Add your comment
Update your status line


Comments (44)
(Reply)
posted Feb 18th, 2008 at 11:29 CST

Umm better because it saves little children from being run over and killed in a reversing accident which happens all to frequently.  They are now putting those very cameras in cars to help eliminate that problem.

(Reply)
posted Feb 10th, 2008 at 15:47 CST

If only it didn't take more than a simple physics education to realize why so many of these things are absolutely impossible...

(Reply)
posted Jan 2nd, 2008 at 10:40 CST

Funny how there's no TRAFFIC on any of those roads. One of the great unfortunate shames of the 20th Century is that we didn't realize how much more congestion we would generate by building roads and essentially outlawing transit or walking. This is a failed vision. It's wrought us unhealthy cities, unhealthy lifestyles, urban "mobility" that's congestion-ridden and unavailable to the young, old, poor or invalid, and it has brought our planet to the brink of environmental disaster. There needs to be a third option: I prefer a BETTER reality. One where cars are mere tools to be used rather than taskmasters to which we slave behind; where our cities are built for people rather than machines. 

(Reply)
posted Dec 27th, 2007 at 21:37 CST

Heaven forbid the millions who die in weather related automobile accidents drive on safe and efficient roadways.  But you wouldn't want to be "disconnected from nature", right?  And the vistas of city highways in this feature MORE nature than the roads we have today.  Go figure.

(Reply)
posted Dec 27th, 2007 at 15:56 CST

So disconnected from nature. Heaven forbid anyone experience temperature variations, seasons, wind, wildlife, touching, smelling, etc. 

(Reply)
posted Dec 26th, 2007 at 10:31 CST

If you skip the Jetsons fantasy part, the Disney Future of a massive highway system that allows our cities to spread out has become Reality.  Isn't that what we have with the Interstate Highway System and suburban sprawl?  (And pedestrians get about as much attention by many highway engineers as Disney gave to them -- NONE.)

Stivd
(Reply)
Maryland, United States

posted Dec 24th, 2007 at 10:52 CST

It's always so annoying when imagination is dumped on by small, petty people.

(Reply)
posted Dec 23rd, 2007 at 10:34 CST

Sorta like the super high we call the "internet".

(Reply)
posted Dec 21st, 2007 at 17:19 CST

$123.7 Million to send a load of produce on a rocket to Japan, now that's inflation! 

(Reply)
posted Dec 21st, 2007 at 13:14 CST

this would give le corbusier a bigger hard on than an unclad george washington bridge.thankfully this vision is in the past

(Reply)
posted Dec 21st, 2007 at 04:08 CST

I'm not going to argue that the role of women hasn't changed in the last 50 years.  But realistically, who makes the important decisions in the upper echelons of power?  Women have certainly gained a foothold in the role of menialistic white-collar, middle-class office grunt, but they are still the sex most identified with taking care of children and shopping.  I'm just stating this as a fact.

(Reply)
posted Dec 21st, 2007 at 04:03 CST

Yeah, imagine somebody imagining BETTER technology in the future.  What a crazy idea.  Lawl!

(Reply)
posted Dec 21st, 2007 at 03:48 CST

Maybe if our defense spending didn't account for 50% of the world's military expenditures we'd be driving on roads befitting our century.  I'd rather pay for modern highways than missile defense systems we will never use in a practical situation.

(Reply)
posted Dec 21st, 2007 at 03:37 CST

The world hasn't changed as much as you think it has.

Lapoolecalif
(Reply)
California, United States

posted Dec 20th, 2007 at 01:10 CST

yes, when they envisioned highways linking nations they forgot three things: terrorism, outsourcing, and immigration. It's interesting to note the things they DID get right, as they are now - the thing with the TV in the car - but not for biz, for entertainment. The large route signs, the displays of traffic problems ahead has been implemented in LA at least. I think it's still accurate to portray women as the main shoppers, though, even if they're earning money outside the home to pay for it.

(Reply)
posted Dec 20th, 2007 at 00:02 CST

I prefer reality, I love going faster then everyone and sweirving between cars. With the future way, there would be no where to race but at race tracks and then how the fuck am I suppose to get my racecar there? The future way would be very boring.

(Reply)
posted Dec 19th, 2007 at 19:36 CST

Agreed, you need to take these predictions into context - the 50s - when cheap oil and the recent birth of atomic energy promised near limitless amounts of cheap energy would be available long into the future and the more simplified world view following WWII.  That said its not to far off the mark if you transpose what they imagined as a transportation network onto what we have as a communication network...

(Reply)
posted Dec 19th, 2007 at 17:10 CST

It'd be easier to let go if the delusional fantasy projected here was not so obstinately grounded in the minds of too many engineers and decision makers.

(Reply)
posted Dec 19th, 2007 at 17:06 CST

Fiscal reality stole this version of the future, not the oil companies.  Atomic energy  cannot create the infrastructure shown here.  Regardless, the notion that you can build all of this foolish crap with minimal utilization (no congestion) and without insane maintenance and operating costs is pure fantasy.  Only Disney could imagine something this Dopey.

(Reply)
posted Dec 19th, 2007 at 17:05 CST

It's all great until some idiot decides to blow up the sea tunnel or the sidewalk in the sky, or all of them. It would be bedlam to have all these things. Then we have more to worry about.

Log in using your:

* Username
* Email address
* Password
 
Buddy icon
* Gender
     
* Birth date
Country
City
 (your vote will still count)