Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes.

For your reference, records indicate that
Fred J. McCall wrote:

Same as the case for GA aircraft. You need a car at both ends of the
flight.

Really? If that’s the *only* advantage you can think of, you’re
really supporting my point. Cars are easy to rent, or skip all that
these days and just use an app to get a ride. You’re going to need
to make a *much* better case for it to make sense to put an
expensive flying vehicle in the middle of dangerous road traffic.

So why not a single device?

Because the gulf between that idea and the reality is too great.
Different duties have different engineering requirements. Same
reason a vehicle meant to travel the vacuum of space has different
functional needs from one that is intended to launch from a planet
or one that is intended to re-enter an atmosphere.

You probably resisted the idea
of putting PDA functionality on cell phones, too.

Wrong again. I was in the camp that *knew* putting a computer in
your pocket meant that “phones� would stop being about phone calls.
Just like a “flying car� in any sane universe would quickly make
driving pointless, so it’d really just be about a newer kind of
aircraft.

And that’s why I bring up self-driving cars in the context of
trains. Because if flying cars made sense, they’d *first* make
sense in the context of a plane or a car. Even if you never took
it driving, it seems like there should be an obvious advantage of
having a plane you can park at the airport in a facility no
different from a regular parking spot. Yet somehow nobody can
find a market?

A lot of people own a lot of things that make very little sense. IÂ’m
not asking about that segment of the population. IÂ’m asking about
the people who are more thoughtful about their behaviors. Can you
make the case to *them* that flying cars are actually a good idea?


Why do I need to? Make the case for a car, period, to someone who
lives in the Amazon jungle. The fact that there is no such case
doesn't mean cars are useless.

They *are* uselesss in the middle of the Amazon jungle. But that’s
a straw man; stick to the issue at hand. No, you don’t *have* to
make the case for flying cars, but you *did* decide to chime in to
do that. You haven’t been successful as of yet, so you can try
harder, bail out of the conversation, or just admit that, yeah,
flying cars really are just one of science fiction’s dumber ideas.

--
"Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
River Tam, Trash, Firefly

For your reference, records indicate that
wrote:

Preflighting my airplane takes about 5 minutes.

You didn’t drive your airplane around town for days/weeks/months,
though. And what do you do if you find your car has taken some
damage that made it unable/dangerous to fly? A realistic world
building exercise isn’t going to yield useful results if you can’t
think past how you do things currently.

There is no FAA paperwork unless you file a flight plan, and then that
is automated.

Sure, sure. The busywork is all ideally computerized. But the point
is that such a setup isn’t some sort of imagined “I just drive right
to the airport runway and off I go.� We’re a long way from anything
*near* even that kind of SF fantasy.

There are a lot of people who do not own a car; so what?

There are lots of people who do not own a motorcycle; so what?

There are lots of people who do not own an airplane; so what?

Those are all the opposite of the ownership issue being discussed.
Your motives are now clear. I’m done with you.

--
"Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
River Tam, Trash, Firefly

For your reference, records indicate that
Fred J. McCall wrote:

So your whole 'argument' amounts to a chicken/egg thing. You said
there were no flying cars in the 'real world'. Now you want to move
the goal posts.

No, I’m saying that just because someone is *trying* to make a
thing happen doesn’t mean it has happened, or will happen. The
starting context for this is a space elevator, but it applies to
many things *in the context of science fiction*. Another fine
example is 3D TV or holograms. Yes, there are people trying to get
there, but they don’t exist in *any* sense as their science fiction
promise. You are being intellectually dishonest when you pretend
there is no difference.

Pointing to experimental aircraft is like pointing to cold fusion.
They are a *fiction* in the real world. Your case is not made when
youÂ’re deliberately being intellectually dishonest like this.


Do you know the FAA definition of 'experimental aircraft'?

No. I know what I see on the road and in the air. I do not see
*any* flying cars anywhere I look. The burden of evidence is on
*you* to show they exist beyond some ill-conceived R&D efforts.

