<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_04_1859204</id>
	<title>DARPA Kick-Starts Flying Car Program</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1262599860000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>coondoggie writes to share that DARPA is finally trying to make good on the promise of <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/49469">flying cars for our future</a> with the new "Transformer" (TX) project.  <i>"DARPA said the vehicle will need to be able to drive on prepared surface and light off-road conditions, as well as support Vertical Takeoff and Landing (VTOL) features.
The TX will also support range and speed efficiencies that will allow for missions to be performed on a single tank of fuel. DARPA said the TX will 'provide the flexibility to adapt to traditional and asymmetric threats by providing the operator unimpeded movement over difficult terrain. In addition, transportation is no longer restricted to trafficable terrain that tends to makes movement predictable.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>coondoggie writes to share that DARPA is finally trying to make good on the promise of flying cars for our future with the new " Transformer " ( TX ) project .
" DARPA said the vehicle will need to be able to drive on prepared surface and light off-road conditions , as well as support Vertical Takeoff and Landing ( VTOL ) features .
The TX will also support range and speed efficiencies that will allow for missions to be performed on a single tank of fuel .
DARPA said the TX will 'provide the flexibility to adapt to traditional and asymmetric threats by providing the operator unimpeded movement over difficult terrain .
In addition , transportation is no longer restricted to trafficable terrain that tends to makes movement predictable .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>coondoggie writes to share that DARPA is finally trying to make good on the promise of flying cars for our future with the new "Transformer" (TX) project.
"DARPA said the vehicle will need to be able to drive on prepared surface and light off-road conditions, as well as support Vertical Takeoff and Landing (VTOL) features.
The TX will also support range and speed efficiencies that will allow for missions to be performed on a single tank of fuel.
DARPA said the TX will 'provide the flexibility to adapt to traditional and asymmetric threats by providing the operator unimpeded movement over difficult terrain.
In addition, transportation is no longer restricted to trafficable terrain that tends to makes movement predictable.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647376</id>
	<title>Re:Ground vs Air</title>
	<author>QuantumG</author>
	<datestamp>1262604540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow.. I didn't know we needed your permission Nazi AC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow.. I did n't know we needed your permission Nazi AC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow.. I didn't know we needed your permission Nazi AC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30651428</id>
	<title>Ok, flying cars are good...</title>
	<author>lanceran</author>
	<datestamp>1262628540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...but can I get my very own jetpack first?</htmltext>
<tokenext>...but can I get my very own jetpack first ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...but can I get my very own jetpack first?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647614</id>
	<title>no, no no</title>
	<author>kehren77</author>
	<datestamp>1262605560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We don't need flying cars. Flying cars = Falling cars. Add in volatile fuel and you have bombs. What they need to work on is a car that will hover about 2-3 feet above the ground. A hover car would eliminate the need for paved roads, road maintenance, bridges, bridge maintenance, etc... You just need lane guides and median dividers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We do n't need flying cars .
Flying cars = Falling cars .
Add in volatile fuel and you have bombs .
What they need to work on is a car that will hover about 2-3 feet above the ground .
A hover car would eliminate the need for paved roads , road maintenance , bridges , bridge maintenance , etc... You just need lane guides and median dividers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We don't need flying cars.
Flying cars = Falling cars.
Add in volatile fuel and you have bombs.
What they need to work on is a car that will hover about 2-3 feet above the ground.
A hover car would eliminate the need for paved roads, road maintenance, bridges, bridge maintenance, etc... You just need lane guides and median dividers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647908</id>
	<title>Re:Ground vs Air</title>
	<author>Rei</author>
	<datestamp>1262606880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fly-by-wire, with a special, hard-to-get license for manual flight and restrictions on where it can be used.</p><p>Flying cars would also require a lot of safety features to ensure survivability in an accident or mechanical problem, including multiple engines with the ability to survive the failure of one or more of them, as well as vehicle parachutes launched by a spreader gun for rapid deployment, and possibly large airbags to cushion the landing of the vehicle itself.</p><p>Hmm... you know, I bet you could have the firing off of vehicle-scale airbags *be* the spreader for your chute if you did it right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fly-by-wire , with a special , hard-to-get license for manual flight and restrictions on where it can be used.Flying cars would also require a lot of safety features to ensure survivability in an accident or mechanical problem , including multiple engines with the ability to survive the failure of one or more of them , as well as vehicle parachutes launched by a spreader gun for rapid deployment , and possibly large airbags to cushion the landing of the vehicle itself.Hmm... you know , I bet you could have the firing off of vehicle-scale airbags * be * the spreader for your chute if you did it right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fly-by-wire, with a special, hard-to-get license for manual flight and restrictions on where it can be used.Flying cars would also require a lot of safety features to ensure survivability in an accident or mechanical problem, including multiple engines with the ability to survive the failure of one or more of them, as well as vehicle parachutes launched by a spreader gun for rapid deployment, and possibly large airbags to cushion the landing of the vehicle itself.Hmm... you know, I bet you could have the firing off of vehicle-scale airbags *be* the spreader for your chute if you did it right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30648130</id>
	<title>Bahhd Idea</title>
	<author>pubwvj</author>
	<datestamp>1262608080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Flying cars are a really bad idea.<br>The vast majority of drivers are failing in 2D.<br>Add another dimension to fail in and the problem explodes.<br>I also don't want them over my house, land, pastures.<br>Costs and fuel consumption will hopefully kill this dead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Flying cars are a really bad idea.The vast majority of drivers are failing in 2D.Add another dimension to fail in and the problem explodes.I also do n't want them over my house , land , pastures.Costs and fuel consumption will hopefully kill this dead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flying cars are a really bad idea.The vast majority of drivers are failing in 2D.Add another dimension to fail in and the problem explodes.I also don't want them over my house, land, pastures.Costs and fuel consumption will hopefully kill this dead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647834</id>
	<title>Wanna bet</title>
	<author>SnarfQuest</author>
	<datestamp>1262606520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Want to bet that this will lead to a whole new section of Darwin Awards?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Want to bet that this will lead to a whole new section of Darwin Awards ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Want to bet that this will lead to a whole new section of Darwin Awards?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30648096</id>
	<title>Re:No military use</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262607900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back to your grave, Marshal Foch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back to your grave , Marshal Foch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back to your grave, Marshal Foch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30648752</id>
	<title>VTOL</title>
	<author>mugnyte</author>
	<datestamp>1262610960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> The initial momentum vertically is the highest energy requirement, which severely limits payload as energy storage becomes a huge issue.  Large fan blades are probably not possible as well.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Perhaps a spring or hydraulic based jump-start system (undercarriage paddles?) could enable a vehicle to begin large hops while engaging a ducted fan system that doesn't give full lift, but can slow a landing.  For full flight, I suspect a folded wing system of some kind will be necessary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The initial momentum vertically is the highest energy requirement , which severely limits payload as energy storage becomes a huge issue .
Large fan blades are probably not possible as well .
    Perhaps a spring or hydraulic based jump-start system ( undercarriage paddles ?
) could enable a vehicle to begin large hops while engaging a ducted fan system that does n't give full lift , but can slow a landing .
