what would a computer need in order to take over the world? (or start a cascade that ends in said result)
-needs to be smarter than we are, check
-needs to have programing that thinks outside of assigned parameters, no check
-needs self-preserving motives, no check
-needs self advancing concerns, a.k.a. 'ego', no check
-needs engineering capacity, no check
*note* -it might be impossible for a computer to create anything more advanced than itself using its own programming, known as the issue of paradox created from degrading of information: think, is your brain powerful enough to contain all the information nescessary to create a duplicate, let alone a better one? the answer: no.
-needs appendages
-needs access to materials
*note* -if its acting independantly it will need mobility to access those materials
-needs way to process materials
I assume if it can create even crude materials it would work using those equipment then progress to the point where its working on the micro level. ex: use 2 rocks to make a sharp stone, use sharp stone to whittle a wood tool, use wood tool to dig for metal, use fire to make metal into another tool etc. etc.
... this would take a while...
anyway I dont see the point in putting all of this stuff together. even still there are technical issues that we cannot sort out currently, so computers will not be more powerful than we are (or smarter, emp.

) for a while.
A computer using all the mass in the solar system as a calculation device making us just numbers in an equation?
seeing as that doesnt hurt us I dont see that as "bad"
also note that we would each be way more than "just numbers" we probably would register in the trillion of trillion numbers (dont exactly know what that is)
We've had flying cars for quite a while, they were just not feasable because they would drain efficiency. The plan I believe was discussed and discarded. However, they are thinking about getting airplan cars on the roads soon.
not true, the reason we dont have flying cars is because we dont have a reliable model. I agree with ron here, you cannot place a timeline on progress (unless you're making obvious statements, like "we wont have hyperspace in the next week or two")