Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Last Sky Commuter For Sale On eBay

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the still-waiting dept.

Toys 189

DeltaV900 writes to alert us to an auction on eBay of the last Sky Commuter concept car. About 7 hours remain in the auction and the top bid at this writing is $55,100. The seller (with some help from posters in the auction forum) makes clear that the thing won't actually fly, and in fact never did. Other Sky Commuters may have hovered. This one traveled around to air shows and trade fairs.

cancel ×

189 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Poor Sky Captain (1)

i_liek_turtles (1110703) | more than 6 years ago | (#22032388)

He had to commute in this thing.

Open Question (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22033048)

Hi, budgieton here [nimp.org] , I was wondering:

Why do /.ers prefer the kind of article I posted above to minicity? My mind boggles. If I posted a minicity link here, then people would all be chiming in with "WARNING MINICITY" etc etc

WARNING MINICITY (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22033054)

et cetera old bean

I know where the winner can put it.... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22032402)

Well, step aside my friend
I've been doing it for years
I say, sit on down, open your eyes
And open up your ears

Say
Put a tree in your butt
Put a bumblebee in your butt
Put a clock in your butt
Put a big rock in your butt
Put some fleas in your butt
Start to sneeze in your butt
Put a tin can in your butt
Put a little tiny man in your butt
Put a light in your butt
Make it bright in your butt
Put a TV in your butt
Put me in your butt
Everybody say

I, hey, that's, man, I ain't putting no trees in nobody's butt,
no bees in nobody's butt, putting nothing--
You must be out your mind, man,
y'all get paid for doing this?
Cause y'all gotta get some kind of money
Cause this don't sound like the kind of--
I'd rather golf, to be perfectly honest,
than put somethin in somebody's butt
to be truthful

Well step aside my friend and let me
show you how you do it
When big bad E just rock rock to it

Put a metal case in your butt
Put her face in your butt
Put a frown in your butt
Put a clown in your butt
Sit on down in your butt
Put a boat in your butt
Put a moat in your butt
Put a mink coat in your butt
Put everything in your butt
Just start to sing about your butt
Feels real good

Re:I know where the winner can put it.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22032716)

Put an elf in your butt.
Put yourself in your butt.

That totally should've been a verse. Quality song btw

Re:I know where the winner can put it.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22033256)

I thought you'd made that up!

Who would want this? (1)

rastoboy29 (807168) | more than 6 years ago | (#22032408)

There's a lot of esoterica in my closets, to be sure--but who would want a failure like this?  It'd be like driving a nail into your palm every time you saw it, because you would really, really like a real flying car.

Re:Who would want this? (5, Interesting)

wish bot (265150) | more than 6 years ago | (#22032664)

Well, a museum would probably like it, and then every dreamer could go and gawk at it (or in your case - opt for crucifixion - ouch!).


I find it really strange that the seller didn't start by contacting various institutions rather than putting it on ebay. There's something quite fishy about his descriptions - he first tries to suggest that it does actually fly, then tries to say "well, it will hover", and then adds another correction saying HE installed some electric motors and the thing will not generate any lift what-so-ever. He also admits to messing with other parts of the machine (like he was trying to restore it, but doesn't give any real details as to what qualities he was trying to restore to/against).

I know this will sound really harsh - but judging by the guys atrocious writing, the car is better of with ANYBODY else as he's a complete nut.

Obligatory Airplane Quotation... (2, Funny)

Chordonblue (585047) | more than 6 years ago | (#22033110)

Sounds like:

"He's a menace to himself and everything else in the air... Yes, birds too."

Re:Who would want this? (2, Funny)

Professor_UNIX (867045) | more than 6 years ago | (#22033232)

Probably the same type of person that changes his fonts in a web forum post.

hey guess what? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22032414)

niggers still suck. fuck you.

Mod parent DOWN please (-1, Redundant)

JavaBear (9872) | more than 6 years ago | (#22032480)

/. is no place for racist jerks.

Re:Mod parent DOWN please (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22032510)

judging by teh numbers of Ron Paul supports it is indeed... the place for racist jerks

clearly you have never heard of the GNAA

NAACP says Ron Paul NOT racist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22032572)

NAACP leader says Ron Paul is not a racist [youtube.com] .

Myth busted!

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/ [ronpaul2008.com]

RE: RON PAUL + TEH RACIST (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22032674)

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28353_Ron_Pauls_Photo-Op_with_Stormfront&only [littlegreenfootballs.com]

mythbust that ... your boy Ron Paul all buddy buddy w/ Stormfront owner Don Black

I HATE RON PAUL SO MUCH ... screw all y'all Ron Paul supporters !!!!!!!

