XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science   
   From: jclarkeusenet@cox.net   
      
   In article ,   
   droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com says...   
   >   
   > 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.   
      
   No, the technology has to fit how people live.  Maybe 100 years after   
   everybody has flying cars the infrastructure would have been altered to   
   accommodate them but they aren't going to tear down every building in   
   the world and rebuild it for flying cars the first time somebody buys   
   one.   
      
   > > 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.   
      
   Why does technology that makes sense in creating a flying car have to   
   "be effective in creating better planes"?  There's no need for a Mach 25   
   scramjet in a flying car.   
      
   > > 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.   
      
   Only if there are dozens of them in a line on the same highway.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   So you're going to run rails to everybody's house, everybody's job, ever   
   shopping center, every empty field?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)