For full flight , I suspect a folded wing system of some kind will be necessary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The initial momentum vertically is the highest energy requirement, which severely limits payload as energy storage becomes a huge issue.
Large fan blades are probably not possible as well.
    Perhaps a spring or hydraulic based jump-start system (undercarriage paddles?
) could enable a vehicle to begin large hops while engaging a ducted fan system that doesn't give full lift, but can slow a landing.
For full flight, I suspect a folded wing system of some kind will be necessary.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647572</id>
	<title>Anyone Want to Start A Pool?</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1262605440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the <a href="https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&amp;mode=form&amp;id=be792877dbda574d29f703d3f6ca06d0&amp;tab=core&amp;\_cview=0&amp;cck=1&amp;au=&amp;ck=" title="fbo.gov"> Project Conference Description</a> [fbo.gov]:<p><div class="quote"><p>The workshop will: (a) Introduce the research community (industry, academia, and Government) to the TX program vision and objectives;</p></div><p>
So who wants to start a pool on which agencies/industry power hitters make the biggest contributions? Lockheed Martin has a great military aircraft record but Boeing seems to work magic in the advanced controls systems. Personally I would put my money on Northrop Gruman or some university coming up with the most significant design contributions. Both of those sources have quite the tenacity for half-crazed cutting edge ideas that the government loves to gobble up.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the Project Conference Description [ fbo.gov ] : The workshop will : ( a ) Introduce the research community ( industry , academia , and Government ) to the TX program vision and objectives ; So who wants to start a pool on which agencies/industry power hitters make the biggest contributions ?
Lockheed Martin has a great military aircraft record but Boeing seems to work magic in the advanced controls systems .
Personally I would put my money on Northrop Gruman or some university coming up with the most significant design contributions .
Both of those sources have quite the tenacity for half-crazed cutting edge ideas that the government loves to gobble up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the  Project Conference Description [fbo.gov]:The workshop will: (a) Introduce the research community (industry, academia, and Government) to the TX program vision and objectives;
So who wants to start a pool on which agencies/industry power hitters make the biggest contributions?
Lockheed Martin has a great military aircraft record but Boeing seems to work magic in the advanced controls systems.
Personally I would put my money on Northrop Gruman or some university coming up with the most significant design contributions.
Both of those sources have quite the tenacity for half-crazed cutting edge ideas that the government loves to gobble up.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30648240</id>
	<title>flying cars are ludicrously greener</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262608680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I dont give a crap about the environment, but flying cars are much greener then regular cars. As previously stated modern planes nowadays achieve better efficiency then most SUV's, and trip times will be majorly shorter, thus less fuel will be used in achieving a journey. Provided consumption rates can be kept similar to present planes or even large cars, being able to travel directly to your location in a straight line, as well as (with our current population at least) having no such thing as traffic jams since if the guy in front of you slows down just go above him.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I dont give a crap about the environment , but flying cars are much greener then regular cars .
As previously stated modern planes nowadays achieve better efficiency then most SUV 's , and trip times will be majorly shorter , thus less fuel will be used in achieving a journey .
Provided consumption rates can be kept similar to present planes or even large cars , being able to travel directly to your location in a straight line , as well as ( with our current population at least ) having no such thing as traffic jams since if the guy in front of you slows down just go above him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dont give a crap about the environment, but flying cars are much greener then regular cars.
As previously stated modern planes nowadays achieve better efficiency then most SUV's, and trip times will be majorly shorter, thus less fuel will be used in achieving a journey.
Provided consumption rates can be kept similar to present planes or even large cars, being able to travel directly to your location in a straight line, as well as (with our current population at least) having no such thing as traffic jams since if the guy in front of you slows down just go above him.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647748</id>
	<title>Re:no, no no</title>
	<author>sunderland56</author>
	<datestamp>1262606100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We don't need flying cars. Flying cars = Falling cars. Add in volatile fuel and you have bombs.</p></div><p>
So, who is going to perform the security search before I leave for work in a flying car? Does the TSA come to my house every morning, or does my wife get to strip search me? And can I be checked before I put on my shoes, or do I have to put them on, then take them off, and then put them on again?
<br> <br>
And if I bring a cup of coffee, does it have to be smaller than 3.4 ounces??</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We do n't need flying cars .
Flying cars = Falling cars .
Add in volatile fuel and you have bombs .
So , who is going to perform the security search before I leave for work in a flying car ?
Does the TSA come to my house every morning , or does my wife get to strip search me ?
And can I be checked before I put on my shoes , or do I have to put them on , then take them off , and then put them on again ?
And if I bring a cup of coffee , does it have to be smaller than 3.4 ounces ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We don't need flying cars.
Flying cars = Falling cars.
Add in volatile fuel and you have bombs.
So, who is going to perform the security search before I leave for work in a flying car?
Does the TSA come to my house every morning, or does my wife get to strip search me?
And can I be checked before I put on my shoes, or do I have to put them on, then take them off, and then put them on again?
And if I bring a cup of coffee, does it have to be smaller than 3.4 ounces?
?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30657006</id>
	<title>The Idea Dies Hard</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1262715240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's a quote from and the theme of "Flying Platforms and Jeeps" <a href="http://www.vectorsite.net/avplatfm.html" title="vectorsite.net">http://www.vectorsite.net/avplatfm.html</a> [vectorsite.net] all PD and referenced material on VTOL air/ground craft from 1950s to present. No, these weren't just a 50s and 60s fad. The last military oriented program was running in 2002. There have been greater and lesser successes within the class, but none have been successful compared to other vehicle types. When they compete with say, helos or hovercraft, they're just too inefficient. The amount of power it takes compared to their mass makes them notoriously hard to control.</p><p>Included in the web site referenced is the Avrocar, the 'flying saucer' built by AVRO for the US Army. When it wouldn't hover stable, the engineering team told the chief engineer that a flexible skirt would make it more efficient as well as stable. The chief engineer refused (likely was instructed to by management) and so missed out on developing the GEV (ground effect vehicle). ie. hovercraft.</p><p>One of the two Avrocars is on display in a military museum in Canada. The other suffered a great deal of rust damage on display outside the US Army Transportation Museum at Ft. Eustis, Virginia. It is now inside, waiting on a funding source that so far has not materialized that will pay for its refurbishment. Another attempt to salvage it, based on having it taken home to Canada, has progressed further in the talking phase thanks to many fans of AVRO and its products as well as authors of books on them, but has made no other progress. Full disclosure: I'm one of those fans, have been in talks with the authors, Canadian military and AVRO fans, and the Ft. Eustis museum. This is in large part to having been to the museum and seen the Avrocar many times (as well as being an AVRO Arrow fan), and having been stationed at Ft. Story, a satellite facility of Ft. Eustis, where we had a whole fleet of operational hovercraft. I'm not soliciting for it now, but hopefully someday soon.</p><p>Truly, the idea dies hard, with regards to both the future and the past efforts. Despite their problems, likely unsolvable, they'll keep building them. And we'll keep nostalgizing them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a quote from and the theme of " Flying Platforms and Jeeps " http : //www.vectorsite.net/avplatfm.html [ vectorsite.net ] all PD and referenced material on VTOL air/ground craft from 1950s to present .