Ron Paul's Racism in Action! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22032688)

MoD PARENT UP RIGHT NOW (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22032796)

Ron Paul rants against blacks, gays and "Zionists" (wink wink) in a newsletter named after him
Ron Paul dines with the leader of the #1 internet hate site
Ron Paul poses with the leader of the #1 internet hate site in pictures
Ron Paul accepts $500 from the leader of the #1 internet hate site
Ron Paul is anti-Affirmative Action
Ron Paul wants to end welfare

Ron Paul is clearly a racist and his supporters are having a really hard time with this documented, undeniable fact.

Re:MoD PARENT UP RIGHT NOW (-1, Offtopic)

jcr (53032) | more than 6 years ago | (#22032886)

Ron Paul is clearly a racist and his supporters are having a really hard time with this documented, undeniable fact.

You know, wishing real hard doesn't make something a fact. Ron isn't a racist, no matter how much you want him to be.

-jcr

Re:MoD PARENT UP RIGHT NOW (-1, Offtopic)

jcr (53032) | more than 6 years ago | (#22032894)

Ron Paul is anti-Affirmative Action

That makes him an anti-racist, BTW. "Affirmative Action" is racial discrimination under another name.

-jcr

Re:MoD PARENT UP RIGHT NOW (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22032996)

Zionism is racism. Opposing it isnt. Read a dictionary, numbskull.

Keep guessing, you're not even close. (-1, Offtopic)

jcr (53032) | more than 6 years ago | (#22032870)

RP poses for pictures with anyone who asks for one. That nazi isn't wearing a swastika in that shot, is he? I find it rather unlikely, to say the least, that the guy said "Hi, I'm a nazi, how about a picture?"

Somehow, I find this man [blogspot.com] rather more credible on the subject of Ron's attitude towards racism than Charles Johnson and everyone in his echo chamber.

Then of course, there is what the man says himself [ronpaul2008.com] .

Not to mention the fact Ron has published hundreds of essays and speeches, none of which are consistent with the views expressed in some of those newsletters.

Now, the main thing that convinces me that the man isn't a racist, is the fact that he's the only candidate in either of the major parties who has committed to ending the single government policy that does the most damage to minorities in this country. That is, the War on Drugs, which is a very handy tool for any actual racists who want to lock up blacks, hispanics, or anyone else they find offensive.

-jcr

What about what the man said himself... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22033148)

...in his newsletters, when he wasn't under media scrutiny and thought he could speak freely? You know, that stuff about blacks and gays?

Why won't he release back issues of his newsletter?

Because Ron Paul is a RACIST.

Re: RON PAUL + TEH RACIST (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22032960)

LGF Lol. Get some real politics, Gumby. Fucking Nazis. Keep that shit off Slashdot.

Re:Mod parent DOWN please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22032512)

He's not a racist, he's a troll. He wants to get a reaction out of people. And you just made his day -- a 4 digit UID slashdotter has taken the bait and responded. This is what trolls live for. He used the racial slur because as of 2008, that's what offends people more than anything else.

To summarize, DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!

Re:Mod parent DOWN please (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22032628)

He's not a racist, he's a troll
Could he be a racist troll?

Re:Mod parent DOWN please (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22032808)

Why stop there? He could be a racist nigger troll!

Re:Mod parent DOWN please (1)

Kerstyun (832278) | more than 6 years ago | (#22032632)

He used the racial slur because as of 2008, that's what offends people more than anything else.
Givin the very real possibillaty of a coon in the WHITEhouse, is anyone surprised that decent folk's is getting nervus?

I can remember... (4, Interesting)

Bin_jammin (684517) | more than 6 years ago | (#22032416)

way back to junior high school when he was hawking these things, then every year or three they'd pop up again, "the wave of the future" blah, blah, blah... I had a roommate that was gonzo over them when he first heard of the concept about 4 years ago. "Oh man, it's going to be so cool, you'll be able to fly to work." etc... He never quite got the reasoning of all the skeptics of the idea, like what happens when you run out of gas or have an accident in the air? Maybe we can finally put these disasters-in-the-making to rest, until the technology is available to make them something more than a stupid sci-fi pipe dream...

Re:I can remember... (4, Informative)

Mantaar (1139339) | more than 6 years ago | (#22032524)

I totally agree with you. Pilots have to be 100% sober, have no criminal records, good sight (without the use of glasses), and pass a billion other tests. Flying around in mid-air is not quite like driving on the road. You have to keep track of wind, other flying vehicles, obstacles - and you have virtually no guidance (like roads). And when you make a mistake, you loose hard. Not only you, in fact, but everyone around you, too.

Flying vehicles are too much of a risk to let them be guided by humans - you have to have some kind of computer controlled system that will mostly operate this thing for you while also keeping track of other vehicles.

