There's a slight distinction between engineers who create things and users who use things. Your analogy is worse than a car analogy.

What I really don't get is people like you. We live in an age where we can almost make cars drive themselves through traffic. For a VTOL like a sci-fi flying car, it would be even more trivial to have a system that would take off vertically from a point, reach a specific altitude, follow a specific set of paths and land vertically on a programmed spot.

This would be relatively trivial to achieve, so can you tell me of any single damn reason why an eventual flying car should require more input than "take off and take us to school"?

Am I the only one who read "GOATSE with pushpins" and thought that it sounds a lot more painful than the regular goatse?

Yeah, so basically any form of 3D display is useless to you. The only thing that'd any good to you would be something that'd track the position of your watching eye to modify the display accordingly. In a way you've got it good, it's technologically simple for you to be fooled into thinking what you see is like real 3D.

If you have a lazy eye aren't you screwed whatever the technique? How can you see in 3D if you only use one eye?

All of our email, web and telephone traffic is monitored by the state.

Yeah? Tell Americans about that.

As for our "free" health care - it's not free, we pay it through taxes.

Hahahaha. You can't really that dumb, can you?

lol, I figured as much (usually when you see "1=0" your maths troll detector should go off), it's just that usually when you see that it's from a real head scratcher, this one would just keep someone busy for 10 seconds and then dismiss it as idiotic. Or perhaps I was trolled into expecting something clever to instead find the opposite?

Off topic : I just want to point out that your signature is stupid. You can't do that with a non-monotonic function like square, because you can find more than one possible values by reversing the function.

The article is thin on details, so I was wondering if it wasn't about the same thing except with depth information (as in, a depth map) instead of an unprocessed image.

If you hear a depth map it'll be a hell of a lot more useful to navigate through a crowd than raw images.

Wouldn't that be E Pluribus Pluribum? Never mind me, I'm French, we may not have spelling bees, but we learn Latin. And English. And Spanish. And German. I think you get my point.

Is it me or does this summary make no fucking sense whatsoever?

Another perhaps more meaningful way to put it is that it's the same volume as a sphere with a diameter of 1366 km (roughly the size of Iapetus), knowing that the Moon has a diameter of 3476 km, which means a sphere with 16.5 less volume than the Moon.

Oh please, guiding missiles is fairly trivial, mostly compared to this. When you're far beyond stall speeds it's just a matter of comparing your vector with where you want to go and adjusting where your nose is pointing accordingly.

Here what's done is non-trivial because of how hard it is to even simulate accurately the slide. Actually they're pretty much just using a replay so when you think about it that's somewhat unimpressive.

lol... translation "no I'm not a nutjob, aliens abduct us and you're closed minded for not accepting that despite a lack of compelling evidence".

lol, if you think I'm gonna read all of that you must be seriously deluded. Oh wait, you are!