XPost: sci.astro, sci.physics, sci.space.policy   
   From: droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com   
      
   For your reference, records indicate that   
   Fred J. McCall  wrote:   
      
   > Doc O'Leary   wrote:   
   >   
   > >Just the opposite!  If I can only fly between airports, why not just call   
   > >it an airplane?  What actual problem does a “flying car” otherwise solve   
   > >that make it such a fantastic machine to have?  What is the actual use   
   > >case that demonstrates *any* added value?   
   >   
   > Asked and answered.   
      
   No, it wasn’t.  Where’s the use case?  I’m a guy sitting in my office   
   and I get a call telling me I need to get to X (home or hospital,   
   Detroit or Paris).  I know all the tradeoffs of the current solutions   
   to that problem.  What is the *actual* benefit a flying car offers in   
   a world where everyone’s a pilot, but I still have to go to an   
   airport, inspect the machine to verify it is airworthy, take care of   
   necessary FAA paperwork, etc.?   
      
   > Do you know what a GA airplane is?  I think you just asserted that   
   > they make no sense, yet lots of people have them.   
      
   A lot of people own a lot of things that make very little sense.  I’m   
   not asking about that segment of the population.  I’m asking about   
   the people who are more thoughtful about their behaviors.  Can you   
   make the case to *them* that flying cars are actually a good idea?   
      
   --   
   "Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."   
   River Tam, Trash, Firefly   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)