fixie.

>>5839168
Helicopters are inherently unstable aircraft. Any slight wind throws the lift generated by the rotor blades out of balance. You constantly have to make adjustments. A flying car would have to be a lot more technologically advanced than a helicopter.

>>5839182
see
>>5838699

>>5839231
Do you have a pilot's license? What is your education and experience with helicopters to make such authoritative statements?

>>5839262
I graduated from 4chan University.

A falling car would have a terminal velocity of 320km/s or more.

Any one think about the posibility of say the vehicle stalling and the person panics and crashes anyway

Computers can only do so much before the capabilities of people became a liability and the computer its self can be a liability

>>5839309
>>5839168
All of your complaints also apply to cars. Do people have trouble navigating the narrow streets of a city? What happens when your brake lines rust out and you loose break fluid pressure on the road? Do you just panic and crash into the nearest car?>>5839308

>>5839308
>A falling car would have a terminal velocity of 320km/s or more.
Not if it has a parachute.

It's threads like this that keep me coming back to /tv/.

Now let's talk about 3d/virtual internets.

>>5839383
you would have loved the internet in the late 90's

>>5839392
>>5839392
pretty sure he was in middle school then and loving it like i did...I remember people getting napster shit right in tech class...

>>5839365
>parachute

It wouldn't have enough time to make a difference. Even a partially opened chute only slows a skydiver to about 200km/s. We're talking about flying no more than 2km above ground (it would be impractical to go higher for the average distance driven in cities), not 12km (passenger plane).

>>5839392
I'm 29, I did enjoy the internet in the late 90s. And the mid 90s. And the early 90s.

ITT:Fagsmaking their own laws of physics

>>5839365
Regular cars aren't subject to the kinds of high gusts of winds that occur around high rise buildings. The car would have to be remarkable stable to fly through cities.

>>5839383

This is what the internet really looks like if you could fly inside your computer and through the little holes in your LAN cable to surf the information superhighway! WHEEEEEEEE

>>5839519
I wish it looked like that. WTF Google, where's my 3D Internet?

>>5839463
Yes. It would need to have a computer making control adjustments to keep the car from moving off course. Like the modern jets have.

>>5838793
Recycling is a load of bullshit. (I'm going off topic a little i know)

It's a good idea in theory. Recycle stuff, save the world. But the act of recycling consumes MORE energy and makes more pollution (in the long run) than traditional garbage. Machines having to turn old waste back into a usable substance use a lot of electricity which is still mainly powered off fossil fuels.

Also, did you know a massive amount of stuff you throw in the recycling bins end up in regular landfills anyway. Mainly because there's not nearly enough money to recycle it all.