I know that most here don't like thinking about the word of the year or the word of the decade. Therefore, the same is probably true about what inventions, new ideas, etc., the new decade will bring. Regardless...do you have any?

I was surprised to read this article and to find some of those suggested 10 years ago, such as:

"Animal-to-human transplants will be routine, as scientists will learn how to prevent human immune systems from rejecting the animal organs."

or

"A 'skycar' that can take off and land like a helicopter will hit the market."

This one reall didn't make it:

"By the end of the decade, Americans will be fed up with substituting virtual life for real life. A backlash against facelessness will prompt a resurgence of person-to-person interactions."

I have wondered if someday the latter would happen, but I think Internet connections are here to stay.

Of course, many of these inventions have been possible for years - the small, vertical take-off skycar has been possible (and prototypes have been extant) for over half a century. The problem with many of them is acceptance and infrastructure.

To use a skycar, drivers would have to train to the same level as do private pilots nowadays - and that is quite an onerous and expensive task. And then, once one has the requisite licence, there is the matter of suitable airlanes and landing spaces.

I was surprised to see Arthur C Clarke's prediction since I had never heard of the science to which he referred - and he rarely predicted about things for which there was no scientific basis.

Another problem is that when a skycar loses power it doesn't glide, it plummets. And they would make an enormous amount of noise and get lousy gas mileage. And their brakes are terrible.

quote:

And their brakes are terrible.

Clearly a skycar would be a compromise - not as good as a true 'plane at flying nor as good as a true car on roads - but I don't see why its brakes would need to be bad. Aeroplane brakes are very good - as they need to be to stop a vehicle weighing many tons from speeds well in excess of 100mph.

Yes, but they only work well when the plane is on the ground. In the air they are much less effective.

The pilot came over the public address system and announced, "Ladies and gentlemen. I'm afraid one of our engines has stopped. Fortunately this plane is designed to operate with only three engines, but we will be delayed in reaching our destination."
A few minutes later, he once again spoke. "I'm sorry to announce that another engine has failed but the good news is we can operate on only two engines. This will further delay our arrival."
A little later he again announced the loss of an engine and delay in arrival.
Followed by "Our last engine has just conked out."
And one passenger turned to another and said, "At this rate, we're never going to land."

quote:

Yes, but they only work well when the plane is on the ground. In the air they are much less effective.

True. So it's good thing they're not needed in the air, isn't it?

They're not? Perhaps you should explain that to these guys. My point was that flying cars, like flying planes, can't stop quickly while in the air.

quote:

They're not? Perhaps you should explain that to these guys. My point was that flying cars, like flying planes, can't stop quickly while in the air.

Ah. I see the point you're trying to make. Aircraft, like water craft, can't generate the 1G plus stopping forces that road vehicle can. Well, that's physics for you.

No vehicle can stop or start instantly and all vehicles have to be driven within the boundaries imposed by physics. It takes more distance to stop a truck than it does a car and longer still to stop a train. That's the way it is and it's not a criticism of skycars that their airbrakes don't work as well as a road vehicle's wheel brakes.

Drivers, mariners and pilots have to get to know the limitations of their craft and operate within them.

quote:

it's not a criticism of skycars that their airbrakes don't work as well as a road vehicle's wheel brakes

Not until you get hit by one.

quote:

No vehicle can stop or start instantly

My personal UFO can.

quote:

Not until you get hit by one.

Which, if it happens, has nothing whatsoever to do with the efficiency of the skycar's brakes, air or wheel.

quote:

My personal UFO can.

If it's yours then it's not going to be a UFO, since you will have already identified it

quote:

you will have already identified it

Who says I know what it is?

quote:

Who says I know what it is?

Regardless of whether you know exactly what it is, if it's yours then you have identified it as your property. So it can't be an Unidentified Flying Object

You've conflated "knowledge" with "possession", Richard. I can find a flower which I find beautiful and put it in my vase but still not be able to identify its genus, or even whether it's a weed.

quote:

I can find a flower which I find beautiful and put it in my vase but still not be able to identify its genus, or even whether it's a weed.

No. But you have identified it as a flower. Identification has several levels; an Unidentified Flying Object is one that has been recognised as a flying object only and nothing else has been established about its identity.

Your flying object has already been identified as belonging to you and as a vehicle capable of instant starting and stopping. That is sufficient to identify it at a basic level. And of course, if you are able to use its seemingly amazing potential, then it's a fair bet that you'll know more about it than you have mentioned. Mysterious it might be; unidentified it is not.