Will This Flying Car Get Crowdfunded? 157
cartechboy (2660665) writes "We all just have too much money on our hands, and we really want a flying car, right? Well that's what Skylys thinks, as it's trying to crowdfund a flying car. According to its website, 'In detail we aim to create an urban dual-mode, hybrid flight and electric drive motorized vehicle that fits into sustainable mobility.' How much money does it need? Oh about $3,111,075. Apparently the company has run out of money and needs more to 'start construction on our two prototypes to confirm our technical specifications; pay the chaps in the legal department; industrial engineers and take up occupancy of our future offices in Silicon Valley, where our backers can of course pay us a visit.'"
Betteridge's Law sez "Nope." (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Betteridge's Law sez "Nope." (Score:5, Insightful)
They had me until "Silicon Valley".
They aren't building a computer - they are building a car first, an airplane second, with some computer bits inside it. So why choose some of the world's most expensive real estate? Why put your engineering far, far away from any place you could test the flying capabilities?
Re:Betteridge's Law sez "Nope." (Score:5, Funny)
They had me until "Silicon Valley".
They aren't building a computer - they are building a car first, an airplane second, with some computer bits inside it. So why choose some of the world's most expensive real estate? Why put your engineering far, far away from any place you could test the flying capabilities?
Because trendy, vertically integrated social media is the new synergistic paradigm, moving forward with robust sustainability and transparency, resonating with doubled-down, rock star game changers utilizing the bleeding-edge Cloud to future proof value-added, deliverable monetization!
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm late for my annual MBA-sponsored lobotomy.
Re:Betteridge's Law sez "Nope." (Score:5, Funny)
I like your way of thinking. Would it be possible for me to buy your company for several billion dollars?
Re: (Score:3)
You should probably start by signing up for the newsletter.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't let one of the other VC's get the drop on me!
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter feed. This is the 21st Century.
Scary thought, that.
Re: (Score:2)
Not just a lobotomy, but an annual re-lobotomy just to make sure! Brilliant!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
A) VC money
B) A lot of engineering talents, not just computers.
Re: (Score:3)
So why choose some of the world's most expensive real estate?
Because rich folks live there, with more money than brains. If you note what they said:
where our backers can of course pay us a visit.
So it seems they are going after rich investors, who want to go by a see a prototype of the toy that they are helping to build. Maybe even sit in the cockpit/driver's seat! So it is more of an entertainment expense, as opposed to a serious investment.
As a non-rich, non-investor, not living in Silicon Valley, all I have to say is . . . have fun.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But, but, but the poster behind the laptop has an AT-AT on it. Maybe they could build one of those instead?
They need more publicity (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
If you're about $3 Million short of being able to start your prototypes, pay your lawyers, and move into your offices ... you need much more than publicity.
Re:They need more publicity (Score:5, Insightful)
you need much more than publicity.
... only if their goal is to actually create a company that manufactures flying cars. If, however, their goal is to take a lot of people's money without giving them any legally recognized equity ownership or role in corporate governance, then I think that publicity is exactly what they need.
Gatling guns? (Score:2)
Does it have gattling guns? Can it be used for urban pacification? Does it have stealth technology?
If not ... well, you're just another in a long line of people hoping to create a flying car.
Many of us have long since relegated the idea into the long-since cliche bucket. And since I don't trust most people to drive in the mostly 2 dimensions offered by cars ... I really
Re: (Score:2)
Don't know if you are serious...
A failing road car stops on the road. Not always ideal, but generally a controllable event. A failing flying car drops out of the sky. Therefore it has to be orders of magnitude more reliable than your typical car.
Countries around the world have systems in place to control the airspace. Can you imagine how difficult/impossible this task would be with a million cars potentially in the air at the same time.
A flying car belongs in the science fiction category for good reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
If we were ever to have flying cars, it would have been 20-3- years ago. Having them succeed now is simply not going to happen for two basic reasons;
- Airspace in the places most people will want to use them is crowded/strictly controlled.
- Fuel costs would be prohibitive for most people, and only likely to get higher.
