Replacing private cars with Aerodynes.

"You havent argued against Mass production and its cost redcution abilities, but you have argued against Moller international."First off I dont have to argue against Mass Production because every contraption you have used as an example doesnt even work, so mass producing an item that doesnt work wont fix anything. I argued against Moller International because you mentioned only them, im not going to go out of my way to denounce every company that is trying to make flying cars when the only one you are using filed for bankruptcy 2 years ago. "Nasa Puffin"You mean the ones that will probably never be produced and even if they are will be kept only in the hands of the military?http://www.engadget.com...As for the other wikipedia links the Pro gives,1- Parajet skycar: "Although the car was designed for two people it never flew successfully with more than a driver / pilot. The flying portion of the expedition eventually ended when inventor Gilo Cardozo crashed into a tree"http://en.wikipedia.org...2- Terrafugia Transition: "December, 2011 saw the base price increased to US$279,000."It also needs 10,000 feet of runway to take off....http://translogic.aolautos.com...3- Pal-V: The thing where only 1 exists and can only be maintained properly by trained helicopter mechanics where the price tag is over $200,000?http://www.futurecars.com... 4- X-Hawk: The machine that so far has only flown up to 3 feet and costs $3.2 million to own?http://en.wikipedia.org...Each one of the devices the Pro has submitted has either resulted in limited success, killed their inventors, or costs a ridiculous amount of money. Every time I debunk an example the Pro just switches to another one that has the same problems and claims that it is different. Fly-by-wireFly-by-wire is a system that uses electronic signals and computers to fly airplanes by themselves. And the reason I thought that there was no way that is what the Pro could be referring to is because fly-by-wire systems only make everything computerized and can still be horrendously unreliable. http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...The video above shows what happened to the fly-by-wire airplaneThe second video shows the hidden dangers of fly-by-wire aircraftFly by wire is a danger to passengers itself which is why I thought that the pro couldnt possibly be using it to argue why it makes planes SAFER, so I did some deeper digging and came to believe that fly by wire meant something completely different. But it turns out he WAS referring to the first one. Flying by wire doesnt solve any problems caused by difficulty to operate an aircraft, it causes even more problems to those who are not trained well enough, and they can even override what the pilot wants and end up killing people. Everything else the Pro ties to fly-by-wire is more future upgrades hes using to hide behind the fact that as of today flying such aircraft is very difficult and complex.3) "Grounded AI systems work together with the Fly-by-wire to fly the aircraft safely"Grounded AI systems ARE fly-by-wire systems, and making everything rely on computers only makes them more prone to failure, http://en.wikipedia.org...http://articles.latimes.com...http://www.npr.org...Making everything more prone to failure does not fix how in urban areas the millions of planes flying everywhere would cause chaos as they crash everywhere. 4) " People can also do their shopping in Aerodynes. I dont understand how the argument has been "dropped" by me"The problem with all aerodynes is that they have a very low carrying capacity, meaning that they struggle with even small loads because they cannot sustain a lot of weight. So when I brought up how this would be a problem since cars can handle weight much better than aerodynes, you didnt offer an explanation of how this can be fixed. Instead you mistook my arguments for referring to trains, and then replied by saying "people can still shop in them" where in reality they CANT. Thus you dropped the argument. 5) "Commercial transports that are also Cars can still be used, trucks too."Cars can be used to both transport goods and used for being private vehicles, so what exactly are these things supposed to replace because as far as I can see these things shouldnt replace anything because their instability with small loads make them very unreliable and unsafe.6) "I also don´t understand why people are using buses/subways" - Pro in round 4" Heavily urbanized centers will have air traffic congestion but this can be off-set by increasing public transportation." - Pro in round 1You yourself said that people would have to use public transportation, such as subways and buses, in urban cities. " I also don´t understand why people are using buses/subways (whatever public transportaion you prefer) as transportation when they own a aerodyne." - Pro in round 4"People can still walk and bike from these "business hubs" for 1-2 km to get to work." - Pro in round 3They cant use their aerodynes because youre making them leave them somewhere and then walk up to a mile to get to work. Im done going in circles over this, Pro has not given a clear solution over how the urban traffic problem would be countered. 7) "There would be no point in my idea if you just use pure Fly-by-wire"That thing that makes even seasoned pilots struggle when trying to stay alive wont help stop criminals flying 200 mph to suddenly come to a safe stop. I also dont appreciate you putting words in my mouth. The walking or biking thing refers to the fact that these aerodynes replace all cars, meaning that police not in airplanes would have to walk or bike to pick him up since you yourself said "People can still walk and bike from these "business hubs" for 1-2 km" Apparently though you like to pick and choose who gets to keep cars and not argue the resolution that cars should be replaced with aerodynes. 8) "Your point was that aircraft make it easy for terrorists to terrorize, my point was so do cars"You still have dropped the argument since planes pose a much larger threat to buildings and infrastructure then cars do, and potential terrorists could do much more damage to cities with plane than with cars. 9) + 10)The Pro cites existing technology as evidence for why he thinks that in the future they will all be suddenly upgraded enough to eliminate problems that affect all aerodynes rather than address how all of the current problems with aerodynes limit how effective they could be in replacing private cars. "Freedom: Fly by wire doesnt have to be absolute it is essentially only needed in bad weather and ubran areas.But in urban areas people arent even allowed to fly, they have to walk up to a mile to get to and from work... - Unreliability: Pro claims this is being debated but hasnt given a solution anywhere - Coordinating all the traffic: Pro wants to rely on fly-by-wire to fix this even though it doesnt magically solve all problems associated with flying - Cost of these things: Pro believes that mass production will fix this even though mass producing aerodynes that dont work doesnt mean maintainance will be cheaper since mass production doesnt make them invincible. Parts have to be repaired not replaced and no normal person is going to know what to do. - Difficulty to operate: Pro believes FBW will fix this even though seasoned pilots struggle with FBW... - Ones he cites dont work or are expensive: ......