There are ideas to bring this kind of design to the road, but they've not matured yet. When we're able to control conventional traffic fully via computer systems, we may start thinking of inventing something flyable. I imagine that, just like with the transition from horses to cars, those flying cars would initially be using conventional roads (perhaps adding another layer on top of them - so we could stack highways instead of ruining the landscape with 6 or 8 lanes of asphalt) and only later have some special 'air-roads' for themselves, when the idea becomes more dominant.

I don't think I'll ever be driving such a thing, but perhaps my kids?

Re:I can remember... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22032550)

Pilots do NOT have to have good eyesight sans glasses/contacts- but there correct vision must be very high (if even after correction you still have 60/20 vision you will not be able to get a pilots license)

Re:I can remember... (0, Flamebait)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#22032654)

All those requirements on pilots are there to keep the membership exclusive - none of them are necessary. The vast majority of pilots today don't even fly the damn plan, the ground controllers do. Watch "Air Crash Investigations" sometime.. it's all about instructing the computer to follow pre-programmed flight routes. Just like driving a train, you could replace all the "pilots" with automated systems tomorrow and it wouldn't require a bit of new technology.

As a pilot... (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22032800)

...I'd have to say "you're a fucking idiot". Not because you are unintelligent, but because you obviously feel comfortable sprouting your misinformed opinions as gospel.

The pilots are very, very useful for when things go wrong.

Anyone who references "Air Crash Investigations" is a dolt. You may as well quote mythbusters.

Re:As a pilot... (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#22032968)

As a pilot, you would say that.

If you were an ex-pilot, then we'd get a different story.. as I do from most ex-pilots I know.. and some active pilots I know who are mature enough to know how little important they are in the normal operation of the aircraft.

Re:As a pilot... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22033018)

As a knowitall nerd, you would say that.

I love it how slashdot is full of people who know a lot about one specific area (typically programming) and assume that makes them experts in virtually everything technical.

"some active pilots I know who are mature enough to know how little important they are in the _normal_ operation of the aircraft."

OH wait, that wasn't what you were claiming before. You said

"All those requirements on pilots are there to keep the membership exclusive - none of them are necessary"

Yes clearly we give pilots all these tests, training and medicals to keep flying an exclusive club. Safety has nothing to do with it. Yeah, right.

Go back to your code and stop talking out of your ass.

Re:As a pilot... (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#22033142)

Uh huh. And the morse test had nothing to do with trying to keep Ham exclusive. Seriously, for recreational flying there is absolutely no reason to require pilots to have 20-20 vision or any of the other crap. How could I possibly know? Because I know three pilots who have told me that they didn't have 20-20 vision the day they went for their exams, they just faked it. I've met a half dozen pilots who are colour blind and faked their way through the test.

As you might have guessed, I don't think I know something about flying because I know how to code, I think I know something about flying (and air traffic control) because I know people in the industry and have an interest in it myself. Your assumption that I'm some geek who knows nothing is typical of pilot arrogance.

Re:As a pilot... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22033180)

Keeping morse code was idiotic. I'm very glad it's gone (thank you FCC and NCI, and fuck you ARRL!).

For recreational flying (Private level) the medical requirements aren't that strict. You can use vision correction aides. Also if you are color-blind allowances are made. You might be restricted from flying at night for instance, and for good reason. If you have a radio failure and you can tell the coloured lights from the tower apart, you're in a bit of trouble. And for sport pilot, you DON'T EVEN NEED A MEDICAL! Christ, you're just digging yourself in deeper. If you had a real interest in aviation then you should have known this.

I'm not assuming that you're a geek due to my pilot arrogance, it's because I've been reading slashdot for years and you keep going on like this. Sheesh you and twitter need to get a room or something

Re:As a pilot... (-1, Troll)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#22033238)

Maybe you should stick to reading then as your posting skills are horrid. Now kindly fuck right off.

Re:As a pilot... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22033306)

Trent, lets review your claims, shall we?

1: "All those requirements on pilots are there to keep the membership exclusive ... Just like driving a train, you could replace all the "pilots" with automated systems tomorrow and it wouldn't require a bit of new technology."

The pilot is the best insurance money can buy. Humans can always beat automation in unusual circumstances. I'd like to see how the a pilotless plane would have coped after being damaged by a missle. The DHL pilots landed the plane. An autopilot would have crashed.

2: "some active pilots I know who are mature enough to know how little important they are in the _normal_ operation of the aircraft."

Nice way to try to weasel out of your earlier statement by adding the qualifier "normal operation". Sure if everything always goes to plan you probably could automate the entire flight. But emergencies are where people matter.

3: "for recreational flying there is absolutely no reason to require pilots to have 20-20 vision or any of the other crap"

You DON'T EVEN NEED A MEDICAL TO FLY AS A SPORT PILOT.

