XPost: sci.space.policy, sci.physics, sci.astro
From: droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com
For your reference, records indicate that
Fred J. McCall wrote:
> So your whole 'argument' amounts to a chicken/egg thing. You said
> there were no flying cars in the 'real world'. Now you want to move
> the goal posts.
No, I’m saying that just because someone is *trying* to make a
thing happen doesn’t mean it has happened, or will happen. The
starting context for this is a space elevator, but it applies to
many things *in the context of science fiction*. Another fine
example is 3D TV or holograms. Yes, there are people trying to get
there, but they don’t exist in *any* sense as their science fiction
promise. You are being intellectually dishonest when you pretend
there is no difference.
> >Pointing to experimental aircraft is like pointing to cold fusion.
> >They are a *fiction* in the real world. Your case is not made when
> >youre deliberately being intellectually dishonest like this.
> >
>
> Do you know the FAA definition of 'experimental aircraft'?
No. I know what I see on the road and in the air. I do not see
*any* flying cars anywhere I look. The burden of evidence is on
*you* to show they exist beyond some ill-conceived R&D efforts.
--
"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)
|
