XPost: sci.space.policy, sci.physics, sci.astro   
   From: droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com   
      
   For your reference, records indicate that   
   Fred J. McCall  wrote:   
      
   > Same as the case for GA aircraft.  You need a car at both ends of the   
   > flight.   
      
   Really?  If that’s the *only* advantage you can think of, you’re   
   really supporting my point.  Cars are easy to rent, or skip all that   
   these days and just use an app to get a ride.  You’re going to need   
   to make a *much* better case for it to make sense to put an   
   expensive flying vehicle in the middle of dangerous road traffic.   
      
   > So why not a single device?   
      
   Because the gulf between that idea and the reality is too great.   
   Different duties have different engineering requirements.  Same   
   reason a vehicle meant to travel the vacuum of space has different   
   functional needs from one that is intended to launch from a planet   
   or one that is intended to re-enter an atmosphere.   
      
   > You probably resisted the idea   
   > of putting PDA functionality on cell phones, too.   
      
   Wrong again.  I was in the camp that *knew* putting a computer in   
   your pocket meant that “phones” would stop being about phone calls.   
   Just like a “flying car” in any sane universe would quickly make   
   driving pointless, so it’d really just be about a newer kind of   
   aircraft.   
      
   And that’s why I bring up self-driving cars in the context of   
   trains.  Because if flying cars made sense, they’d *first* make   
   sense in the context of a plane or a car.  Even if you never took   
   it driving, it seems like there should be an obvious advantage of   
   having a plane you can park at the airport in a facility no   
   different from a regular parking spot.  Yet somehow nobody can   
   find a market?   
      
   > >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?   
   > >   
   >   
   > Why do I need to?  Make the case for a car, period, to someone who   
   > lives in the Amazon jungle.  The fact that there is no such case   
   > doesn't mean cars are useless.   
      
   They *are* uselesss in the middle of the Amazon jungle.  But that’s   
   a straw man; stick to the issue at hand.  No, you don’t *have* to   
   make the case for flying cars, but you *did* decide to chime in to   
   do that.  You haven’t been successful as of yet, so you can try   
   harder, bail out of the conversation, or just admit that, yeah,   
   flying cars really are just one of science fiction’s dumber ideas.   
      
   --   
   "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)