The idea that the average commuter can afford to, and have the space to, fly their own car to work is simply not credible. And that's even before you consider the safety co
Re: (Score:2)
"A failing road car stops on the road. Not always ideal, but generally a controllable event"
Far from ideal, quite often fatal. A failing car on a crowded interstate can result in an accident involving many vehicles with lots of casualties, and this happens shockingly often.
"A failing flying car drops out of the sky."
Unlikely. You have redundant systems, if your main control system fails the backup kicks in, you have 8 engines and still have limited flight abilities even if over half of them fail simultaneously, and even if absolutely everything else fails there is a parachute big enough to bring the entire car down relatively gently.
"Therefore it has to be orders of magnitude more reliable than your typical car."
Yes, that part is correct.
What happens when some terrorist scumbag deliberately crashes it into a heavily populated are laden with gasoline and soap (napalm). Or they go for a very tall building but fill the vehicle with high explosive instead.
Flying cars open up a whole new avenue of terrorist targets as they are far more manoeuvrable then a light aircraft. If they became ubiquitous they also have the problem that it would become commonplace for people to get lost and accidentally fly into restricted airspace so you could not just
Getting started (Score:1)
In bigger cities, such a contraption would have to be computer-controlled to reduce the risk of human error to an acceptable level. But perhaps if something gets going in a rural area, investments in city-friendly control infrastructure will follow. Thus, it doesn't have to start out being city-ready; it just has to start out (and gain usage).
Something like NASA's vertical-takeoff Puffin design sounds like the way to go for those without big yards or landing spots. Although, that's not really a "car". But "
Re:Getting started (Score:5, Insightful)
I see way too many examples of people not understanding how to drive their car in 2D.
The idea of many of these same drivers being expected to navigate in 3D is terrifying.
There's a reason why getting a pilots license is much harder than getting a driving license. And the idiots I see around me talking on their phone, texting while driving, and weaving all over the place and making random lane changes ... these people in a flying car would be utterly dangerous.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that most people would not be able to fly a car, but getting cars to fly themselves is possible, probably easier in some ways, you don't have those pesky pedestrians to get in your way, you can make all flying cars computer controlled from the start so you remove other stupid motorists from the equation.
Re: (Score:2)
Last week I saw somebody texting while riding a bike. Shit you not.
Re: (Score:3)
Here in the Netherlands people do that all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention how upkeep on a flying vehicle would be paramount because a breakdown would be far more dangerous. Vehicles broke down on the side of the road would drop from the sky on whatever is below. You see them on the side of the road all the time each one could have been a horrible accident if they were 100ft in the air.
The flying car I've always thought sounded very cool but was far to impractical to actually use. {Not that wouldn't want one to play with but I don't live in a city}
Re: (Score:2)
blahblahblah, whinewhnewhine.
Because there isn't a way to deal with those issues at all.. nope. lets just give up because gstoddart doesn't like it.
Re: (Score:3)
If we had anti-gravity cars like those in "The Jetsons" then I think it'd be fine, we'd need some kind of virtual lane system with upwards/downwards corridors as a heads up display and an emergency parachute (space capsule style?) to save your ass but it'd work and you could stay to sane consumer speeds with high speed high altitude "interstates". Anything that depends on wings for lift though has to stay at very high speeds and can't practically stop for anything, even if you have a VTOL system hovering fo
Re: (Score:2)
If we have 'Mr. Fusions' then everything would be different.
But we don't.
Re: (Score:2)
In rural areas you use a bike or the tube. Flying cars will only create more chaos and accidents. And we have enough of them already in urban areas.
Strongly Opposed to Flying Cars (Score:3, Funny)
I mean them Duke boys won't have enough breath left, it would be all "Yeeeeeeeee" and no "Haw"
And what then I ask you what. then.
Not getting funded. (Score:2)
Current status: "€140 raised of €2,250,000 goal".
The thing is, it's quite possible to build a flying car. The prototypes of the 1950s make that clear. The world needs some good small VTOL craft. But none of the people doing it seem to be able to bring it off.
Small jet engines cost too much but can make VTOL work. Wankel engines (the Moller embarassment) or electric motors and batteries (this thing) don'tt have the power/weight ratio needed to do it well. It's probably quite possible to build
Re: (Score:1)
Flying cars are technically possible.
