XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science
From: jclarkeusenet@cox.net
In article , robban@clubtelco.com
says...
>
> 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.
There are trains going into most major cities in the US. Few of them
are "packed".
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
