XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science   
   From: jclarkeusenet@cox.net   
      
   In article , bap@shrdlu.com says...   
   >   
   > On 16/01/14 01:04, J. Clarke wrote:   
   > > In article ,   
   > > droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com says...   
   > >>   
   > >> In article ,   
   > >>   "sna"  wrote:   
   > >>   
   > >>> "J. Clarke"  wrote in message   
   > >>> news:MPG.2d3b71dbee74782498a35e@news.newsguy.com...   
   > >>>>   
   > >>>> When the train can take me from my garage to my office and stop off for   
   > >>>> groceries on the way home, all on my schedule, without my having to walk   
   > >>>> several blocks in the snow at each end or make several transfers, get   
   > >>>> back to me.   
   > >>>   
   > >>> Yeah, that one is never going to happen, even with the pod system.   
   > >>   
   > >> Only a fool would imagine that's a good idea in the first place.  Part   
   > >> of the beauty of a "pod" system is that it can not only abstract a   
   > >> transporter, but a replicator as well.  You need groceries?  You push a   
   > >> few buttons and it all gets sent *to* you!   
   > >   
   > > When I'm out of milk I need it tonight, not whenever the grocer gets   
   > > around to delivering it to me.   
   >   
   > Perfect application for a pod system. If your fridge forgets to order   
   > the milk you can just order it online. It should be delivered in less   
   > time than it takes to drive to the store.   
      
   Since it takes me zero time to drive to the store that I am passing on   
   the way from work, how will this help?  And how much will the individual   
   pod delivery add to the cost?   
      
   > >> Hell, we already have   
   > >> approximations of this with companies like Amazon.  The main thing   
   > >> stopping progress on improved logistics are the dopes who keep thinking   
   > >> they need to drive everywhere in cars to do things manually.   
   > >   
   > > The thing that is stopping progress is shipping charges.  It's cheaper   
   > > for me to go a half mile out of the way on the way home than it is for   
   > > the grocer to deliver.   
   >   
   > Of course if the grocer used self-driving vehicles delivery charges   
   > would be a lot less.   
      
   Why would delivery charges be a lot less?  The gas to get from the store   
   to my house and back costs more than the milk.   
      
   > >>> When I can park the plane in the lower level of a   
   > >>>> multilevel underground parking garage get back to me.   
   > >>>   
   > >>> That one might be possible if a flying car can be a normal   
   > >>> car too. The cost of getting the wings stowed well enough   
   > >>> so it can operate like a normal car in the highest density   
   > >>> situations like a parking garage would be a real challenge tho.   
   > >>   
   > >> Again, such a future is a fool's dream.   
   > >   
   > > The flying cars currently in development in Israel can be parked in a   
   > > typical garage., so it's hardly a "fools dream".   
   > >   
   > >> Like I said, if I work on the   
   > >> 20th floor, it makes no sense for me to have a flying car that forces me   
   > >> land it and park some distance away, walk to my building, and then get   
   > >> in an elevator to get me back up into the sky.   
   > >   
   > > The car doesn't force you to do that, the building does.  You really   
   > > think that they're going to tear down the Empire State Building and   
   > > replace it with something that accomodates flying cars just for your   
   > > convenience?   
   > >   
   > >> That's stupid thinking   
   > >> that fails to actually do the world building exercises that create a   
   > >> believable future.   
   > >   
   > > No, the "stupid thinking" is thinking that a city can be rebuilt   
   > > overnight at no cost to accommodate a change in transportation.   
   >   
   > That's true, which is why I have difficulty seeing the transition state   
   > between what we have now and what is technically possible with even   
   > today's technology.   
      
   That's because you see "either/or", not "in combination with".  You see   
   "all cars are self-driving or no cars are self-driving" when the reality   
   is that self-driving cars for a long time will share the road with   
   regular cars and if they can't survive in that environment then they   
   will not be marketable.  You see "all cars are flying cars or no cars   
   are flying cars" and when the reality will be that some wealthy people   
   will have flying cars that share facilities with regular cars and that   
   the number will gradually increase as economies of scale come into play.   
      
   Everything that is technologically possible is not beneficial or   
   desirable you know.  It is technologically possible to turn the entire   
   planet into a radioactive wasteland for example.  Just because we _can_   
   do something doesn't mean that we _should_.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)