No , these were n't just a 50s and 60s fad .
The last military oriented program was running in 2002 .
There have been greater and lesser successes within the class , but none have been successful compared to other vehicle types .
When they compete with say , helos or hovercraft , they 're just too inefficient .
The amount of power it takes compared to their mass makes them notoriously hard to control.Included in the web site referenced is the Avrocar , the 'flying saucer ' built by AVRO for the US Army .
When it would n't hover stable , the engineering team told the chief engineer that a flexible skirt would make it more efficient as well as stable .
The chief engineer refused ( likely was instructed to by management ) and so missed out on developing the GEV ( ground effect vehicle ) .
ie. hovercraft.One of the two Avrocars is on display in a military museum in Canada .
The other suffered a great deal of rust damage on display outside the US Army Transportation Museum at Ft. Eustis , Virginia .
It is now inside , waiting on a funding source that so far has not materialized that will pay for its refurbishment .
Another attempt to salvage it , based on having it taken home to Canada , has progressed further in the talking phase thanks to many fans of AVRO and its products as well as authors of books on them , but has made no other progress .
Full disclosure : I 'm one of those fans , have been in talks with the authors , Canadian military and AVRO fans , and the Ft. Eustis museum .
This is in large part to having been to the museum and seen the Avrocar many times ( as well as being an AVRO Arrow fan ) , and having been stationed at Ft. Story , a satellite facility of Ft. Eustis , where we had a whole fleet of operational hovercraft .
I 'm not soliciting for it now , but hopefully someday soon.Truly , the idea dies hard , with regards to both the future and the past efforts .
Despite their problems , likely unsolvable , they 'll keep building them .
And we 'll keep nostalgizing them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a quote from and the theme of "Flying Platforms and Jeeps" http://www.vectorsite.net/avplatfm.html [vectorsite.net] all PD and referenced material on VTOL air/ground craft from 1950s to present.
No, these weren't just a 50s and 60s fad.
The last military oriented program was running in 2002.
There have been greater and lesser successes within the class, but none have been successful compared to other vehicle types.
When they compete with say, helos or hovercraft, they're just too inefficient.
The amount of power it takes compared to their mass makes them notoriously hard to control.Included in the web site referenced is the Avrocar, the 'flying saucer' built by AVRO for the US Army.
When it wouldn't hover stable, the engineering team told the chief engineer that a flexible skirt would make it more efficient as well as stable.
The chief engineer refused (likely was instructed to by management) and so missed out on developing the GEV (ground effect vehicle).
ie. hovercraft.One of the two Avrocars is on display in a military museum in Canada.
The other suffered a great deal of rust damage on display outside the US Army Transportation Museum at Ft. Eustis, Virginia.
It is now inside, waiting on a funding source that so far has not materialized that will pay for its refurbishment.
Another attempt to salvage it, based on having it taken home to Canada, has progressed further in the talking phase thanks to many fans of AVRO and its products as well as authors of books on them, but has made no other progress.
Full disclosure: I'm one of those fans, have been in talks with the authors, Canadian military and AVRO fans, and the Ft. Eustis museum.
This is in large part to having been to the museum and seen the Avrocar many times (as well as being an AVRO Arrow fan), and having been stationed at Ft. Story, a satellite facility of Ft. Eustis, where we had a whole fleet of operational hovercraft.
I'm not soliciting for it now, but hopefully someday soon.Truly, the idea dies hard, with regards to both the future and the past efforts.
Despite their problems, likely unsolvable, they'll keep building them.
And we'll keep nostalgizing them.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30649284</id>
	<title>Re:Roads with VTOL?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262613240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Roads? Where we're going we don't -need- roads.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Roads ?
Where we 're going we do n't -need- roads .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Roads?
Where we're going we don't -need- roads.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30649216</id>
	<title>Well I have to get one now</title>
	<author>PaganRitual</author>
	<datestamp>1262612940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>... provide the flexibility to adapt to traditional and asymmetric threats<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</i></p><p>Excellent, it's being prepared to handle South Australian drivers then. Sweet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... provide the flexibility to adapt to traditional and asymmetric threats ...Excellent , it 's being prepared to handle South Australian drivers then .
Sweet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... provide the flexibility to adapt to traditional and asymmetric threats ...Excellent, it's being prepared to handle South Australian drivers then.
Sweet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647226</id>
	<title>"kick-starts flying car"?</title>
	<author>billstewart</author>
	<datestamp>1262603880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can't they put a starter motor in the thing?  I'd hate to have to get out, kick-start the thing, and have it fly away; that'd be almost as bad as having an old crank-start car trying to run you over.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't they put a starter motor in the thing ?
I 'd hate to have to get out , kick-start the thing , and have it fly away ; that 'd be almost as bad as having an old crank-start car trying to run you over .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't they put a starter motor in the thing?
I'd hate to have to get out, kick-start the thing, and have it fly away; that'd be almost as bad as having an old crank-start car trying to run you over.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30653226</id>
	<title>hoverdyne</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262692800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obviously, the request is ill-worded, but they explained well enough why they need it, or what they need: a land vehicle that can traverse terrain obstacles by using a vertical maneuver.</p><p>I imagine it should be something like a cross between Hummer and hovercraft (or some sort of low-flying chopper, using as much of ground effect as possible). That concept should allow the vehicle to go over landmines and pressure activated IEDs without setting them off, to skip over rough terrain and water obstacles, etc.</p><p>However, any vehicle which is associated with fast displacing air (and that includes fast moving land-only vehicles too) will  rise clouds of dust visible from afar. For some values of fast, they are noisy too.</p><p>Unfortunately, as Vietnam war experiences clearly show, low flying instead of driving over ground is not enough to evade unmanned (and especially not enough to evade human operated) traps and IEDs: their fluid and ever adapting nature will shift to enable detection of this new "threat".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously , the request is ill-worded , but they explained well enough why they need it , or what they need : a land vehicle that can traverse terrain obstacles by using a vertical maneuver.I imagine it should be something like a cross between Hummer and hovercraft ( or some sort of low-flying chopper , using as much of ground effect as possible ) .
That concept should allow the vehicle to go over landmines and pressure activated IEDs without setting them off , to skip over rough terrain and water obstacles , etc.However , any vehicle which is associated with fast displacing air ( and that includes fast moving land-only vehicles too ) will rise clouds of dust visible from afar .
For some values of fast , they are noisy too.Unfortunately , as Vietnam war experiences clearly show , low flying instead of driving over ground is not enough to evade unmanned ( and especially not enough to evade human operated ) traps and IEDs : their fluid and ever adapting nature will shift to enable detection of this new " threat " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously, the request is ill-worded, but they explained well enough why they need it, or what they need: a land vehicle that can traverse terrain obstacles by using a vertical maneuver.I imagine it should be something like a cross between Hummer and hovercraft (or some sort of low-flying chopper, using as much of ground effect as possible).