--
"Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
River Tam, Trash, Firefly

For your reference, records indicate that
Fred J. McCall wrote:

Have you ever looked at the fuselage of a GA aircraft? The real
problem with a 'flying car' these days would getting them past the CAR
regulations. The airplane side is easy.

Thank you for continuing to support my point. I still argue that even
in a *SF* universe, it is tough to make a case for a flying car. Even
if you hand wave all the tech and regs and costs, very few worlds can
be created where it makes sense to drive around in a vehicle that can
fly.

--
"Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
River Tam, Trash, Firefly

In sci.physics Doc O'Leary wrote:
For your reference, records indicate that
Fred J. McCall wrote:

Have you ever looked at the fuselage of a GA aircraft? The real
problem with a 'flying car' these days would getting them past the CAR
regulations. The airplane side is easy.

Thank you for continuing to support my point. I still argue that even
in a *SF* universe, it is tough to make a case for a flying car. Even
if you hand wave all the tech and regs and costs, very few worlds can
be created where it makes sense to drive around in a vehicle that can
fly.

Perhaps for someone with a very limited world view.


--
Jim Pennino

Doc O'Leary wrote:

For your reference, records indicate that
Fred J. McCall wrote:

Have you ever looked at the fuselage of a GA aircraft? The real
problem with a 'flying car' these days would getting them past the CAR
regulations. The airplane side is easy.

Thank you for continuing to support my point.


Thank you for continuing to be a raving dip****. You've convinced me
you aren't worth wasting time on.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

In sci.physics Doc O'Leary wrote:
For your reference, records indicate that
Fred J. McCall wrote:

So your whole 'argument' amounts to a chicken/egg thing. You said
there were no flying cars in the 'real world'. Now you want to move
the goal posts.


3D televisions can be purchased at Best Buy, Amazon, and many other
retailers.

You can buy greeting cards with holograms.

Have you been living in a cave?


No, I’m saying that just because someone is *trying* to make a
thing happen doesn’t mean it has happened, or will happen. The
starting context for this is a space elevator, but it applies to
many things *in the context of science fiction*. Another fine
example is 3D TV or holograms. Yes, there are people trying to get
there, but they don’t exist in *any* sense as their science fiction
promise. You are being intellectually dishonest when you pretend
there is no difference.

Pointing to experimental aircraft is like pointing to cold fusion.
They are a *fiction* in the real world. Your case is not made when
you?re deliberately being intellectually dishonest like this.


Do you know the FAA definition of 'experimental aircraft'?

No. I know what I see on the road and in the air. I do not see
*any* flying cars anywhere I look. The burden of evidence is on
*you* to show they exist beyond some ill-conceived R&D efforts.

Yep, living in a cave.

It appears you also have not seen any 3D televisons or holograms even
though such are fairly common these days.



--
Jim Pennino

In sci.physics Doc O'Leary wrote:
For your reference, records indicate that
Fred J. McCall wrote:

Same as the case for GA aircraft. You need a car at both ends of the
flight.

Really? If that’s the *only* advantage you can think of, you’re
really supporting my point. Cars are easy to rent, or skip all that
these days and just use an app to get a ride. You’re going to need
to make a *much* better case for it to make sense to put an
expensive flying vehicle in the middle of dangerous road traffic.

Apparently you do not understand that the entire world is not one
big city with Uber at your fingertips.

Try getting an Uber ride in Gthenburg, NE.

So why not a single device?

Because the gulf between that idea and the reality is too great.
Different duties have different engineering requirements. Same
reason a vehicle meant to travel the vacuum of space has different
functional needs from one that is intended to launch from a planet
or one that is intended to re-enter an atmosphere.

Yet many people have been building working machines since the 1930's
so the technology can't be that difficult.


You probably resisted the idea
of putting PDA functionality on cell phones, too.