Flying cars however are not desirable for everyday drivers: they have a hard enough time managing 2 dimensions, we don't need them to occupy a third. So unless they're fully automatic in flight mode (with manual control disabled), flying cars can only be flown by trained pilot.
The market for pilots who want a plane that turns into a car is very small. That's why flying cars won't happen - not enough money in it.
Re:Not getting funded. (Score:5, Insightful)
We already have flying cars: they're called "helicopters". They're absurdly expensive to operate, even the small 2-seater models, they're absurdly difficult to operate and require an enormous amount of training, and they're extremely dangerous.
If you want a way to move people around faster, the answer is SkyTran.
Re:Not getting funded. (Score:4, Insightful)
No.
Helicopter are not flying cars. They are a vertical airlift vehicle. Can you drive one around on the free way? take off where ever you want? go to a 30th floor McDonalds drive through?
This is what people dream of when the want a flying car:
http://justacarguy.blogspot.co... [blogspot.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Helicopter blades have a huge disc area. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that's basically impossible. With current tech, you could only build something like this to stay aloft for a few minutes. When Teslas have a range of 1500 miles on a charge, then we'll have the battery tech to make electric helicopters feasible.
Re: (Score:2)
Well one thing you're forgetting is that with combustion engines, most of the energy in the fuel is wasted as heat. Of course, this is mitigated by the fact that part of the energy is coming from freely-available oxygen in the air (except in rocket engines), but still, with batteries ~95% of the stored energy goes to propulsion, whereas with ICEs it's more like ~20-25%. So we don't need energy density comparable to fuel, but still we're a ways off. With some of the latest developments, it might be feasib
Re: (Score:2)
Who's "we"? Anyone pouring money into any flying cars, electric helicopters, etc. at this stage is a fool. I'm certainly not contributing to any such projects.
It makes sense to invest in electric cars these days, since as Tesla has shown, they're perfectly viable (though a bit expensive still). Heck, GM proved them to be perfectly viable back in the late 90s with the EV1, except that too many entrenched interests didn't like them so GM killed it and crushed all the cars. You don't really need long range
Re: (Score:2)
I prefer to tele-commute, and save my vehicle entirely. With the cost of global communication being near zero, HD web cameras being disposable commodities, why commute at all if you're a knowledge worker?
Simple: because the managers don't want you to. Just look at Yahoo's Marissa Meyer.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I don't have a pilots license because I don't have the money to waste on something that is of no economic benefit. If I could fly from point A to point B and get their in half the time and avoid traffic for similar costs to a car, then I would learn and adapt. And so would a lot of other people.
Even if not everyone is suited to flying, as you suggest, then getting a portion of the population off the roads would still make a huge impact on traffic and ultimately allow us to grow our economy with
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I don't have a pilots license because I don't have the money to waste on something that is of no economic benefit.
Well, I have been fortunate enough to be able to afford a pilot's license and I could not give a rat's ass about the economic benefit. There is nothing better than flying around in an airplane on a sunny day, at 1500ft above the Golden Gate bridge. And I will even go one step further: my first solo flight was the best day of my life. That includes losing my virginity and getting married. Check the continuous smile on this pilot's face during a first solo: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com].
Who cares about
Re: (Score:2)
I would love to do some recreational flying, but I can't afford to with a family and a mortgage and many expenses. And I couldn't justify it as an expensive hobby before then.
The point was simply that people don't fly because it isn't economically viable to do so. The number of pilot's licenses isn't an indication of people's ability to fly or their inclination to do so. It is an indication of the expense of flying which is partly the result of FAA regulations and the lack of efficient mass production of
Re: (Score:2)
I would love to do some recreational flying, but I can't afford to with a family and a mortgage and many expenses. And I couldn't justify it as an expensive hobby before then.
I totally understand. However, most flight schools will offer an introductory flight for about $150.
The point was simply that people don't fly because it isn't economically viable to do so. The number of pilot's licenses isn't an indication of people's ability to fly or their inclination to do so. It is an indication of the expense of flying which is partly the result of FAA regulations and the lack of efficient mass production of light aircraft.