YHBT. YHL. HAND.

Yeah right, your an idiot (3, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 6 years ago | (#22032980)

Watch those same shows and see the ones where the pilots still managed to land the aircraft, like the one over Iraq that got shot at, or the several cases of where an airliner lost all engine power etc etc. Plenty of cases where real airmanship and seat of the pants flying were called for that could not be delivered by an auto-pilot or a button pusher.

Only a complete and utter moron looks at a routine job when everything is normal and judges how difficult a job is based on that. The entire point of using real humans with serious training as pilots is NOT for when everything is normal but for when the shit hits the fan and all of sudden an airline pilot you think is just a button pusher is in control of a giant glider.

An autopilot can take off, cruise and land, but it can't deal with an emergency and as was shown during an airshow in europe autopilots will happily try to land an airliner in a forest.

Re:Yeah right, your an idiot (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#22033086)

That's just cause no-one has bothered to make an autopilot system that can.

Re:Yeah right, your an idiot (2, Informative)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | more than 6 years ago | (#22033168)

The "Autopilot" that landed in a forest was not an autopilot at all, it was the fly-by-wire computer system that overrulled the pilot by decending when he was trying to pull up....

The reason we have pilots in aircraft is for the emergencies most commercial flights the autopilot flies the plane for most of the journey and can usually take off and land as well if required, but the pilots are needed to cope with situations the autopilot was not designed for (but this does not mean they can't be designed for this?)

Re:Yeah right, your an idiot (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 6 years ago | (#22033234)

The "Autopilot" that landed in a forest was not an autopilot at all, it was the fly-by-wire computer system that overrulled the pilot by decending when he was trying to pull up....
Not even that - the Habsheim A320 crash was caused primarily by pilot error, as he both changed his plan of action at the last minute, reduced height to below that of the surrounding obstacles, reduced power below that he would require so he maintained a descent angle, and basically left it too late to do anything about it before he hit the trees. There has never been any evidence to show that the A320s systems caused the accident, despite many conspiracy theories surrounding the case.

Re:Yeah right, your an idiot (1)

Grismar (840501) | more than 6 years ago | (#22033294)

And since we can all agree to both the argument against letting Joe Average fly a vehicle and the argument about an autopilot being unable to handle many emergencies, we can just put the whole flying car concept to bed.

It's not going to happen anytime soon, at least not until we've developed sufficiently intelligent technology that we would actually entrust with our lives. Would you get into a 747 that's being flown by wire, 100%?

It reminds me of a popular joke that used to be told to computer science students by one of my favorite teachers: 3 IT guys get into an airplane. In their row, an important looking guy, who turns out to own the airline strikes up a conversation. "Boy, I'm really excited about this flight, we just put a new autopilot system in place." One of the guys starts to sweat profusely, makes up an excuse and gets out of the plane. "In fact, aren't you guys part of the company that developed it for us?" Now the second guy start looking really uncomfortable and mumbles something about leaving his workstation logged in, while getting off the plane. "Hey, why did both of your friends leave, yet you are still here?" The final guy responds: "I'm fairly certain we won't even get off the ground."

Re:Yeah right, your an idiot (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 6 years ago | (#22033320)

Watch those same shows and see the ones where the pilots still managed to land the aircraft, like the one over Iraq that got shot at, or the several cases of where an airliner lost all engine power etc etc.

The one that got shot down over Iraq could have landed much easier if it had a computer system that helped them to fly without hydrolics.

This does NOT mean I think flying cars are a good idea. Holding something in the air requires more fuel then not doing so and alone for that it is a bad idea.

Another reason is that in a trafic jam, you can get very close to each other. Try doing that while in the air in 3 dimensions.

Re:Yeah right, your an idiot (1)

Silverstrike (170889) | more than 6 years ago | (#22033382)

Right, and no one will ever need more than 640 kb of RAM.

Come on, look around, where are you? You're expected to have a better vision of technology here.

One day, there will be a machine that can fly as well, and better than, humans. Hell, the Predator UAV's already fly in bad weather.

Its a question of WHEN not IF.

Re:I can remember... (2, Informative)

icebrain (944107) | more than 6 years ago | (#22033036)

Well, we know you've never actually flown an airplane before, because you wouldn't be making inane statements like this. Those restrictions aren't there because we're a bunch of snobs trying to hog all the fun; they have them because it's very easy to fuck up flying a plane, and if you do fuck up the consequences are a lot more severe than they would be in a car. Ground controllers don't fly the aircraft; in essence, their job is to make sure planes don't hit each other, which is actually a much bigger challenge than you would think. Of course, you wouldn't know that.

