?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
30 August 2007 @ 11:37 am
Moving sidewalks, I don't see under my feet...  
Hover Cars

Got $90k I can borrow? GRiN
 
 
 
Darkmanedarkmane on August 30th, 2007 06:46 pm (UTC)
No. I need it for buying my own.
(Anonymous) on August 30th, 2007 07:42 pm (UTC)
Sure. I just sell my apartment.
Do you have a place where I can stay until I get enough money to buy new one?
Pegaxpegax on August 30th, 2007 07:43 pm (UTC)
Some people just don't get it, that you are suppose to log in before posting comments.
Kburgunder on August 30th, 2007 08:06 pm (UTC)
GRiN

I knew it was you ;)

I think you'd have to live in a hover car, but they don't look so terribly big.
Prince of Happinesspoh on August 30th, 2007 07:56 pm (UTC)
Given "The Masses'" complete and fucking utter inability to grasp that the LEFT LANE IS FOR PASSING, or how a four-way stop sign is supposed to work...I am convinced that this is a BAD FUCKING IDEA.
Darkmanedarkmane on August 30th, 2007 08:02 pm (UTC)
It's a population control measure.
Prince of Happinesspoh on August 30th, 2007 08:06 pm (UTC)
I really don't want people who should be removed from the gene pool crash landing on my head.
(Deleted comment)
Prince of Happinesspoh on August 30th, 2007 09:19 pm (UTC)
No, I'm sure there are plenty, as one who bears witness to the antics of SUV, Hummer, Audi, & Saab drivers.
Geek God-Kinggeekalpha on August 30th, 2007 09:29 pm (UTC)
Let's just say I was going to commute in this thing. I can already see some problems. 10 feet is not high enough to clear light-poles and telephone wires liberally strung across the road, and I can't see directly under me if I have to duck-down to go under a phone-line. It's just begging for a crash that way.

It sucks that the FAA set 10 feet as the altitude, although I can understand that more than a 10 foot fall from the sky would be significant. However, I think they should revisit that altitude to something more tree-top level, like 30 feet, so that the vehicle can avoid obvious road obstacles, while still posing no threat to aircraft. Given a set of safety standards around redundancy and the like, I don't see how it would be a huge problem to approve this sort of revision. 10 feet is pretty arbitrary.
Vulture: sombrerovulture23 on August 31st, 2007 04:09 am (UTC)
Personally, I can't help but wonder how bad the air wash underneath it is. Keeping this thing up has to push a heck of a lot of air down. I may be being pessimistic, but I can imagine a whole set of related problems, including potential hazards to anyone underneath and potential turbulence issues if you get a few of 'em in close proximity to each other... Allowing a bit more altitude would ameliorate some of the ground-level issues, but you'd still have turbulence to worry about and a geometrically more-complex "road"-sharing protocol to work out.
Geek God-Kinggeekalpha on August 31st, 2007 11:22 pm (UTC)
All true.










I still want one.