That concept should allow the vehicle to go over landmines and pressure activated IEDs without setting them off, to skip over rough terrain and water obstacles, etc.However, any vehicle which is associated with fast displacing air (and that includes fast moving land-only vehicles too) will  rise clouds of dust visible from afar.
For some values of fast, they are noisy too.Unfortunately, as Vietnam war experiences clearly show, low flying instead of driving over ground is not enough to evade unmanned (and especially not enough to evade human operated) traps and IEDs: their fluid and ever adapting nature will shift to enable detection of this new "threat".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647644</id>
	<title>Noisy Pork</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262605680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>"In addition, transportation is no longer restricted to trafficable terrain that tends to makes movement predictable.'"</i></p><p>If this technology is being developed for war, it's a <i>pork barrel project</i>.</p><p>Who needs an enemy to be predictable, just <b> <i>NOISY</i> </b>, and all elements of <i>surprise</i> are lost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" In addition , transportation is no longer restricted to trafficable terrain that tends to makes movement predictable .
' " If this technology is being developed for war , it 's a pork barrel project.Who needs an enemy to be predictable , just NOISY , and all elements of surprise are lost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "In addition, transportation is no longer restricted to trafficable terrain that tends to makes movement predictable.
'"If this technology is being developed for war, it's a pork barrel project.Who needs an enemy to be predictable, just  NOISY , and all elements of surprise are lost.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30662908</id>
	<title>Re:Where's my pony?</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1262696220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The want computers to be interconnected across the world and information shared? Crazy talk.<br>You lack imagination.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The want computers to be interconnected across the world and information shared ?
Crazy talk.You lack imagination .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The want computers to be interconnected across the world and information shared?
Crazy talk.You lack imagination.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647196</id>
	<title>Isn't the Moller Skycar ready Yet?</title>
	<author>billstewart</author>
	<datestamp>1262603760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or is it still Real Soon Now?   </p><p> <a href="http://xkcd.com/354/" title="xkcd.com" rel="nofollow">ObXKCD</a> [xkcd.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or is it still Real Soon Now ?
ObXKCD [ xkcd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or is it still Real Soon Now?
ObXKCD [xkcd.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30650262</id>
	<title>Re:no, no no</title>
	<author>mano.m</author>
	<datestamp>1262619240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Very, very rarely, one comes across a Slashdot comment that truly does deserve the title of 'Insightful'. Do please mod parent up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Very , very rarely , one comes across a Slashdot comment that truly does deserve the title of 'Insightful' .
Do please mod parent up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very, very rarely, one comes across a Slashdot comment that truly does deserve the title of 'Insightful'.
Do please mod parent up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647458</id>
	<title>Where's my pony?</title>
	<author>TrumpetPower!</author>
	<datestamp>1262604840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They want a fast roadable vehicle that does VTOL and long-distance all on a single tank of gas?</p><p>How much does the grant include for the development of unobtanium-powered engines?</p><p>Or have they finally waterboarded the Little Green Men at Area 51 sufficiently to reveal how to distill two-headed Martial Elvis babies into flying saucer fuel, and this is just the setup for the cover story preceding the public unveiling?</p><p>Cheers,</p><p>b&amp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They want a fast roadable vehicle that does VTOL and long-distance all on a single tank of gas ? How much does the grant include for the development of unobtanium-powered engines ? Or have they finally waterboarded the Little Green Men at Area 51 sufficiently to reveal how to distill two-headed Martial Elvis babies into flying saucer fuel , and this is just the setup for the cover story preceding the public unveiling ? Cheers,b&amp;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They want a fast roadable vehicle that does VTOL and long-distance all on a single tank of gas?How much does the grant include for the development of unobtanium-powered engines?Or have they finally waterboarded the Little Green Men at Area 51 sufficiently to reveal how to distill two-headed Martial Elvis babies into flying saucer fuel, and this is just the setup for the cover story preceding the public unveiling?Cheers,b&amp;</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30648418</id>
	<title>Osprey conversion</title>
	<author>planckscale</author>
	<datestamp>1262609400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I say just slap a 6 wheel chassis under an Osprey. I mean that conversion will cost less than converting a HUMVEE right? And the wings and blades of the Osprey fold down anyway. I can't imagine the Osprey being any bigger and bulkier than an MRAP or another one of those mine resistant vehicles.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I say just slap a 6 wheel chassis under an Osprey .
I mean that conversion will cost less than converting a HUMVEE right ?
And the wings and blades of the Osprey fold down anyway .
I ca n't imagine the Osprey being any bigger and bulkier than an MRAP or another one of those mine resistant vehicles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I say just slap a 6 wheel chassis under an Osprey.
I mean that conversion will cost less than converting a HUMVEE right?
And the wings and blades of the Osprey fold down anyway.
I can't imagine the Osprey being any bigger and bulkier than an MRAP or another one of those mine resistant vehicles.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30654256</id>
	<title>Re:What do they know?</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1262704080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's off topic because there was no such thing as DARPANET.  There used to be an ARPANET, which was one of the first networks that was connected to the fledgling Internet a little while after ARPA was renamed DARPA (for the first time, they were then renamed ARPA and then DARPA again).</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's off topic because there was no such thing as DARPANET .
There used to be an ARPANET , which was one of the first networks that was connected to the fledgling Internet a little while after ARPA was renamed DARPA ( for the first time , they were then renamed ARPA and then DARPA again ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's off topic because there was no such thing as DARPANET.
There used to be an ARPANET, which was one of the first networks that was connected to the fledgling Internet a little while after ARPA was renamed DARPA (for the first time, they were then renamed ARPA and then DARPA again).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647266</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647778</id>
	<title>No military use</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1262606280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No real military use for this thing.</p><p>If you see it, you can kill it, with RPGs or whatever, so hovering in the air merely increases the range from which it can be struck.</p><p>Then there are no current levitation systems that don't involve massive airflow, making a huge dust cloud (also ingesting all kinds of junk into the engines)</p><p>Then they mention "asymmetric threats" because everyone knows that guarantees grant money, but in my opinion using a levitating APC or whatever in the middle east would be fairly suicidal...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No real military use for this thing.If you see it , you can kill it , with RPGs or whatever , so hovering in the air merely increases the range from which it can be struck.Then there are no current levitation systems that do n't involve massive airflow , making a huge dust cloud ( also ingesting all kinds of junk into the engines ) Then they mention " asymmetric threats " because everyone knows that guarantees grant money , but in my opinion using a levitating APC or whatever in the middle east would be fairly suicidal.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No real military use for this thing.If you see it, you can kill it, with RPGs or whatever, so hovering in the air merely increases the range from which it can be struck.Then there are no current levitation systems that don't involve massive airflow, making a huge dust cloud (also ingesting all kinds of junk into the engines)Then they mention "asymmetric threats" because everyone knows that guarantees grant money, but in my opinion using a levitating APC or whatever in the middle east would be fairly suicidal...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30650728</id>
	<title>Feasibility</title>
	<author>rdnetto</author>
	<datestamp>1262622540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are flying cars even feasible? The energy required to push a car forward is nothing compared to the energy needed to keep it in the air. Even if flying cars are developed, their not going to be economical until we get past the energy crisis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are flying cars even feasible ?