Autopilots aren't there to replace the meatware... you find them on larger transport aircraft to take the load off the pilots so they can concentrate on the other stuff, like navigating around storms, dealing with clearances, or working the systems (especially in an emergency), without having to waste some brainpower on "keep the wings level". And all these automated systems you seem to get off to fail a lot more often than you would think. Knowing how to deal with emergencies, and being able to do it, are why airline pilots get paid what they do. Take a look sometime at crash statistics for the military's unmanned aircraft... simle software bugs or communications glitches have caused many crashes. They wouldn't have happened had there been a person on board to override the systems. I realize that pilots can cause accidents too, but they have one advantage an autopilot doesn't: common sense. The autopilot will happily drive you into the heart of a severe storm, or follow a spurious command to lock all your control surfaces at maximum deflection.

Finally, a lot of airplanes don't have autopilots at all. The vast majority of light private aircraft don't; most of those that do don't have anything more complicated than a simple altitude and heading hold. And even in airliners, takeoffs are always flown manually; and unless restricted by weather or airspace, landings and most flight under 10,000 ft is as well. Crews generally only do autolands when they absolutely have to, and even then they keep very close watch in case something goes wrong.

Tell you what: you go ahead and get on a fully automated airplane. I'll stick with human pilots, myself.

Re:I can remember... (1)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 6 years ago | (#22033046)

Having gone up in a small plane for a lesson as a birthday present, I can honestly say that there is absolutely nothing automatic about flying a plane, especially a small. You're talk thousand, perhaps tens-of-thousands of people flying the equivalent of small planes without any idea how they work or how to handle them in an emergency. System of the damned, indeed! I wouldn't get in a flying car if the sky was the equivalent of the New Jersey Turnpike.

Re:I can remember... (2, Insightful)

owlnation (858981) | more than 6 years ago | (#22033190)

Pilots have to be 100% sober, have no criminal records, good sight (without the use of glasses), and pass a billion other tests. Flying around in mid-air is not quite like driving on the road. You have to keep track of wind, other flying vehicles, obstacles - and you have virtually no guidance (like roads). And when you make a mistake, you loose hard. Not only you, in fact, but everyone around you, too.
You're right. But... during my entire private pilot's license test I was thinking, "why isn't this the same for car drivers?" If the conditions you stated also applied to car drivers -- and there is no reason why they don't -- think how much safer roads would be.

Re:I can remember... (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 6 years ago | (#22033250)

good sight (without the use of glasses),

really? then how do I have a pilots license? I need glasses I am nearsighted so without them I might as well be flying in zero visibility.

Lots of people that need glasses to see have their pilots license, I suggest you update your information.

Re:I can remember... (2, Funny)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 6 years ago | (#22032668)

what happens when you run out of gas
There are at least two options, the better of which is probably gliding [wikipedia.org] .

Re:I can remember... (3, Funny)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#22032742)

The other option is the one that I practice with my current ground car.. I keep my eye on the fuel gauge and fill up when it gets low.

Seriously, can't we assume just a *little* bit of intelligence on behalf of the driver? Oh, wait, we're talking about Americans aren't we.

Re:I can remember... (1)

jamesh (87723) | more than 6 years ago | (#22032890)

My last car (Holden Commodore ~2002 model) had a problem where the fuel level sender unit would fail in such a way that you'd be out of fuel when the gauge said 1/4 full. Obviously you'd learn to take that into account. The second time.

There is a reason that aircraft are subject to slightly stricter rules than ground based vehicles.

Re:I can remember... (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#22032950)

Yeah, in Australia, such a vehicle would be considered unroadworthy.. seeing as most no-one drives Holdens except Australians, I gotta ask, where'd you get your bodgy roadworthy from? :)

Re:I can remember... (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#22033076)

So my sibling poster mentions that your car is not roadworthy. And whether or not it is, it brings up a good point. Many people drive around in very mechanically unsound vehicles. Now just imagine if all those cars were flying. It would be insane. They'd be dropping out of the sky left right and centre.

Re:I can remember... (1)

Provocateur (133110) | more than 6 years ago | (#22033022)

For some strange reason, in most cases the intelligence you're referring to seems to be situated behind the driver, hence the term 'back seat driver'.

Re:I can remember... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22033292)

That's not an option "when you run out of gas", any more than avoiding getting shot means you're bulletproof.

Re:I can remember... (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 6 years ago | (#22032882)

Thanks for the link. I love the bit about the engineers van running out of fuel. My dad is a glider pilot and has long insisted that this makes him a better powered plane pilot as well.

Re:I can remember... (1)

laejoh (648921) | more than 6 years ago | (#22033336)

And the other option involves ??? [wikipedia.org]

Re: No, that is Moller (1)

scsirob (246572) | more than 6 years ago | (#22032792)

You are confusing this with the Moller SkyCrap. This was closer to the real deal 18 years ago then Moller will ever be.

