Population controls fail. History proves it. Our currently increasing global population proves that population controls fail. Large cities have heavily congested roads later and later into the night. Building more roads destroys more of the environment. Widening roads in cities displaces more residents. This adds another factor to increasing housing costs. More demand for less housing. Roads can not be constructed fast enough to handle the rate of new drivers buying their own cars. Public transit lines (bus, light-rail, subway) can not handle the rates of population growth. Thankfully, there are eight companies with plans to begin sales of flying cars by 2020. Regardless of whether people may or may not understand how desperately the flying car is needed, the flying car is coming soon. Change is coming soon.
Of course we need flying car. Now traffic is increasing and its getting really hard to go to places on time. The flying car fits into any standard parking space, uses regular gasoline, and can be used in road traffic just like any other car and as a plane it can use any airport in the world, but can also take off and land using any grass strip or paved surface just a few hundred meters long. I believe that this is the best invention for improving transportation since for invented cars.
We have been waiting for this moment for a long time. My argument is in my article here http://www.paulyscifi.com/573-2/
I am hopeful for the world in general but there has to be a way to make it more safe before we take the plunge. If there are ideas implemented to do so then my mind can be changed.
There's life of the way we were back then but today the eastern united state is heavily populated and the middle and western part are less populated when the country's about to limit the population growth. So that project for the flying car will fail and will stay using on ground car.
However will the cars go in the air so it won't do. So as you know, some countries are limiting the population growth now. And it wasn't safe for flying cars to drive through the rain even they will crash into the mountains and buildings. Although that we think driving on ground is better.
We think that driving a flying car is difficault and it can crash into a building but we would have a road that was ahundernd feet off the ground, that's will be a bridge that will go on for half a mile over the land. So then there isn't going to be a flyng car's but just the one on the gound and the new high way in the air that was look's like a bridge.
WE won't need flying cars cause it is very ridiculous for now on we have to drive on land and we do need gas so let's thin of it. There's no way we can drive that thing in the air. But today we drive, just on land.. .. ... .
Do you know about it? So for the street today in the late 2000's was perfect. But everything was great to be natural when we have a cars that drive on land so it was easier than in air so we don't have to learn how to drive again. And we still need helicopter and private plane.
It doesn't because it was difficult and not possible, and there will be no roads, and gas station. We think it was easy if we go by land and we still need plains so a few more farm, or a sub divide are with land that was ten acres each can have it's own private runway and higher but it can cost a lot of money including the storage fuel tank. But for now on we can go by land and air.
Do you think we need flying cars no we don't. Just because we drive of ground is easy. But flying? Not so easy, and it would crash into a building. So how can we convert our old cars that was on aground into a flying cars? No way we don't need them so I think driving on the ground is fine.
Because there will be no point of roads or gas stations if the gas stations are on the ground. It will be more likely to crash into a building. I think driving cars on the streets is perfectly fine. If there was flying cars a lot of people need to learn how to drive again .
When weather forecasters say there's a 40% chance of rain what they really mean is there's a 40% chance that is will rain in the forecast area or in other words there's a 60% chance that it won't rain in the forecast area.
B. One reason the misconception connects to the article is both groups of people misunderstand the weather forecast. According to the live science staff "why is it raining? It's only a 20% chance. They are never right" and "Why isn't it raining? They said a chance of rain. They are never right!" These two groups of people both misunderstand weather because whenever the weather man makes a forecast he's making a educated guess there's no way he can have 100% accuracy. According to Joslyn "people sometimes misunderstand the weather by thinking it will rain 20% of the time or it will cover 20% of the area" (3) in conclusion people misunderstand weather by confusion what the weather man really says and tend to blame the weather man for their on stupidity.