Yes, you are 100% correct. The reason why flying is so expensive is because maintenance is so expensive. You can buy an aircraft for the price of a mid-size car (~$30k). However, every 100 hours and every year you'll need inspection. Every 2000 hours you'll need an engine overhaul (or a new engine). And then there is the fuel consumption: your average Cessna 172 (one of the most popular GA aircraft), slurps b
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Flying cars are technically possible.
Flying cars however are not desirable for everyday drivers: they have a hard enough time managing 2 dimensions, we don't need them to occupy a third. So unless they're fully automatic in flight mode (with manual control disabled), flying cars can only be flown by trained pilot.
Rename them "manned drones" and outsource the piloting to third world countries. Problem solved, since the FAA is OK with drones in U.S. airspace.
http://online.wsj.com/news/art... [wsj.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Why does a small jet engine have to cost too much? A quick search of jet turbines for model aircraft shows that the 52lbs max thrust P200-SX from JetCat costs $5,495. Sure you would need 6 or 7 of these to get an average sized adult off the ground vertically with some minimal airframe, but we aren't talking about millions of dollars we are talking about something under $100k to put together some sort of ultralight VTOL.
I think the best flying car hope right now is actually in the small autonomous UAV spac
Re: (Score:2)
you're not an engineer, are you. Maybe you should think of the weight of the fuel it would take to power eight (one adult one ultralight frame) engines for even 20 minutes at max thrust. Answer, 120 liters, 96 kilos of kerosene. Oops, guess we need another engine to lift that....
Re: (Score:2)
Why does a small jet engine have to cost too much? A quick search of jet turbines for model aircraft shows that the 52lbs max thrust P200-SX from JetCat costs $5,495. Sure you would need 6 or 7 of these to get an average sized adult off the ground vertically with some minimal airframe, but we aren't talking about millions of dollars we are talking about something under $100k to put together some sort of ultralight VTOL.
The JetCat isn't man-rated. It's for model aircraft.
A JetCat needs an overhaul every 50 hours of operation. Mean time to failure is maybe a few hundred hours. A commercial jetliner turbine needs an overhaul every 3500 to 5000 hours of operation. Mean time to failure is around 100,000 hours.
A Williams FJ44 is suitable for light aircraft, and could be used for a VTOL, but a pair of them costs over $1M.
Wrong question (Score:2)
Right question: "Will This Flying Car Get Off the Ground?" As in, "Will This Flying Car Ever Make a Profit?"
Just like all others before it, no.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, they make a profit all right. By taking the money and then not making any flying cars.
Indiegogo (Score:2)
That they are looking for 'cool offices' in silicone valley tells me they are probably not going to spend any money they get all that wisely... which might be why they do not have enough.
Doesn't matter if it gets funded. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Doesn't matter if it gets funded. (Score:4, Informative)
You don't have to fly helicopters from any kind of designated area, as long as you're in Class G airspace. Of course, this excludes probably every municipality, and means you can only land in your backyard if you live in the sticks. And there's still the problem of where to land, unless your office is also in the sticks.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have to fly helicopters from any kind of designated area, as long as you're in Class G airspace.
Isn't that kind of like saying, "you don't have to have a license to drive a car, as long as you're not on a public road?"
Re: (Score:2)
Not exactly, because most of the country is Class G airspace, and aircraft aren't limited to public roads. There's even lots of Class G airspace not too far from cities, located underneath controlled airspace. However you still might have to worry about local ordinances and such.
Re: (Score:2)
Not exactly, because most of the country is Class G airspace, and aircraft aren't limited to public roads. There's even lots of Class G airspace not too far from cities, located underneath controlled airspace. However you still might have to worry about local ordinances and such.
Ah, so closer to the opposite of what I said.
Learn somethin' new every day.
Re: (Score:2)
Not if the flight mode is totally autonomous. Lets say you don't need interstates anymore. If you want to travel a large distance you drive to a platform somewhere and set your destination. The computer takes over and off you go. Once it lands a few hundred miles away you take over again.
