I don't follow that line of thinking. This kind of development will

(1) improve quality of life for everyone using it, because they can do other things while driving
(2) increase fuel efficiency and therefore save money for everyone using it, while reducing fuel demand and reducing fuel prices for everyone
(3) cause less accidents, saving money on hospitals and insurance
(4) lower transport costs, saving everyone money

So you end up with a streamlined economy with the same production as before, and on average everyone has more money. The problem is the "on average" part: you'd probably have a large number of unemployed people. However, all that added money has to go somewhere, and there will be increased demand in other sectors such as housekeeping, gardening and entertainment. In general, less time and money spent on things that are necessary and more time and money spent on things that make life better.

The same thing has happened countless times in history: when people figured out how to use animals to plow fields, they didn't need 95% of their population working in agriculture anymore. And so some people took up pottery. And when they made a machine to make pots faster, some people started making wine. And a few centuries later, with mechanical wine presses, slashdot was born.

Long story short: people adapt.

And started thinking about what size a gnome must be in order to not be a gnome.

Of course we'll never have enough, that's basic human nature. There is, however, significant room for improvement. From the Wikipedia article on solar energy:

Take a look at this picture. If we manage to capture the solar energy hitting the combined area of those black dots (or capture 50% of the energy hitting an area twice that size, which is probably more realistic), we've got enough electricity to replace all other energy sources - not just those used for generating electricity, but fuel used for transportation, coal used in steel mills, etc.

We might go through a major energy crisis before we get there, but there's enough energy to go around. We just have to capture it.

If we have an abundant supply of energy, the second part is no longer necessary. We could just synthesize hydrogen gas or gasoline and use technology we have today.

Of course, higher density energy storage would be nice, but if fuel is essentially free (and with hydrogen gas, environmentally friendly) it's no big problem to spend more energy on lugging around extra fuel.

I think you're underestimating the evolution of technology. 200 years is a long time, especially considering the fact that the Wright Brothers' first flight was only 107 years ago. Think of how far we've come since then.

Too bad they never made any sequels.

Just because "Anti Gravity" isn't possible doesn't mean things can't fly. We have propellor and jet engines that can keep a helicopter or an airplane in the air for as long as it has energy (aka fuel). When energy becomes cheap enough and we have the ability to store it compactly (think superbatteries or even synthetic hydrocarbons), little else is stopping us from mass-manufacturing and using small helicopters the way we manufacture and use cars today.

Following Leslie White's line of thought, all scientific revolutions in history were driven by cheaper or more efficient energy. Using animal energy led to a revolution in agriculture and transportation. Using coal led to steam turbines. The discovery and understanding of electricity allowed us to transport and distribute energy more efficiently.

All major breakthroughs in science or technology were driven by a breakthrough in energy. I don't know when the next step will come or exactly what it will be, but I'm confident there will be one.

So I'm optimistic about flying cars. Of course, we (as people) might not live to see the day, but We (as a people) probably will.

When we have sufficient energy (either through efficient solar harvesting or new types of fusion power, or whatever) to make flying cars feasible, the technology will eventually catch up and make it possible.

The way I see it, that technology will include an autopilot capable of navigating and coordinating with other vehicles.

So yes, I think there will be a time when we commonly use flying cars. No, I don't think people will actually have to steer them in 3D.

It's been done with OpenTTD. It's a remake of the old Transport Tycoon Deluxe, using open source code (reverse engineered instead of released by the original owners, but that's not the point) and the original graphics. For those who don't own a copy of the original game and thus don't have the right to use the graphics, there's an open source package file.

Sure, it's probably a lot easier to create a graphics pack for a 2D game than a 3D game like RTCW, but this still opens new doors.

Also, you're both wrong.

They say it's based on an old experiment where they DID test "more testosterone" against "less testosterone", which yielded results that allow you to say something about testosterone.

What they did, though, is an experiment that tests "younger and more testosterone" against "older and less testosterone", which does not allow you to say testosterone did it. It could also be the age difference, and as long as you're testing two variables against each other simultaneously, you'll never know which one causes the effects. They could have tested young CEOs with lots of testosterone against young CEOs with little testosterone, but they didn't.

Adding a large tub full of water to your car probably doesn't save any energy at all. If you do try this, see what it does to your gas mileage.

All while reserving the right to take the lead in depleting the world's oil reserves without paying out the nose for it. You know, this is the reason some people don't like America(ns like you).

There's a difference between malfunctioning alarms and very sensitive alarms. If there's a tiny little problem that could turn into something (even remotely) potentially catastrophic, it needs to be fixed. If people ignore it, that's because of a bad safety policy or being dangerously understaffed. Both of these are easily fixed if capable people are in charge, and both of these are inexcusable in this kind of environment.

There are still civilians working on those platforms. This time, fortunately, none of them died and only one got injured, but we should think about the people living on these big exploding metal buildings.