XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science   
   From: YourName@YourISP.com   
      
   In article , David Johnston   
    wrote:   
   > On 1/12/2014 5:07 PM, Your Name wrote:   
   > > In article , David Johnston   
   > >  wrote:   
   > >> 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.   
   > >   
   > > Or, like the Jetsons, folded down into a briefcase.  ;-)   
   > >   
   > > Most of the flying car designs that I've seen are based on planes, so   
   > > they need short runways for take-off and landing.   
   >   
   > Which why none of those designs really take off.   
      
   They do take-off, they just need that runway.  ;-)   
      
   I do know of at least one housing area for rich twits where each house   
   has its own hangar for a private plane and a taxi-way through to a   
   shared runway - it's based on the idea of the slightly more common   
   versions for boat owners.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)