XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science   
   From: 2671@gmail.com   
      
   "J. Clarke"  wrote in message   
   news:MPG.2d42226d33df997c98a3d9@news.newsguy.com...   
   > In article ,   
   > droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com says...   
   >>   
   >> In article ,   
   >>  Robert Bannister  wrote:   
   >>   
   >> > On 16/01/2014 2:02 am, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:   
   >> > > On 1/15/14 12:54 PM, Doc O'Leary wrote:   
   >> > >>   
   >> > >> 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!  Hell, we already have   
   >> > >> approximations of this with companies like Amazon.   
   >> > >   
   >> > >   
   >> > >      Not even vaguely close. I do my shopping in person because there   
   >> > > is   
   >> > > no way I'm trusting some guy I don't know to check every piece of   
   >> > > produce and make sure it's in good shape, and even if I did, do I   
   >> > > trust   
   >> > > the shipping company or delivery people? No. The remote location   
   >> > > ordering approach is great for things like books, or gadgets, but not   
   >> > > for fresh food.   
   >> >   
   >> > Same with clothes. I have bought clothing on line, but I much prefer to   
   >> > be able to feel the material and to try the garment on.   
   >>   
   >> But then you have to wonder if there isn't some middle ground that   
   >> satisfies everyone.   
      
   > Middle grounds seldom satisfy anyone.   
      
   It does with clothes. Most of us can not afford to have a professional   
   make all our clothes for us in person, and aren't capable of making   
   them ourselves from bolts of cloth. So the middle ground of getting   
   someone in Bangladesh make them and getting them from the store   
   or online works fine for almost all of us.   
      
   >> I mean, the illusion of produce selection is   
   >> *already* determined, in part, by what the store has out on display.   
   >   
   > Which store?  Aldi, Shoprite, Stop&Shop, Big Y, Walmart, the Ellingon   
   > farmer's market, the Enfield farmer's market, or any of the half dozen   
   > roadside produce stands that are on the way to any of them?   
   >   
   >> You could preview produce and refuse delivery if it didn't meet your   
   >> standards.   
   >   
   > And do without it until the next delivery.  You can't just stock up on a   
   > month's worth of lettuce so you can reject some if it's bad.   
   >   
   >> You could try out clothing in one color or fabric, but order   
   >> it in another.   
   >   
   > This one does at a store--try a brand name garment and if the store   
   > doesn't have the color you want in stock then go to the store's web site   
   > (or to Amazon or another discounter) and buy the same garment in the   
   > size you want.   
      
   Much more convenient to pirouette in front of the webcam   
   in your underwear and have it show up made for you.   
      
   >> At some point, it just gets easier to have the supply   
   >> chain stop at your house rather than at a store.   
   >   
   > For garments that point is when you're rich enough to pay for a day of a   
   > tailor's time to have him come out and fit you.   
      
   Don't need to when it is automated using your web cam.   
      
   >> We're not there yet,   
   >> but it gets closer every day.   
   >   
   > And you are missing another key point.  For many people shopping is a   
   > recreational activity,   
      
   Sure, no approach will suit everyone. What matters   
   is if it suits enough to be viable, and it would do.   
      
   > often done in groups.   
      
   Much less often than individually.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)