XPost: sci.astro, sci.physics, sci.space.policy   
   From: droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com   
      
   For your reference, records indicate that   
   jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:   
      
   > In sci.physics Doc O'Leary  wrote:   
   > >   
   > > Depends on the problem youre looking to solve.  If it is to keep a   
   > > vehicle in constant service, Id say youd fly it right back out to its   
   > > next destination.   
   >   
   > That is called an airline.   
      
   Only because that’s the known business model that works with the old   
   technology.  Likewise, I’ve made the point that a “self-driving car”   
   has existed for centuries; it is called a train.  Again, all I’m   
   asking for is for the SF world to be fleshed out where it makes sense   
   to have *your* kind of flying car.   
      
   > >  Same way it doesnt make much sense to leave a   
   > > self-driving car sitting in a parking lot doing nothing.   
   >   
   > Assuming the self-driving car is owned by Uber and not an individual.   
      
   Assuming nothing but a realistic universe.  Yes, I would agree that   
   self-driving cars prompt a whole *slew* of changes that might lead to   
   changing norms of car ownership.  Same goes for the mythical flying   
   car, too, so I’m just looking for the proponents to do the leg work   
   that shows they make sense in any sort of realistic universe.   
   Because, from where I’m sitting, they’re just another dumb idea that   
   nobody really bothers to think through.   
      
   --   
   "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)