XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science
From: robban@clubtelco.com
On 13/01/2014 11:13 pm, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article , robban@clubtelco.com
> says...
>>
>> On 13/01/2014 11:07 am, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> 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?
>>
>> One of the problems I see with all city planning of roads, inner-city
>> freeways and public transport is the assumption that most people want to
>> come in from outer suburbs to the centre of the city, whereas many of
>> them want to cross the city to the other side or circle round to another
>> suburb. True, some cities have a ring road or circular bus route, but
>> the into the middle and then out again idea seems to prevail.
>> Were it not for this, then the rails, real or virtual, would simply be
>> for our current major roads.
>
> There is a railroad station between my house and my current work. The
> trouble is that I have to drive 20 minutes to get there, and the train
> puts me a mile from work, with a total transit time of more than an
> hour. Further, it doesn't arrive or leave at times convenient to my
> working hours. Driving directly to work is 30 minutes and I end up
> across the street from work. And I have to pay more for the train
> ticket than the cost of gas. So why would it be to my benefit to use a
> train for any part of my commute?
>
> If you have people going from one densely populated location to another,
> or if the commute is long, then the train makes sense--this is why the
> Long Island Railroad and Conrail work--they are carrying commuters 20-50
> miles into one of the most densely populated areas on Earth. When the
> population density is low and the commute is short, the train is just a
> waste of resources.
>
> I know train fans love trains, but the fact is that the circumstances
> under which they make economic sense are limited.
>
That's what the conservatives said about rail in my city. Now the
no-longer-quite-new trains are packed and are much faster than you could
possibly drive and cheaper than using a car. It's the parking at the
train station that is the problem.
--
Robert Bannister - 1940-71 SE England
1972-now W Australia
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