Re: (Score:2)
"Imagine, stalking elk past department store windows and stinking racks of beautiful rotting dresses and tuxedos on hangers; you'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life, and you'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Tower. Jack and the beanstalk, you'll climb up through the dripping forest canopy and the air will be so clean you'll see tiny figures pounding corn and laying strips of venison to dry in the empty car pool lane of an abandoned superhighway stretching
Flying madness continues... (Score:2)
Ok, you get all the issues resolved. Then comes the physics and economics... so you get your Mr. Fusion to power all these flying cars from bits of trash thrown into the affordable reaction chamber, then you have to find a way to transform all that waste heat the things are going to give off in huge amounts times the number of cars. Remember, nothing is going to be 100% efficient and anything using propellers... Then you have the majority of horizontal movement energy wasted because after 60mph most of t
A flying car is cheap (Score:2)
If you think it costs a lot to develop and build a flying car, wait until you find out how much it costs to change the FAA regulations.
Pun Slap (Score:2)
Are you saying this project can't get off the ground?
why? (Score:2)
Wake me up they have vacuum dirigibles (Score:4, Interesting)
When the material sciences are to the point where a lightweight container can sustain Earth atmospheric pressure from crushing down on it, we'll have a practical way to take off vertically without prompting your neighbours to invest in surface to air missiles when you crank the engine on one of these in the morning on your daily commute.
Archimedes says "No". (Score:2)
When the material sciences are to the point where a lightweight container can sustain Earth atmospheric pressure from crushing down on it, we'll have a practical way to take off vertically without prompting your neighbours to invest in surface to air missiles when you crank the engine on one of these in the morning on your daily commute.
Except that the density of air is ~ 1.2kg/m^3, so to produce 100 kg of lift (average weight of an adult male American: 90kg) you'd need a balloon with a volume of 100/1.2 = 83.333.. m^3.
If your balloon is a sphere, the diameter should be 2 * (83.333 / (4*pi/3))^(1/3) = 5.42 meters. Google tells me that's about 18 feet.
I suppose it would be feasible for recreational activities. Commuting into a city? Don't think so.
Re: (Score:2)
Why vacuum? Hydrogen is almost as light, and then you don't need to maintain a vacuum.
Short answer. (Score:2)
Nope.
Will never get off the ground... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well that's a rather easy claim to make...
Likely joke posting or a really stupid scam (Score:2)
So, Indiegogo flexible funding campaign? I.e. they get money even if the campaign doesn't meet the goals? 4 years in development and nothing to show on the project page apart from a few renders that any kid can do in a day in 3DS Max or Blender? They throw big names like DASSAULT or Airbus around, ostensibly as being interested, but they need a few millions on Indiegogo? The perks are an obvious joke (40k euro for an old Renault Espace? You got to be kidding ...).
Mr. Chorostecki appears to be an economic co
Re: (Score:2)
Indie gogo flexible funding campaigns are totally legit
https://www.indiegogo.com/proj... [indiegogo.com]
https://www.indiegogo.com/proj... [indiegogo.com]
https://www.indiegogo.com/proj... [indiegogo.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly, nobody argued the opposite. However, they are also a "weapon of choice" for the various conmen and scam artists on IndieGogo looking for quick cash, because there is no obligation to deliver anything ("Hey, it wasn't funded, not our fault!").
Re: (Score:3)
You didn't check any of those "free energy" campaigns did you? They're all actually scams.
The first one scammed $18k
The second one is only at 100 euros
The third one, which isn't anything more that a stone reached $1166
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
forget it, one big-ass rotor is far more efficient and generates far more lift than a bunch of small ones. that thing has 20 minute flight time, and needs by their words a "range extender" for more than that, a combustion engine. there is a reason basics of helicopter design has not changed in decades, nothing else makes sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
no, the trade off is that a copter with one or two main rotors can actually lift something and stay aloft for more than mere minutes. The product is a scam to lure investors with no engineering knowledge.
when is the last time you heard of the big rotor (and/or its "Jesus nut") failing?
Let's clear some things up (Score:2)
When people want a flying car, they want this:
http://justacarguy.blogspot.co... [blogspot.com]
No props, no fans, not load noise.
indiegogo (Score:2)
your one stop scammer shop.
You can also find magical medical 'devices' and perpetual motion machines.
A pony with sparkles (Score:3)
5 year old girls want a pony with sparkles - or maybe a unicorn, but they can't have one. Commuters want a flying car but they can't have one either.
