XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science
From: jclarkeusenet@cox.net
In article , robban@clubtelco.com
says...
>
> On 14/01/2014 6:34 pm, J. Clarke wrote:
> > 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".
> >
>
> I believe that is mainly because they are old and slow.
No, it is because even if they went at the speed of light they would
still be inconvenient.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