Re:I can remember... (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#22033102)

It seems like a lot of trouble to go through, when you could solve 99% of the worlds traffic problem with a small sensor on the front of each vehicle to allow the vehicle to sense the movement of the car directly in front of them. This would be useful at red lights. The red light turns green, and all the cars that were stopped at the light, start to move at once. Instead of waiting 10 seconds for the one 10 cars back to start moving, they all start moving instantly, or within a second.

Re:I can remember... (2, Funny)

ishmaelflood (643277) | more than 6 years ago | (#22033218)

Oddly enough that's what they do in the UK. The lights go green, everyone who can see the traffic light hits the loud pedal, and at least starts to roll. I was slightly astonished to find that Australian drivers don't do this. There again they are so unskillful that they'd probably crash into each other. On the other hand Australians d at least treat the amber light with the contempt it deserves. ObStarman.

Re:I can remember... (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 6 years ago | (#22033328)

Oddly enough that's what they do in the UK. The lights go green, everyone who can see the traffic light hits the loud pedal
It's probably because of the sequencing; it goes from red to red-and-yellow-together for around 1 to 2 seconds before turning green. It's enough time for most competent drivers to get in gear and drop the handbrake.

In Belgium for instance it doesn't work like that, so you basically have to hold it on the clutch and footbrake unless you want some dick to run into you (or at least, hoot like a twat) 15 milliseconds after it changes.

Re:I can remember... (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 6 years ago | (#22033236)

There would still be a delay because the safe distance at 30mph is totally different to the safe distance when stopped. Within a second is completely unrealistic. All it would stop is the idiot who takes 30 seconds to realize that the car in front has gone... but you can get pretty close to optimal already if the queue is seasoned drivers (eg. evenings after work, when the drive once a week crowd aren't usually out).

Such systems as you describe are in commercial deployment btw. - it's called adaptive cruise control - but they mostly handle moving traffic.

Top bid is $55,000? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22032422)

Too rich for my blood. Or any nigger's*.

* Oprah and Bill Gates excepted.

Modern personal-flying-car equivalents (1)

compumike (454538) | more than 6 years ago | (#22032424)

This is a neat concept car. Out of everything I've heard about, the most likely to actually make it to the market is the Terrafugia Transition [terrafugia.com] , which is aimed at people who have both drivers' and pilots' licenses. Not VTOL, but more realistic too.

--
Educational microcontroller kits for the digital generation. [nerdkits.com]

Re:Modern personal-flying-car equivalents (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22032456)

Why foldaway wings? Couldn't they have worked on a gull-wing like design?

My question about Sky Commuters (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22032430)

Are there Sky Niggers involved?

Scary thought there, people, a damn scary thought. Almost L. Frank Baumesque.

Re:My question about Sky Commuters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22032598)

alright jerk no more Jolt Cola for you...

I can't find the VIN number... (4, Funny)

ForestGrump (644805) | more than 6 years ago | (#22032432)

I looked over the fleabay posting and can't find the VIN for the car. If someone found it could you PLEASE reply to this so I can do a quick carfax report?

Thanks
Grump

PS Does anyone have a carfax account to run the check for me?

Re:I can't find the VIN number... (4, Funny)

iamdrscience (541136) | more than 6 years ago | (#22032470)

Why bother? He's clearly selling it as a parts car for people trying to repair their regular flying car.

For Auction != For Sale (1)

Traf-O-Data-Hater (858971) | more than 6 years ago | (#22032568)

If it were for sale there would be a 'Buy It Now' option. There is a difference. Or is it that no-one cares anymore?

Re:For Auction != For Sale (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 6 years ago | (#22032582)

For Auction is For Sale. For Sale is not For Auction.

Re:For Auction != For Sale (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 6 years ago | (#22032768)

Or, to put it mathematically (without the aid of mathematical symbols or a safety net), auctions are a subset of sales where the price is determined by the highest bidder as opposed to determined before advertising, but sales are not a subset of auctions.

Re:For Auction != For Sale (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#22033122)

I'm not too up-to-date on my set theory, but are there any weird mathematical instances where A is a subset of B, and B is a subset of A? It seems like it would be impossible, unless A and B are equal sets (and therefore not subsets).

Belongs in a museum (2, Funny)

user24 (854467) | more than 6 years ago | (#22032576)

I really think this belongs in a museum.

Re: Belongs in a museum (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22032604)

I really think this belongs in a museum.

So do you!

Throw him over the side!

Thank you Indiana Jones (3, Funny)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#22032666)

we'll take it under advisement.

A-- WILL NOT BUY AGAIN (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22032586)

Will not buy again! Flying car did not fly as advertised! A--!