Aircraft fly by moving a lot of air downward in order to counteract gravity. If they move less air quickly the total power the need goes up (force goes as mass/second * velocity, power goes as mass/second * velocity SQUARED). So, in order to be efficient they need to have very big wings, or very big helicopter rotors, or very big low density volumes.
Look at all conventional aircraft, they have BIG wings. Those wings will not fit on roads. So if you want a flying car you are left with a clunky folding wing contraption that is a terrible car AND a terrible airplane. No matter how pretty the CGI or fiberglass mock-up design it just isn't going to work.
Re: (Score:2)
But they built a 10th scale model!
Physics and fluid dynamics obviously scale perfectly.
My 16th scale RC car goes 65kph. There are full size electric cars with motors no larger than a microwave that go 1000kph all over the place.
Wait a minute...
So... (Score:2)
Despite the fact that most flexible funding indiegogo projects are scams and unless you donate huge amounts of money you get nothing of value back?
The beginning phrases of buzzword bingo (Score:2)
Yeah, good luck with that.
Needs to be completely autonomous (Score:3)
Sorry, but I just can't see the feasibility of flying cars unless they're entirely autonomous. Getting a pilot's license is difficult for good reason, and is also part of why flying is so safe. I can't see how well it would work to teach everyone how to fly given that.
They've received EUR 140 in contributions (Score:2)
It may not produce many flying cars, but it may pay for a few rounds of drinks! And thankfully they use flexible funding, so they'll get their bar bill covered even if only four people have donated so far.
From the page:
"This campaign will receive all funds raised even if it does not reach its goal. Funding duration: March 31, 2014 - May 15, 2014 (11:59pm PT)."
So lets see... (Score:2)
So lets see... Indiegogo (because kickstarter doesn't allow vapourware projects) check! Flexible funding (so they can just runoff with whatever money people give without ever delivering anything) check! Zero actual photographs of anything real (and lots of impractical looking CG images) check!
Re: (Score:1)
Lumping Obama in with Woz and the Wright brothers seems incredibly misguided. Lumping him in with the group making this car though? Probably appropriate.
Re:herpa derp (Score:4, Informative)
It"s about risks. It was a fair comparison.
Unlike your comparison, which is not.Near as I can tell, skylys ahs done nothing. Obama on the other hand has done a lot. Here is a short list of his accomplishments:
Legislative Prowess.
Despite the characterizations of some, Obama’s success rate in winning congressional votes on issues was an unprecedented 96.7% for his first year in office. Though he is often cited as superior to Obama, President Lyndon Johnson’s success rate in 1965 was only 93%. http://n.pr/i3d7cY [n.pr]
Fiscal Responsibility.
Within days after taking office, Obama signed an Executive Order ordering an audit of government contracts, and combating waste and abuse. http://1.usa.gov/dUvbu5 [usa.gov]
Created the post of Chief Performance Officer, whose job it is to make operations more efficient to save the federal government money. http://n.pr/hcgBn1 [n.pr]
On his first full day, he froze White House salaries. http://on.msnbc.com/ewJUIx [msnbc.com]
He appointed the first Federal Chief Information Officer to oversee federal IT spending. http://www.cio.gov/ [cio.gov]
He committed to phasing out unnecessary and outdated weapons systems, and also signed the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act to stop waste, fraud and abuse in the defense procurement and contracting system. http://bit.ly/hOw1t1 [bit.ly] http://bit.ly/fz8GAd [bit.ly]
Through an executive order, he created the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. http://bit.ly/hwKhKa [bit.ly]
Improving the Economy, Preventing Depression.
