I can see it now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chibi-Suke
"Son, why did you fail this test?"
"Sorry Dad, forgot to charge my brain."
If that happened at school, legitimately, I would be throwing a deck of LOLWUT cards at everyone involved.
Printable View
I can see it now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chibi-Suke
"Son, why did you fail this test?"
"Sorry Dad, forgot to charge my brain."
If that happened at school, legitimately, I would be throwing a deck of LOLWUT cards at everyone involved.
LOLWUT cards? I need some of those... Of course, with a robo brain, I could just print them from my skull.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunneh
Yep, but as long as this estimate is not held down and remembered in a film or book then it won't matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kazuya Mishima
You people really need to look at sources before spouting crap.
The rumor of flying cars was started by the science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke. Ever seen 2001: Space Odyssey? Yeah, that was him.
Whereas, this on the other hand is said by a scientific engineer. He is also a science non-fiction author. There is a difference.
Now, I'm not gonna guarantee he is right, just saying that the flying cars in 2000 example is awful, and shouldn't be used unless you like to be thought of as ignorant.
As a reference for a scientific prediction that held up over the years, I'd recommend looking at Moore's law, if you haven't already (you should have).
It's funny, the title of this thread is a reference to that movie/book.Quote:
Originally Posted by Huey Kruthas
Funny; handheld flip-open communication devices (cell phone) and integrated all-in-one sensor equipment of a similar size (tricorder), as well as the PADD, were considered by a science fiction writer (Gene Roddenberry). By contrast, a certain industry mogul named Ford commissioned a serious feasibility study for flying cars (since that was the example in question) in 1951 that concluded them possible (though the FAA was nowhere near capable of handling the possible volume at the time; really, it still isn't), and people like Glenn Curtiss (counterpart to the Wright Brothers) were designing them even earlier.Quote:
Originally Posted by Huey Kruthas
Just sayin', ya know? Oh, and Moore's Law is an empirical observation that has held up well, surprisingly or otherwise, and not really scientifically rigorous by the Scientific Method that rules true scientific theory. :angel:
Cell phones were invented by a guy who watched star trek.
So were the tricorders. Fiction inspires fact, and hard science fiction (in particular, the much-maligned Clarke) tries very, very hard to be as close to science as it can be; in turn, people try to make it into reality. Mind you, there's a reason I didn't list anything from Star Wars. :angel:Quote:
Originally Posted by Chibi-Suke
EDIT: I actually forgot entirely to actually state the difference between the two people. The difference between skiffy authors writing about flying vehicles in science fiction and this guy writing about blood nannies in science fact is that this guy has a B.S. behind his BS. ;)
Scientology was actually adapted from a work of science fiction.
I've seen flying cars :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kazuya Mishima
They usually crash in a few seconds after they leave the cliff side.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyrax
No, real ones that people have begun making. I've seen footage of them lifting off and all that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chibi-Suke
edit: http://www.moller.com/ -link to the site of one of the manufacturers.
I can see it now. Skynet takes over and attempts to kill everyone.Then we form a resistance with our leader as John Connor. And we need to send back T-800 to protect John Connor from the T-1000 that Skynet sent back to kill. I can see it all now. Wasn't this in movie :wacko:.
I thought they sent back John Connor to protect his mother, and the T-1000 to protect him as a child from the T-1100. And he was an annoying child.
What the fuck movie did you watch?Quote:
Originally Posted by Chibi-Suke