The energy required to push a car forward is nothing compared to the energy needed to keep it in the air .
Even if flying cars are developed , their not going to be economical until we get past the energy crisis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are flying cars even feasible?
The energy required to push a car forward is nothing compared to the energy needed to keep it in the air.
Even if flying cars are developed, their not going to be economical until we get past the energy crisis.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647394</id>
	<title>This is just a ploy to get a car that can launch</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262604600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A nuclear warhead from a railgun. Just watch out darpa chief for heart attacks</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A nuclear warhead from a railgun .
Just watch out darpa chief for heart attacks</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A nuclear warhead from a railgun.
Just watch out darpa chief for heart attacks</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647520</id>
	<title>Dibs on the name...</title>
	<author>Tsar</author>
	<datestamp>1262605140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>HumVTOL.</htmltext>
<tokenext>HumVTOL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HumVTOL.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30648682</id>
	<title>OUR future?!?</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1262610660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unless you are wearing camos with bars on the shoulders, I don't think DARPA is funding this for YOUR future!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless you are wearing camos with bars on the shoulders , I do n't think DARPA is funding this for YOUR future !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless you are wearing camos with bars on the shoulders, I don't think DARPA is funding this for YOUR future!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647950</id>
	<title>Re:No military use</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1262607000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>No real military use for this thing.</p><p>If you see it, you can kill it, with RPGs or whatever, so hovering in the air merely increases the range from which it can be struck.</p></div></blockquote><p>Being able to easily pop up from the ground is better, from that respect, from being able to pop up from NOE flight, so there is a respect that a VTOL craft that can move well on roads and do light off-road work could be better than, say, a helicopter (which is very poor at moving on the ground.)</p><p>On the other hand, being able to move at high speed (compared to ground vehicles) through the air (and thereby bypass unpassable terrain on the ground) provides better tactical mobility in many environments than a typical ground vehicle.</p><p>So, conceivably, if you could do this, it would probably have utility.</p><p>Whether the probability that anything viable will ever be produced, when considered with the likely cost of the effort, makes it worthwhile is still questionable.</p><blockquote><div><p>Then there are no current levitation systems that don't involve massive airflow, making a huge dust cloud (also ingesting all kinds of junk into the engines)</p></div></blockquote><p>There are certainly systems which could be used for vertical take-off that exist now that don't require having open air intakes during take-off -- like rockets.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No real military use for this thing.If you see it , you can kill it , with RPGs or whatever , so hovering in the air merely increases the range from which it can be struck.Being able to easily pop up from the ground is better , from that respect , from being able to pop up from NOE flight , so there is a respect that a VTOL craft that can move well on roads and do light off-road work could be better than , say , a helicopter ( which is very poor at moving on the ground .
) On the other hand , being able to move at high speed ( compared to ground vehicles ) through the air ( and thereby bypass unpassable terrain on the ground ) provides better tactical mobility in many environments than a typical ground vehicle.So , conceivably , if you could do this , it would probably have utility.Whether the probability that anything viable will ever be produced , when considered with the likely cost of the effort , makes it worthwhile is still questionable.Then there are no current levitation systems that do n't involve massive airflow , making a huge dust cloud ( also ingesting all kinds of junk into the engines ) There are certainly systems which could be used for vertical take-off that exist now that do n't require having open air intakes during take-off -- like rockets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No real military use for this thing.If you see it, you can kill it, with RPGs or whatever, so hovering in the air merely increases the range from which it can be struck.Being able to easily pop up from the ground is better, from that respect, from being able to pop up from NOE flight, so there is a respect that a VTOL craft that can move well on roads and do light off-road work could be better than, say, a helicopter (which is very poor at moving on the ground.
)On the other hand, being able to move at high speed (compared to ground vehicles) through the air (and thereby bypass unpassable terrain on the ground) provides better tactical mobility in many environments than a typical ground vehicle.So, conceivably, if you could do this, it would probably have utility.Whether the probability that anything viable will ever be produced, when considered with the likely cost of the effort, makes it worthwhile is still questionable.Then there are no current levitation systems that don't involve massive airflow, making a huge dust cloud (also ingesting all kinds of junk into the engines)There are certainly systems which could be used for vertical take-off that exist now that don't require having open air intakes during take-off -- like rockets.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647804</id>
	<title>Re:no, no no</title>
	<author>Nadaka</author>
	<datestamp>1262606400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think so. Hover cars are by necessity going to be supported on a pillar of high pressure air. That will turn a dirt road into a dust storm, water into spray and gravel into high speed projectiles. Add to that, the difficulty in steering and braking when you don't have contact with  the surface and you will see that hover cars are a no go.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think so .
Hover cars are by necessity going to be supported on a pillar of high pressure air .
That will turn a dirt road into a dust storm , water into spray and gravel into high speed projectiles .
Add to that , the difficulty in steering and braking when you do n't have contact with the surface and you will see that hover cars are a no go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think so.
Hover cars are by necessity going to be supported on a pillar of high pressure air.
That will turn a dirt road into a dust storm, water into spray and gravel into high speed projectiles.
Add to that, the difficulty in steering and braking when you don't have contact with  the surface and you will see that hover cars are a no go.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30649070</id>
	<title>To be flown anywhere BUT in the USA</title>
	<author>gsgriffin</author>
	<datestamp>1262612100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>With our new push toward green, you'll see less travel in the blue.  My bet is that the carbon footprint of any flying car will be perfect for Gore to replace his plane, but be prohibitive for us common folks.  Unless this flies producing only water vapor as a result of any combustion, of course.</htmltext>
<tokenext>With our new push toward green , you 'll see less travel in the blue .
My bet is that the carbon footprint of any flying car will be perfect for Gore to replace his plane , but be prohibitive for us common folks .
Unless this flies producing only water vapor as a result of any combustion , of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With our new push toward green, you'll see less travel in the blue.
My bet is that the carbon footprint of any flying car will be perfect for Gore to replace his plane, but be prohibitive for us common folks.
Unless this flies producing only water vapor as a result of any combustion, of course.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30648402</id>
	<title>Re:No military use</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1262609280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you see it, you can kill it, with RPGs or whatever, so hovering in the air merely increases the range from which it can be struck.</p><p>Then there are no current levitation systems that don't involve massive airflow, making a huge dust cloud (also ingesting all kinds of junk into the engines)</p></div><p>Seems to me all that dust would make it kinda hard to see!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you see it , you can kill it , with RPGs or whatever , so hovering in the air merely increases the range from which it can be struck.Then there are no current levitation systems that do n't involve massive airflow , making a huge dust cloud ( also ingesting all kinds of junk into the engines ) Seems to me all that dust would make it kinda hard to see !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you see it, you can kill it, with RPGs or whatever, so hovering in the air merely increases the range from which it can be struck.Then there are no current levitation systems that don't involve massive airflow, making a huge dust cloud (also ingesting all kinds of junk into the engines)Seems to me all that dust would make it kinda hard to see!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30648144</id>
	<title>Re:No military use</title>
	<author>timeOday</author>
	<datestamp>1262608200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Huh?  Helicopters are already in wide use in Afghanistan, in fact there's been quite a flap in the UK recently over the <a href="http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4420094" title="defensenews.com">shortage of helicopters</a> [defensenews.com] there.