Obama pushed through and signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, otherwise known as “the stimulus package,” despite the fact that not one Republican voted for that bill. In addition, he launched recovery.gov, so that taxpayers could track spending from the Act. http://1.usa.gov/ibiFSs [usa.gov] http://1.usa.gov/e3BJMk [usa.gov]
In his first year, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act created and sustained 2.1 million jobs and stimulated the economy 3.5%. http://reut.rs/i46CEE [reut.rs]
Obama completed the massive TARP financial and banking rescue plan, and recovered virtually all of its costs. http://1.usa.gov/eA5jVS [usa.gov] http://bit.ly/eCNrD6 [bit.ly]
He created the Making Home Affordable home refinancing plan. http://1.usa.gov/goy6zl [usa.gov]
Obama oversaw the creation of more jobs in 2010 alone than Bush did in eight years. http://bit.ly/hrrnjY [bit.ly]
He oversaw a bailout of General Motors that saved at least 1.4 million jobs, and put pressure on the company to change its practices, resulting in GM returning to its place as the top car company in the world. http://lat.ms/zIJuQx [lat.ms]
Obama also doubled funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership which is designed to improve manufacturing efficiency. http://bit.ly/eYD4nf [bit.ly]
He signed the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act giving the federal government more tools to investigate and prosecute fraud in every corner of the financial system. It also created a bipartisan Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission to investigate the financial fraud that led to the economic meltdown. http://abcn.ws/g18Fe7 [abcn.ws]
Obama signed the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure (CARD) Act, which was designed to protect consumers from unfair and deceptive credit card practices. http://1.usa.gov/gIaNcS [usa.gov]
He increased infrastructure spending after years
Re: (Score:2)
If you're going to re-post someone else's extensive work, A) don't falsely suggest it's "a short list" when it's clearly an exhaustive list, and B) link to your source material [hamell.net] so that the original author can get some recognition for their efforts, rather than implicitly claiming it as your own by not providing attribution.
Second, I never suggested he had failed to accomplish anything, though I can see why you might infer that from my post. To clarify, I was attacking the previous poster's notion that Obama
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Dreamers risked their lives to build the first airplane, risked their career on the first microcomputers
Dreamers also risked their lives on a million other products that failed. But Business Week never writes stories about them.
Re: (Score:2)
but the first controlled flight was built upon decades of trial; and error, and by 1000's of people.
Re: (Score:2)
3) More like a helicopter than an aeroplane? Nope. Airplanes are MUCH easier to fly than a helicopter; the average person cannot do this.
Perhaps they're thinking of a Gyrocopter (or Autogyro) [wikipedia.org]. That has the advantage of small size (No need for large fixed wings) without the complication of dealing with a collective stick system.
Personally, I was always interested in the "Land Shark" project [archive.org] (Archive.org link, as the original has since disappeared). The idea was to have a tadpole-style trike that, when on water, would use it's turbine-shaped rear wheel hub to propel it as it hydroplaned on the front wheel's lowered mudguards. Simple, and effec
Re: (Score:3)
government vehicles only with highly trained operators, so EMTs, Police, Firemen, etc.
Highly trained? Have you seen the way cops drive? They can't even be bothered to use turn signals.
Re: (Score:3)
More like a helicopter than an aeroplane? Nope. Airplanes are MUCH easier to fly than a helicopter; the average person cannot do this.
More like a large manned quadcopter. They are stable, and with some computer control, easily flyable.
Flying cars? No. Never ever ever will the FAA allow such a thing.
They already do. You just must build it yourself as a kit. There are videos out there of driving helicopter with stowable rotors and other such "flying cars" that are 100% legal. Now, making it legal to sell as a full aircraft is something different. and 3.1 million dollars wouldn't get them past some introductory flights.
Re: (Score:3)
"sky lies" would be my guess....
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure your traffic control people should be in the air, maybe they could be in a kind of tower high enough to at least see both ends of the asphalt strips. One problem is that the drivers of these flying cars might anthropomorphize the tower and start addressing it as "tower" when talking over a radio to the traffic control people in the tower. Another would be the difficulty in seeing the license plates on the flying cars, maybe bigger numbers could be painted on the sides of the vehicle toward th
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly
If we meet $180.000
We can start our international fundraising with cool heads, in our new offices in the Silicon Valley: The recruiting process kicks off; We get our names out there and make sure Skylys® is everyones favorite topic; Our 1/10th scale model and our 3D animated model will be finalized in order to start our international marketing campaign.
Basically, as soon as they get enough money, they're going to blow it all on fancy Silicon Valley office space.
What happens at $500.000?
We chose a larger office space to accommodate the automobile and aeronautic engineers. Thus creating more jobs and a larger visibility on the project. We quickly commence technical & mechanical specification validation for the different modules. International presence on various exhibitions.
More money, bigger offices.
At least they're honest.
They don't promise to work on physical prototypes until $8M