XPost: sci.space.policy, sci.physics, sci.astro   
   From: droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com   
      
   For your reference, records indicate that   
   jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:   
      
   > A train is not a car. Consult any dictionary.   
      
   For your sake, I hope you’re missing the point deliberately.  Cars   
   are becoming more like trains.  That’s not something you’ll find in   
   a 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.   
      
   Hardly.  Even the Wikipedia page makes it clear that nobody can   
   agree what to call all the various different types of personal air   
   vehicles.  Some of the things listed don’t even have wheels.  But   
   if you still think otherwise, please state for us all what this   
   “universal” definition is so we’re all on the same page.   
      
   > >> 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.   
      
   Uh, I quoted it.  When you’re apparently not even paying enough   
   attention to the conversation to know what you’ve said, I have to   
   suspect you’re just here to troll.   
      
   > Flying cars are not mythical as many have been built.   
      
   They are as mythical as a personal jetpack or the space elevator   
   that started this thread.  Not because of their *impossibility*   
   but because of their *impracticality*.  Only a crazy person thinks   
   they live in the SF world you insist is reality.  I have *never*   
   found myself next to someone driving a flying car.   
      
   > What has not happened is they have never been a commercial success.   
      
   Because they’re a stupid idea, which was my point from the start.   
      
   > There is a big difference between not existing and not being a commercial   
   > success.   
      
   From a SF perspective, no.  Nobody is writing any fantastic stories   
   about *any* of the “existing” flying cars.  Hell, they’re not even   
   writing *terrible* stories about them, because “flying cars” are   
   *so* bad in reality that you’d have to be a nut to think of them as   
   a cool technology.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   If exotic cars have a market, so would a respectable flying car.   
   If planes can be bought that sit in hangers most of the time, a   
   respectable flying car would have a market.  What do you think the   
   economics of success need to be?   
      
   --   
   "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)