<p>
IMHO whatever comes from this DARPA program will inevitably be a more roadworthy helicopter, which may or may not end up having enough advantages over existing helicopters.  But to slam it simply because it won't be invisible is just silly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Huh ?
Helicopters are already in wide use in Afghanistan , in fact there 's been quite a flap in the UK recently over the shortage of helicopters [ defensenews.com ] there .
IMHO whatever comes from this DARPA program will inevitably be a more roadworthy helicopter , which may or may not end up having enough advantages over existing helicopters .
But to slam it simply because it wo n't be invisible is just silly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Huh?
Helicopters are already in wide use in Afghanistan, in fact there's been quite a flap in the UK recently over the shortage of helicopters [defensenews.com] there.
IMHO whatever comes from this DARPA program will inevitably be a more roadworthy helicopter, which may or may not end up having enough advantages over existing helicopters.
But to slam it simply because it won't be invisible is just silly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30648022</id>
	<title>Flying Cars would be 'extra' green.</title>
	<author>ananamouse</author>
	<datestamp>1262607420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Concrete puts out a lot of CO2, both making it, mixing it and hauling it, and as it decomposes.  If we had flying cars we would not need concrete for roads so we could factor that in to the flying cars carbon footprint.  I can't wait to get mine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Concrete puts out a lot of CO2 , both making it , mixing it and hauling it , and as it decomposes .
If we had flying cars we would not need concrete for roads so we could factor that in to the flying cars carbon footprint .
I ca n't wait to get mine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Concrete puts out a lot of CO2, both making it, mixing it and hauling it, and as it decomposes.
If we had flying cars we would not need concrete for roads so we could factor that in to the flying cars carbon footprint.
I can't wait to get mine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30648194</id>
	<title>Airport Security - Bypassed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262608440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I recommend not living or working in any high rise buildings after flying cars are mainstreamed....</p><p>Here comes Mr. Alluh Fubar in an Aerial Audi.</p><p>Duck and Cover</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I recommend not living or working in any high rise buildings after flying cars are mainstreamed....Here comes Mr. Alluh Fubar in an Aerial Audi.Duck and Cover</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I recommend not living or working in any high rise buildings after flying cars are mainstreamed....Here comes Mr. Alluh Fubar in an Aerial Audi.Duck and Cover</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647310</id>
	<title>To the moron(s) who tagged 'fixtheeconomyfirst'...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262604240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are genuinely and thoroughly stupid, because you truly believe that DARPA is in charge of the American economy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are genuinely and thoroughly stupid , because you truly believe that DARPA is in charge of the American economy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are genuinely and thoroughly stupid, because you truly believe that DARPA is in charge of the American economy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647192</id>
	<title>who tagged this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262603700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>who tagged this "fixtheeconomyfirst"?</p><p>like darpa projects never lead to civil advances?</p><p>or like it's darpa's job to fixtheeconomy?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>who tagged this " fixtheeconomyfirst " ? like darpa projects never lead to civil advances ? or like it 's darpa 's job to fixtheeconomy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>who tagged this "fixtheeconomyfirst"?like darpa projects never lead to civil advances?or like it's darpa's job to fixtheeconomy?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30648722</id>
	<title>Dude...</title>
	<author>RegTooLate</author>
	<datestamp>1262610840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I got so high in my car last night!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I got so high in my car last night !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I got so high in my car last night!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30658976</id>
	<title>Fuel</title>
	<author>kenp2002</author>
	<datestamp>1262722620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I run out of gas in my car, it stalls and slows down to a stop which I can pull off to the side of the road.</p><p>When I run out of gas in my sky car and it stalls... err wait...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I run out of gas in my car , it stalls and slows down to a stop which I can pull off to the side of the road.When I run out of gas in my sky car and it stalls... err wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I run out of gas in my car, it stalls and slows down to a stop which I can pull off to the side of the road.When I run out of gas in my sky car and it stalls... err wait...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647766</id>
	<title>Re:Ground vs Air</title>
	<author>SilverHatHacker</author>
	<datestamp>1262606160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Besides that, at least when the engine goes in your car, you'll <strong>slow down</strong> until you stop. Positive acceleration is only fun for so long...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Besides that , at least when the engine goes in your car , you 'll slow down until you stop .
Positive acceleration is only fun for so long.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Besides that, at least when the engine goes in your car, you'll slow down until you stop.
Positive acceleration is only fun for so long...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647990</id>
	<title>Roads with VTOL?</title>
	<author>Migraineman</author>
	<datestamp>1262607240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If it's a VTOL vehicle, why the need for roads?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's a VTOL vehicle , why the need for roads ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it's a VTOL vehicle, why the need for roads?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30650088</id>
	<title>Get your hoverconversion</title>
	<author>beej</author>
	<datestamp>1262617980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Only thirty-nine, nine-ninety-nine, ninety-five."</p><p>Remember when that sounded like a lot of money for a flying car?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Only thirty-nine , nine-ninety-nine , ninety-five .
" Remember when that sounded like a lot of money for a flying car ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Only thirty-nine, nine-ninety-nine, ninety-five.
"Remember when that sounded like a lot of money for a flying car?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30653108</id>
	<title>Re:Ground vs Air</title>
	<author>tehcyder</author>
	<datestamp>1262691060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Teleporter is such a better idea anyway.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
I missed that story.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Teleporter is such a better idea anyway .
I missed that story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Teleporter is such a better idea anyway.
I missed that story.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647266</id>
	<title>Re:What do they know?</title>
	<author>Chapter80</author>
	<datestamp>1262604000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Whatever happened to that DARPANET they used to have? Losers.</p></div><p>Offtopic?   That's funny, and the mod wouldn't be able to moderate it if it wasn't on topic.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whatever happened to that DARPANET they used to have ?
Losers.Offtopic ? That 's funny , and the mod would n't be able to moderate it if it was n't on topic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whatever happened to that DARPANET they used to have?
Losers.Offtopic?   That's funny, and the mod wouldn't be able to moderate it if it wasn't on topic.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647602</id>
	<title>batman</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262605500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Prior art: I think batman has one of these already.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Prior art : I think batman has one of these already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Prior art: I think batman has one of these already.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647332</id>
	<title>Re:Ground vs Air</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262604360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly. Also, who is going to maintain the vehicles?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
Also , who is going to maintain the vehicles ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
Also, who is going to maintain the vehicles?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30648580</id>
	<title>Energy</title>
	<author>sc0p3</author>
	<datestamp>1262610060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is no way a flying car can use a reasonable amount of energy. Giving this to all the civilians in the US will cripple the environment for certain.

The US should give money to DARPA - but why not instead something a little more holistic, low cost energy (limit the need for resource-competition, avoid the "war" problems in the first place)</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no way a flying car can use a reasonable amount of energy .
Giving this to all the civilians in the US will cripple the environment for certain .
