|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
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. Im not asking about that segment of the population. Im 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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. | Robert Clark[_5_] | Policy | 79 | September 25th 16 04:16 AM |
A way to make arbitrarily long nanotubes? | Robert Clark | Astronomy Misc | 0 | October 20th 07 03:24 PM |
[fitsbits] HPX paper published | Mark Calabretta | FITS | 0 | October 11th 07 02:30 AM |
NEW PAPER RELATED TO GPS AND VLBI PUBLISHED | Sam Wormley | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | August 17th 05 03:53 AM |
Published Paper Probes Pulsar Pair | Ron | Astronomy Misc | 0 | April 28th 04 11:17 PM |