Re:A-- WILL NOT BUY AGAIN (4, Funny)

jamesh (87723) | more than 6 years ago | (#22032850)

No... an A-- is what you give when the package you receive from eBay only contains a bobcat [xkcd.com] .

Re:A-- WILL NOT BUY AGAIN (1)

Oktober Sunset (838224) | more than 6 years ago | (#22032860)

Ha, a flying car is a pretty lame thing to buy on eBay, there are waaay cooler thing you can get. I got a time machine arriving this week, I hope it works better than the teleporter I bought last week tho.

Re:A-- WILL NOT BUY AGAIN (1)

sticks_us (150624) | more than 6 years ago | (#22032934)

Dude, I hate to say this but I think you've been scammed.

This flying car thing is another one just like it. If you read between the lines, what they really want to send you is the BOX THE FLYING CAR CAME IN, not the car itself.

Re:A-- WILL NOT BUY AGAIN (1)

MikeRR (245489) | more than 6 years ago | (#22032984)

Ha, a flying car is a pretty lame thing to buy on eBay, there are waaay cooler thing you can get.

  I got a time machine arriving this week
A+++ Arrived even before I bought it ++++

Re:A-- WILL NOT BUY AGAIN (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 6 years ago | (#22033354)

It landed on my grandfather, you insenitive clod! Now I dont ex

I don't see $55,100 (1)

Psychotic_Wrath (693928) | more than 6 years ago | (#22032602)

Re:I don't see $55,100 (1)

luke2063 (1137533) | more than 6 years ago | (#22032892)

The bids shown as current bid are a small amount above the previous bid - so $55,100 would be m***o( 2729) US $55,500.00 Jan-13-08 17:31:08 PST bid above l***u( 1299) US $55,000.00 Jan-13-08 16:43:22 PST

Re:I don't see $55,100 (0, Troll)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 6 years ago | (#22032936)

When it was 55,000 I could have bid 55,100 and been the highest bidder.

Re:I don't see $55,100 (1)

PhilHibbs (4537) | more than 6 years ago | (#22033308)

When it was 55,000 I could have bid 55,100 and been the highest bidder.
Probably not. l***i [ebay.com] might have set a maximum bid of $1,000,000 and what you see on ebay is the second-highest bid. As soon as you bid $55,100 then all you do is bump up the person who has already outbid you to a slightly higher amount.

d'uh (3, Funny)

habbi (991628) | more than 6 years ago | (#22032618)

someone please edit the tag, it should read !transportation

Finally an answer (1)

12WTF$ (979066) | more than 6 years ago | (#22032692)

to the persistent whinge "where's my flying car?"

Answer: On eBay

Re:On Ebay... (3, Funny)

secretwhistle (1116881) | more than 6 years ago | (#22032712)

Yet another item from the bitter Jetson divorce.

Analogy Search (1)

hyades1 (1149581) | more than 6 years ago | (#22032722)

Duke Nukem Forever is to Vapourware as Skycar is to......

Re:Analogy Search (1)

Grimbleton (1034446) | more than 6 years ago | (#22032872)

Potential calamity.

Interesting configuration. (2, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | more than 6 years ago | (#22033012)

With modern computer control, it should be possible to stabilize a three-fan system like that. What I would wonder though, is how efficient it could be in forward flight, having very little in the way of effective wing area.

-jcr

Re:Interesting configuration. (1)

cmat (152027) | more than 6 years ago | (#22033322)

One I noted when I looked at the 3-fan design, is that if you have problems with any of th fans, you're in alot of trouble as there is no redundancy (especially for the front fan, but I'd bet it would be extremely unlikely that loss of a rear fan could be compensated for by the other rear fan). Very bad failure mode...

Owner builds aircraft mockups. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22033124)

The guy who's selling it, Steven Stull, makes aircraft mock ups. See the pages here [airwolf.tv] and here [wordunspoken.com] for a full size model of the Airwolf he build for a museum.

Can't wait. (1)

fastest fascist (1086001) | more than 6 years ago | (#22033160)

I can't wait to see widespread adoption of flying commuter vehicles. Then we'll get to see public buildings protected from suicide bombers not just by concrete walls or metal fences, but giant cages covering them completely. Or maybe they'll just install flak cannons.

But (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22033166)

Does it run linux? It must since it doesnt work.

Copyrights included? (1)

PhilHibbs (4537) | more than 6 years ago | (#22033208)

From the ebay listing:

This Sky Commuter and all it's R&D and any copyrights go with this aircraft.