The US should give money to DARPA - but why not instead something a little more holistic , low cost energy ( limit the need for resource-competition , avoid the " war " problems in the first place )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no way a flying car can use a reasonable amount of energy.
Giving this to all the civilians in the US will cripple the environment for certain.
The US should give money to DARPA - but why not instead something a little more holistic, low cost energy (limit the need for resource-competition, avoid the "war" problems in the first place)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647190</id>
	<title>Ground vs Air</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262603700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I never liked the idea to let people have flying cars. They can't even drive on the ground so why letting them road-rage in the air too?</p><p>Teleporter is such a better idea anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I never liked the idea to let people have flying cars .
They ca n't even drive on the ground so why letting them road-rage in the air too ? Teleporter is such a better idea anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never liked the idea to let people have flying cars.
They can't even drive on the ground so why letting them road-rage in the air too?Teleporter is such a better idea anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30656944</id>
	<title>Re:Ground vs Air</title>
	<author>Stooshie</author>
	<datestamp>1262715000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Technically, a plane is easier to "drive" than a car. You don't have to worry about gears, mirrors, brake, clutch, indicators etc....<br>
<br>
The difficulty with a plane is the "piloting" part. All the protocols that need to be followed (particularly before and during take off and during and after landing)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Technically , a plane is easier to " drive " than a car .
You do n't have to worry about gears , mirrors , brake , clutch , indicators etc... . The difficulty with a plane is the " piloting " part .
All the protocols that need to be followed ( particularly before and during take off and during and after landing )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Technically, a plane is easier to "drive" than a car.
You don't have to worry about gears, mirrors, brake, clutch, indicators etc....

The difficulty with a plane is the "piloting" part.
All the protocols that need to be followed (particularly before and during take off and during and after landing)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647190</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30649708</id>
	<title>Don't Miss the Flying Sub!</title>
	<author>Greg Hullender</author>
	<datestamp>1262615520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>TFA also reported they're building a submersible airplane. I suppose that'll be useful to visit our underwater cities. (No, I don't mean New Orleans!)
<p>
--Greg</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TFA also reported they 're building a submersible airplane .
I suppose that 'll be useful to visit our underwater cities .
( No , I do n't mean New Orleans !
) --Greg</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TFA also reported they're building a submersible airplane.
I suppose that'll be useful to visit our underwater cities.
(No, I don't mean New Orleans!
)

--Greg</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30649578</id>
	<title>Re:no, no no</title>
	<author>gmhowell</author>
	<datestamp>1262614680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Does the TSA come to my house every morning, or does my wife get to strip search me? </p></div><p>Well, your wife already strip searches me after you leave for work.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does the TSA come to my house every morning , or does my wife get to strip search me ?
Well , your wife already strip searches me after you leave for work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does the TSA come to my house every morning, or does my wife get to strip search me?
Well, your wife already strip searches me after you leave for work.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647748</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30653152</id>
	<title>Re:no, no no</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262691840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Add in volatile fuel and you have bombs.</p><p>Perhaps it would be called a flying death car? Bomb fuel car? Bomb car?</p><p>If only there were an existing name for such an outlandish combination.</p><p>There already are no-fly zones around cities, airports and high-security zones for light aircraft. It's really no different here. Put a couple of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goalkeeper\_CIWS" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">GoalKeepers</a> [wikipedia.org] (although probably a lighter-weight police-grade version) at strategic locations around your super-important no-fly zones - and you're secure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Add in volatile fuel and you have bombs.Perhaps it would be called a flying death car ?
Bomb fuel car ?
Bomb car ? If only there were an existing name for such an outlandish combination.There already are no-fly zones around cities , airports and high-security zones for light aircraft .
It 's really no different here .
Put a couple of GoalKeepers [ wikipedia.org ] ( although probably a lighter-weight police-grade version ) at strategic locations around your super-important no-fly zones - and you 're secure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Add in volatile fuel and you have bombs.Perhaps it would be called a flying death car?
Bomb fuel car?
Bomb car?If only there were an existing name for such an outlandish combination.There already are no-fly zones around cities, airports and high-security zones for light aircraft.
It's really no different here.
Put a couple of GoalKeepers [wikipedia.org] (although probably a lighter-weight police-grade version) at strategic locations around your super-important no-fly zones - and you're secure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647160</id>
	<title>What do they know?</title>
	<author>migla</author>
	<datestamp>1262603580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Darpa schmarpa!</p><p>Whatever happened to that DARPANET they used to have? Losers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Darpa schmarpa ! Whatever happened to that DARPANET they used to have ?
Losers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Darpa schmarpa!Whatever happened to that DARPANET they used to have?
Losers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30649554</id>
	<title>Re:Where's my pony?</title>
	<author>gmhowell</author>
	<datestamp>1262614500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unobtanium is gotten from <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0499549/plotsummary" title="imdb.com">Big Blue Men</a> [imdb.com] not Little Green Men. (BTW, it comes from a group of Big Blue Men, not the <a href="http://www.blueman.com/" title="blueman.com">Blue Man Group</a> [blueman.com].)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unobtanium is gotten from Big Blue Men [ imdb.com ] not Little Green Men .
( BTW , it comes from a group of Big Blue Men , not the Blue Man Group [ blueman.com ] .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unobtanium is gotten from Big Blue Men [imdb.com] not Little Green Men.
(BTW, it comes from a group of Big Blue Men, not the Blue Man Group [blueman.com].
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647648</id>
	<title>Watch out for that building!!!</title>
	<author>DigiShaman</author>
	<datestamp>1262605740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's all fun and games till numb-nuts ram flying crafts into a buildings. Oh wait...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's all fun and games till numb-nuts ram flying crafts into a buildings .
Oh wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's all fun and games till numb-nuts ram flying crafts into a buildings.
Oh wait...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30648454</id>
	<title>Military use is to vitiate roadside bombs</title>
	<author>Raffaello</author>
	<datestamp>1262609580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd venture a guess that the whole reason this is being researched by DARPA is because of the high number of casualties caused by <i>roadside bombs</i>. If an insurgent enemy knows that you must transport personnel and materiel via existing roads, it makes it easy to target you <i>without being seen</i>. The US wants an engagement where they know where the enemy is. The US doesn't want an engagement where the enemy knows where they are (i.e., on the road) but the enemy can himself remain hidden while inflicting damage.</p><p>If you have a vehicle that allows you to choose a more unpredictable path (i.e., not always use roads) then an insurgent enemy has one of their most effective weapons taken from them. In effect, a vehicle like this would force an insurgent enemy to come out into the open to attack it. This is a good thing if, like the US, you have superior weapons, logistics, communication, air support, etc. The enemy must reveal their position, for example, to fire an RPG, and experience shows that when they reveal their position, they die.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd venture a guess that the whole reason this is being researched by DARPA is because of the high number of casualties caused by roadside bombs .
If an insurgent enemy knows that you must transport personnel and materiel via existing roads , it makes it easy to target you without being seen .
The US wants an engagement where they know where the enemy is .
The US does n't want an engagement where the enemy knows where they are ( i.e. , on the road ) but the enemy can himself remain hidden while inflicting damage.If you have a vehicle that allows you to choose a more unpredictable path ( i.e. , not always use roads ) then an insurgent enemy has one of their most effective weapons taken from them .
