XPost: sci.astro, sci.physics, sci.space.policy   
      
   In sci.physics Doc O'Leary  wrote:   
   > 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 thats the known business model that works with the old   
   > technology.  Likewise, Ive made the point that a self-driving car”   
   > has existed for centuries; it is called a train.   
      
   A train is not a car. Consult any dictionary.   
      
   >  Again, all Im   
   > asking for is for the SF world to be fleshed out where it makes sense   
   > to have *your* kind of flying car.   
      
   The definition of flying car is universal and not mine alone.   
      
   >   
   >> >  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 Im just looking for the proponents to do the leg work   
   > that shows they make sense in any sort of realistic universe.   
   > Because, from where Im sitting, theyre just another dumb idea that   
   > nobody really bothers to think through.   
      
   Since I didn't say anything about self-driving cars I don't know what   
   you are agreeing with.   
      
   Flying cars are not mythical as many have been built.   
      
   What has not happened is they have never been a commercial success.   
      
   There is a big difference between not existing and not being a commercial   
   success.   
      
   The reason they have never been a commercial success is economics; too   
   few people have been historically willing to buy one for anyone to go   
   into production.   
      
   Whether or not YOU see any use for them is irrelevant.   
      
      
      
   --   
   Jim Pennino   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)