I doubt that that is true. Surely Boeing own the "copyrights" to their research, and I wouldn't expect to see that kind of thing go on ebay.

hitler reincarnated? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22033212)

does anyone remember who his favorite 'enemy' was? let yOUR conscience be yOUR guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. there are still some choices. if they do not suit you, consider the likely results of continuing to follow the corepirate nazi hypenosys story LIEn, whereas anything of relevance is replaced almost instantly with pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking propaganda or 'celebrity' trivia 'foam'. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on yOUR brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071229/ap_on_sc/ye_climate_records;_ylt=A0WTcVgednZHP2gB9wms0NUE [yahoo.com]
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080108/ts_alt_afp/ushealthfrancemortality;_ylt=A9G_RngbRIVHsYAAfCas0NUE [yahoo.com]
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/opinion/31mon1.html?em&ex=1199336400&en=c4b5414371631707&ei=5087%0A [nytimes.com]

is it time to get real yet? A LOT of energy is being squandered in attempts to keep US in the dark. in the end (give or take a few 1000 years), the creators will prevail (world without end, etc...), as it has always been. the process of gaining yOUR release from the current hostage situation may not be what you might think it is. butt of course, most of US don't know, or care what a precarious/fatal situation we're in. for example; the insidious attempts by the felonious corepirate nazi execrable to block the suns' light, interfering with a requirement (sunlight) for us to stay healthy/alive. it's likely not good for yOUR health/memories 'else they'd be bragging about it? we're intending for the whoreabully deceptive (they'll do ANYTHING for a bit more monIE/power) felons to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather', as well as a # of other things/events.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video+cloud+spraying [google.com]

dictator style micro management has never worked (for very long). it's an illness. tie that with life0cidal aggression & softwar gangster style bullying, & what do we have? a greed/fear/ego based recipe for disaster. meanwhile, you can help to stop the bleeding (loss of life & limb);

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/28/vermont.banning.bush.ap/index.html [cnn.com]

the bleeding must be stopped before any healing can begin. jailing a couple of corepirate nazi hired goons would send a clear message to the rest of the world from US. any truthful look at the 'scorecard' would reveal that we are a society in decline/deep doo-doo, despite all of the scriptdead pr ?firm? generated drum beating & flag waving propaganda that we are constantly bombarded with. is it time to get real yet? please consider carefully ALL of yOUR other 'options'. the creators will prevail. as it has always been.

corepirate nazi execrable costs outweigh benefits
(Score:-)mynuts won, the king is a fink)
by ourselves on everyday 24/7

as there are no benefits, just more&more death/debt & disruption. fortunately there's an 'army' of light bringers, coming yOUR way. the little ones/innocents must/will be protected. after the big flash, ALL of yOUR imaginary 'borders' may blur a bit? for each of the creators' innocents harmed in any way, there is a debt that must/will be repaid by you/us, as the perpetrators/minions of unprecedented evile, will not be available. 'vote' with (what's left in) yOUR wallet, & by your behaviors. help bring an end to unprecedented evile's manifestation through yOUR owned felonious corepirate nazi glowbull warmongering execrable. some of US should consider ourselves somewhat fortunate to be among those scheduled to survive after the big flash/implementation of the creators' wwwildly popular planet/population rescue initiative/mandate. it's right in the manual, 'world without end', etc.... as we all ?know?, change is inevitable, & denying/ignoring gravity, logic, morality, etc..., is only possible, on a temporary basis. concern about the course of events that will occur should the life0cidal execrable fail to be intervened upon is in order. 'do not be dismayed' (also from the manual). however, it's ok/recommended, to not attempt to live under/accept, fauxking nazi felon greed/fear/ego based pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking hypenosys.

consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

meanwhile, the life0cidal philistines continue on their path of death, debt, & disruption for most of US. gov. bush denies health care for the little ones;

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/03/bush.veto/index.html [cnn.com]

whilst demanding/extorting billions to paint more targets on the bigger kids;

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/12/bush.war.funding/index.html [cnn.com]

& pretending that it isn't happening here;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3086937.ece [timesonline.co.uk]
all is not lost/forgotten/forgiven

(yOUR elected) president al gore (deciding not to wait for the much anticipated 'lonesome al answers yOUR questions' interview here on /.) continues to attempt to shed some light on yOUR foibles. talk about reverse polarity;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3046116.ece [timesonline.co.uk]

On the other hand, there _is_ a flying hovercraft (1)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 6 years ago | (#22033408)

I saw it on TV quite recently. It's from a specialist hovercraft builder in, I think, Illinois who builds small one man hovercraft. He has found that by fitting small wings, he can get ground effect lift (shouldn't that be water effect lift? Oh well) and fly over a lake at an altitude of a meter or so. Over 3 meters you apparently need a pilot's licence. It looks surprisingly similar to this skycar, except that it's red. And either it works or that was the most realistic bit of CGI I have ever seen. And I want one...but I'm 100% sure my wife wouldn't let me.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>