In effect , a vehicle like this would force an insurgent enemy to come out into the open to attack it .
This is a good thing if , like the US , you have superior weapons , logistics , communication , air support , etc .
The enemy must reveal their position , for example , to fire an RPG , and experience shows that when they reveal their position , they die .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd venture a guess that the whole reason this is being researched by DARPA is because of the high number of casualties caused by roadside bombs.
If an insurgent enemy knows that you must transport personnel and materiel via existing roads, it makes it easy to target you without being seen.
The US wants an engagement where they know where the enemy is.
The US doesn't want an engagement where the enemy knows where they are (i.e., on the road) but the enemy can himself remain hidden while inflicting damage.If you have a vehicle that allows you to choose a more unpredictable path (i.e., not always use roads) then an insurgent enemy has one of their most effective weapons taken from them.
In effect, a vehicle like this would force an insurgent enemy to come out into the open to attack it.
This is a good thing if, like the US, you have superior weapons, logistics, communication, air support, etc.
The enemy must reveal their position, for example, to fire an RPG, and experience shows that when they reveal their position, they die.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647778</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647792</id>
	<title>Re:no, no no</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1262606340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>We don't need flying cars. Flying cars = Falling cars. Add in volatile fuel and you have bombs. What they need to work on is a car that will hover about 2-3 feet above the ground. A hover car would eliminate the need for paved roads, road maintenance, bridges, bridge maintenance, etc...</p></div></blockquote><p>Assuming the car actually moves parallel to the ground while above it, that's a low-altitude flying car. Hovering doesn't get you anywhere except off the ground.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We do n't need flying cars .
Flying cars = Falling cars .
Add in volatile fuel and you have bombs .
What they need to work on is a car that will hover about 2-3 feet above the ground .
A hover car would eliminate the need for paved roads , road maintenance , bridges , bridge maintenance , etc...Assuming the car actually moves parallel to the ground while above it , that 's a low-altitude flying car .
Hovering does n't get you anywhere except off the ground .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We don't need flying cars.
Flying cars = Falling cars.
Add in volatile fuel and you have bombs.
What they need to work on is a car that will hover about 2-3 feet above the ground.
A hover car would eliminate the need for paved roads, road maintenance, bridges, bridge maintenance, etc...Assuming the car actually moves parallel to the ground while above it, that's a low-altitude flying car.
Hovering doesn't get you anywhere except off the ground.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647614</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647498</id>
	<title>This has a chance...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262605020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the first tags on this story was "fixtheeconomyfirst"... but the core problem in our economy is that the dichotomy between wealthy investors and owner calss, and the mass of stagnant income earner class who mostly provide service to eachother and the wealthy.  Flashy inefficient technology like these are about all we can do at this point to get anything out of the currently rather sheepish investors/owners.  Our political system will NOT be fixing this situation anytime soon - not when money spent on campaigns is considered "political speech", and corporations are counted as people for those related rights.</p><p>Still, if most golden-parachute equipped managers can be convinced to sign a bankruptcy inducing contract just because one of these things are SO flying-car-smexy, and they can only get it through these government channels fully equipped to extract that money - then there's a chance to reduce their political power.  And that WOULD fix the economy, in a roundabout way.</p><p>Not going to happen - but like with cheap flying cars, one can always dream.</p><p>Ryan Fenton</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the first tags on this story was " fixtheeconomyfirst " ... but the core problem in our economy is that the dichotomy between wealthy investors and owner calss , and the mass of stagnant income earner class who mostly provide service to eachother and the wealthy .
Flashy inefficient technology like these are about all we can do at this point to get anything out of the currently rather sheepish investors/owners .
Our political system will NOT be fixing this situation anytime soon - not when money spent on campaigns is considered " political speech " , and corporations are counted as people for those related rights.Still , if most golden-parachute equipped managers can be convinced to sign a bankruptcy inducing contract just because one of these things are SO flying-car-smexy , and they can only get it through these government channels fully equipped to extract that money - then there 's a chance to reduce their political power .
And that WOULD fix the economy , in a roundabout way.Not going to happen - but like with cheap flying cars , one can always dream.Ryan Fenton</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the first tags on this story was "fixtheeconomyfirst"... but the core problem in our economy is that the dichotomy between wealthy investors and owner calss, and the mass of stagnant income earner class who mostly provide service to eachother and the wealthy.
Flashy inefficient technology like these are about all we can do at this point to get anything out of the currently rather sheepish investors/owners.
Our political system will NOT be fixing this situation anytime soon - not when money spent on campaigns is considered "political speech", and corporations are counted as people for those related rights.Still, if most golden-parachute equipped managers can be convinced to sign a bankruptcy inducing contract just because one of these things are SO flying-car-smexy, and they can only get it through these government channels fully equipped to extract that money - then there's a chance to reduce their political power.
And that WOULD fix the economy, in a roundabout way.Not going to happen - but like with cheap flying cars, one can always dream.Ryan Fenton</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30653264</id>
	<title>Re:no, no no</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1262693280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Will you be able to take box cutters and mercury thermometers on your own aircraft? I would think not carrying the latter would fall under "self preservation" but I'm unlikely to hijack my own skycar and redirect myself to a destination I don't want to go to.<br> <br>Unless I'm forced into another Christmas at my mother-in-law's...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will you be able to take box cutters and mercury thermometers on your own aircraft ?
I would think not carrying the latter would fall under " self preservation " but I 'm unlikely to hijack my own skycar and redirect myself to a destination I do n't want to go to .
Unless I 'm forced into another Christmas at my mother-in-law 's.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will you be able to take box cutters and mercury thermometers on your own aircraft?
I would think not carrying the latter would fall under "self preservation" but I'm unlikely to hijack my own skycar and redirect myself to a destination I don't want to go to.
Unless I'm forced into another Christmas at my mother-in-law's...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647748</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1859204_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30648144
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1859204_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30653152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1859204_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1859204_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30649284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1859204_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30654256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1859204_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1859204_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30649554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1859204_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30648402
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1859204_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1859204_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1859204_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1859204_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30648096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1859204_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1859204_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30662908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1859204_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1859204_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30653226
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1859204_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30648454
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1859204_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30656944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1859204_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30653264
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1859204_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30653108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1859204_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30650262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_04_1859204_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30649578
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647748
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_1859204.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647644
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_1859204.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30658976
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_1859204.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647394
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_1859204.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647196
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_1859204.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30649284
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_1859204.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647226
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_1859204.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647520
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_1859204.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30648194
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_1859204.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30648130
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_1859204.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30648096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30648402
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30648144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30648454
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_1859204.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30656944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30653108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647766
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647332
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_1859204.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647266
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30654256
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_1859204.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30648418
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_1859204.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647498
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_1859204.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647572
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_1859204.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647748
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30653264
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30649578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30650262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30653152
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_1859204.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30650728
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_1859204.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647310
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_1859204.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647458
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30653226
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30649554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30662908
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_04_1859204.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_04_1859204.30647192
</commentlist>
</conversation>
