XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science   
   From: droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com   
      
   In article ,   
    Greg Goss  wrote:   
      
   > Doc O'Leary  wrote:   
   >   
   > >problems than they've solved.  Same goes for this self-driving nonsense;   
   > >it makes no sense to turn cars into trains via software.  Use a train if   
   > >you want a train; you could've been doing that for over a century.   
   >   
   > Trains and planes are a nuisance because you have no flexibility once   
   > you get near your destination.   
      
   That is only what you have come to know based on the current, flawed   
   implementation of those technologies.  These are sci-fi newsgroups, so   
   I'm asking you to engage in future thinking.  You have to engage in the   
   world building exercise that imagines superior technologies as actually   
   existing and in common place usage, with all the connected changes they   
   imply.   
      
   One example for flying cars: what *does* make sense as a destination?   
   How far can you fly with it, and how much do you still have to drive?   
   Like I said, why would you drive much at all?  And does it make sense to   
   have the destination as a parking garage, only to have to still get down   
   to ground level, walk to an office building, and wait for an elevator   
   ride to get back up to the same height you flew in at?  The technology   
   forces you to reconsider everything about how people live.   
      
   > Generally people on planes either rent   
   > a car when they get there, or mooch transportation from the people   
   > that they're visiting.   
      
   Because, generally, what makes a plane air-worthy can be compromised by   
   driving around in traffic.  Point being, any new technology that makes   
   sense in creating a flying car must *necessarily* be first proven   
   effective in creating better planes.  If you're not seeing that, and   
   we're not, you won't be seeing flying cars any time soon.  Simple as   
   that.   
      
   > Building a virtual train out of self-driving bits?  That's kinda like   
   > building an internet by making self-driving packets.  It'll never   
   > work.   
      
   I don't even understand the analogy you're trying to make.  Self-driving   
   cars *are* a virtual train.  There are some advantages they might have   
   over a physical train, but many disadvantages, too.  My point simply is   
   that it's not futuristic technology to combine two existing vehicle   
   types, be it car-plane or car-train, certainly not simply because the   
   "rails" are done in software instead of hardware.  I think it'll work   
   just fine, if you throw enough resources at the problem, but the more   
   sensible thing to do would be to use physical rails so that you don't   
   *need* to waste those resources tackling what is a solved problem.   
      
   --   
   iPhone apps that matter:    http://appstore.subsume.com/   
   My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, theremailer.net,   
       and probably your server, too.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)