Br-Ahman

I'm saying that the basic technology has been there for 90 years and that the remaining technologies/improvements would've developed much more rapidly, if the government hadn't gotten in the way. I agree that they won't be common for a long time, but the less the government gets in the way, the sooner that will be, by far. And thinking retroactively, the same is true: If the government hadn't gotten in the way in the first place--and discouraged their development for 80 years--they probably would've been relatively common, inexpensive, quiet, and safe by now.

Probably because, when you were a baby, a loud noise startled you while someone was singing it.

I totally agree and would add this hacked-up quote from the Lord in Isaiah 58: "If thou turn away thy foot from...doing thy pleasure on my holy day...not finding thine own pleasure...then...I will...feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father...".

Pot calling the kettle black.

For you conservatives who think that Trump is utterly dishonest, you might want to reconsider whence you're getting your news. Agencies like wnd.com, thenewamerican.com, theepochtimes.com, washingtonexaminer.com, westernjournal.com, townhall.com, etc. are much more truthful, in my experience.

It seems obvious to me, from these NDEs and from many scriptures, that God can SEE all possible futures (and can show glimpses of them to some of us, when it serves His purposes), but believing that all of these possible futures are actually playing out at the same time in alternate universes is an INIFINITELY DIFFERENT thing. I would have to agree with Vort (the user) and call that "silly" and "nonsensical".

Like the FAA, you're (1) imposing unnecessary initial limitations/requirements and (2) erroneously using relative terms as if they're absolute: Quiet, autonomy/ease of use, affordability, safety, etc. (all relative terms) would have developed and improved to wonderful levels by now, if the FAA hadn't continually stomped out the emerging technology before it had a chance to develop or progress. Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty, or give me death.", not "Give me liberty, unless it increases my chances of harm or death." Even today, whenever you drive your modern car, there is risk that you will get in an accident and be harmed or killed or that someone else will be harmed or killed. When cars were first invented, that risk was much higher, especially at comparable speeds. Someone who erroneously uses relative terms as absolute terms would even say that, back then, "cars weren't safe". Thank goodness the government didn't stamp out ground-based vehicle technology before it reached its current level of safety, affordability, ease of use, and noise levels. It's too bad that the FAA didn't follow that same tack. The risks taken by earlier generations are what bring about the relative safety enjoyed by later generations.

I've often wondered whether the multiverse theory wasn't concocted by atheists to explain away how the laws of physics, the universe, the solar system, and the earth have turned out to be so perfectly fine-tuned for the support of life.

There have been flying cars since the 30s (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterman_Arrowbile), but the FAA, using the "not safe" excuse (relative term being erroneously used as an absolute term), has, until recently, completely railroaded all attempts at marketing them (https://www.dmv.org/articles/the-faa-versus-flying-cars and https://www.wired.com/story/uber-flying-cars-faa-regulation/). Even now, they only let select, elite companies do it. If the FAA had not been bullying the private sector with the "not safe" mantra for 90 years, we would've had flying cars that were completely safe decades ago.