XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science   
   From: David@block.net   
      
   On 1/12/2014 10:47 AM, Doc O'Leary wrote:   
   > 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?   
      
   Driving much isn't necessary to be a "flying car".  Classic science   
   fiction flying cars only touch down to park because they ignore the   
   issue of how much power it takes to remain constantly hovering.   
      
   What is necessary is for it to be   
      
   A. Inexpensive enough that the middle class can afford one.   
   B. Capable of being parked on a street parking space or inside a   
   standard residential garage.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)