Wrong again. I was in the camp that *knew* putting a computer in
your pocket meant that “phones� would stop being about phone calls.
Just like a “flying car� in any sane universe would quickly make
driving pointless, so it’d really just be about a newer kind of
aircraft.

Correct, it is more about the COST of a "newer" kind of aircraft that
has been around for almost a century now.


And that’s why I bring up self-driving cars in the context of
trains. Because if flying cars made sense, they’d *first* make
sense in the context of a plane or a car. Even if you never took
it driving, it seems like there should be an obvious advantage of
having a plane you can park at the airport in a facility no
different from a regular parking spot. Yet somehow nobody can
find a market?

Lots of airplanes are parked in a facility no different from a regular
parking spot.

You continue to demonstrate you know absolutely nothing about aviation.


A lot of people own a lot of things that make very little sense. I?m
not asking about that segment of the population. I?m asking about
the people who are more thoughtful about their behaviors. Can you
make the case to *them* that flying cars are actually a good idea?


Why do I need to? Make the case for a car, period, to someone who
lives in the Amazon jungle. The fact that there is no such case
doesn't mean cars are useless.

They *are* uselesss in the middle of the Amazon jungle. But that’s
a straw man; stick to the issue at hand. No, you don’t *have* to
make the case for flying cars, but you *did* decide to chime in to
do that. You haven’t been successful as of yet, so you can try
harder, bail out of the conversation, or just admit that, yeah,
flying cars really are just one of science fiction’s dumber ideas.

Actually there is one flying car, a dune buggy actually, that is on
the market and a portion of the target market is access to remote
parts of the world such as jungle areas by people such as missionaries.

http://www.flyskyrunner.com/


--
Jim Pennino

In sci.physics Doc O'Leary wrote:
For your reference, records indicate that
wrote:

Preflighting my airplane takes about 5 minutes.

You didn’t drive your airplane around town for days/weeks/months,
though. And what do you do if you find your car has taken some
damage that made it unable/dangerous to fly? A realistic world
building exercise isn’t going to yield useful results if you can’t
think past how you do things currently.

A preflight is a preflight.

If the machine is damaged you call your insurance agent.


There is no FAA paperwork unless you file a flight plan, and then that
is automated.

Sure, sure. The busywork is all ideally computerized. But the point
is that such a setup isn’t some sort of imagined “I just drive right
to the airport runway and off I go.� We’re a long way from anything
*near* even that kind of SF fantasy.

Only in your blindered view of the world.

The ability to drive to the airport runway and off you go has been
around for nearly a century now, whether you want to accept the reality
or not.

FYI, most personal flights do not require paperwork of any kind.


There are a lot of people who do not own a car; so what?

There are lots of people who do not own a motorcycle; so what?

There are lots of people who do not own an airplane; so what?

Those are all the opposite of the ownership issue being discussed.
Your motives are now clear. I’m done with you.

Only in you narrow world view.

Just because something exists it does not mean everyone, or even a
significant fraction of everyone, will want it.

Your comment about motives is meaningless to me; I have no motives in
regard to flying cars, airplanes, cars, sailboats, bicycles,or any other
vehicle.


--
Jim Pennino

Doc O'Leary schrieb:
Another fine
example is 3D TV or holograms. Yes, there are people trying to get
there, but they don’t exist in *any* sense as their science fiction
promise.

Holograms is actually one of the worst cases.

It seems that very many SF authors simply do not understand
the properties of real holograms at all.

A hologram consists of an interference pattern. When directed
light falls on that pattern, 3D objects can be seen.

One point that SF authors or directors routinely miss is that you
cannot see anything of the hologram if you are not looking at
the interference pattern. A hologram cannot absorb, bend or
refract light anywhere else (so the Doctor from Voyager is out).

It is also not possible to have 3D projector that, simply by
projecting light, can make something appear in thin air that can
be viewed at an angle from the projector. So, forget about R2D2
pojecting the picture of Princess Leia.