XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science
From: genew@telus.net
On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 12:22:00 -0600, Doc O'Leary
wrote:
[snip]
>But, really, that all applies to car travel already, especially at high
>speeds. Get tapped the wrong way by another car and you get sent into a
>ditch in a vehicle that is in *no* way equipped to deal with that extra
>dimension of travel.
It goes down, doesn't it?
>The fact is, flying cars just don't make sense. Once you have the
>ability to fly, the desire to drive craters. Once you can manage the
How big would the craters be? (Thinking of daredevils^Wfools.)
>complexities and dangers of moving in 3 dimensions, it's hard to
>restrict yourself to the 2D Flatlander world. Cars would be as
>anachronistic in a world of ubiquitous flight as flight would be in a
>world of ubiquitous teleportation.
>
>Realistic sci-fi would look beyond our lowly obsession with cars. I
I remember a story where someone is driving and has a big
accident. It turns out that it was a simulation of some sort. That
he still wants to apply his licence (instead of waiting, I think it
was, six months) means that he does not get it.
>mean, hell, even modern urban planners know that they've caused more
>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. If
>you want a flying car, go buy a plane already; you could've been doing
>that for over a century.
But a new, complicated solution is so much
better than an old one that works fairly well. Forums vs. USENET
et al.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
