cases where SF has predicted scientific or technological advances?

[David Dalton]

What are some cases where science fiction has successfully
predicted scientific or technological advances?

And also what are some open predictions that you think
may still come true?

--
David Dalton ***@nfld.com http://www.nfld.com/~dalton (home page)
http://www.nfld.com/~dalton/nf.html Newfoundland&Labrador Music & Travel
"I meant to play the great game, darling
and hold your bones deep to the root of one" (Dorothy Livesay)

[David Friedman]

In article <dalton-***@mx05.eternal-september.org>,
David Dalton <***@nfld.com> wrote:

> What are some cases where science fiction has successfully
> predicted scientific or technological advances?
>
> And also what are some open predictions that you think
> may still come true?

I may have already mentioned this here recently. In _Beyond this
Horizon_, Heinlein described a technique to separately determine the
genes in sperm and egg, in order that a couple could choose, among the
children they could have, which one they did have. A news story within
the past month described a primitive version of his technique used to
determine the genetics of an egg for IVF implantation.

Discussed on my blog:

http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2013/12/science-has-almost-caught-up-w
ith.html

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
_Salamander_: http://tinyurl.com/6957y7e
_How to Milk an Almond,..._ http://tinyurl.com/63xg8gx

[Bill Gill]

On 1/9/2014 11:40 PM, David Dalton wrote:
> What are some cases where science fiction has successfully
> predicted scientific or technological advances?
>
> And also what are some open predictions that you think
> may still come true?
>
Arthur C. Clarke invented the Geo-synchronous relay satellite
in the 1940s. I forget what story it was in.

Bill Gill

[David Goldfarb]

In article <lap08j$nmp$***@dont-email.me>, Bill Gill <***@cox.net> wrote:
>On 1/9/2014 11:40 PM, David Dalton wrote:
>> What are some cases where science fiction has successfully
>> predicted scientific or technological advances?
>>
>> And also what are some open predictions that you think
>> may still come true?
>>
>Arthur C. Clarke invented the Geo-synchronous relay satellite
>in the 1940s. I forget what story it was in.

If memory serves me right it was in a fact article rather than in
any story.

--
David Goldfarb |"To summarize the summary of the summary:
***@gmail.com | People are a problem."
***@ocf.berkeley.edu | -- Douglas Adams

[Ingo Siekmann]

Am 10.01.2014 06:40, schrieb David Dalton:
> What are some cases where science fiction has successfully
> predicted scientific or technological advances?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Logic_Named_Joe


IIRC, Asimov described in some of his stories a giant computer, and
everybody had a terminal in his house to use it. To me, it has a lot in
common with our internet...

> And also what are some open predictions that you think
> may still come true?

One day, I will have my flying car. :-)

Bye
Ingo

[J. Clarke]

In article <lapiks$qo4$***@online.de>, ingo-***@web.de says...
>
> Am 10.01.2014 06:40, schrieb David Dalton:
> > What are some cases where science fiction has successfully
> > predicted scientific or technological advances?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Logic_Named_Joe
>
>
> IIRC, Asimov described in some of his stories a giant computer, and
> everybody had a terminal in his house to use it. To me, it has a lot in
> common with our internet...

Not really. It's the old mainframe and dumb terminals model, not the
supercomputer on every desktop model that actually happened.

Now they're trying to go back to that model with tablets and phones and
the like acting as dumb terminals, but the fact is that tablets and
phones already outperform '70s supercomputers so that trend I suspect is
doomed to be short-lived.

> > And also what are some open predictions that you think
> > may still come true?
>
> One day, I will have my flying car. :-)

If you want it sooner you might need to move to Israel--they're actually
putting serious big-aerospace effort into one.

[Your Name]

In article <lapiks$qo4$***@online.de>, ingo-***@web.de says...
> Am 10.01.2014 06:40, schrieb David Dalton:
> > And also what are some open predictions that you think
> > may still come true?
>
> One day, I will have my flying car. :-)

There's a few companies working on flying cars, some supposedly due for
release this year or next year ... but just looking at the mess on the
roads in "two" dimensions is enough to let anyone with a brain know
that letting them loose in "three" dimensions is going to be a complete
disaster. :-(


There are numerous lists of these "predictions" on the internet already:
http://www.google.com/search?q=scifi+predict+real+life

[Your Name]

In article <lapiks$qo4$***@online.de>, ingo-***@web.de says...
> Am 10.01.2014 06:40, schrieb David Dalton:
> > And also what are some open predictions that you think
> > may still come true?
>
> One day, I will have my flying car. :-)

There's a few companies working on flying cars, some supposedly due for
release this year or next year ... but just looking at the mess on the
roads in "two" dimensions is enough to let anyone with a brain know
that letting them loose in "three" dimensions is going to be a complete
disaster. :-(


There are numerous lists of these "predictions" on the internet already:
http://www.google.com/search?q=scifi+predict+real+life

[David Johnston]

On 1/10/2014 1:57 PM, Your Name wrote:
> In article <lapiks$qo4$***@online.de>, ingo-***@web.de says...
>> Am 10.01.2014 06:40, schrieb David Dalton:
>>> And also what are some open predictions that you think
>>> may still come true?
>>
>> One day, I will have my flying car. :-)
>
> There's a few companies working on flying cars,

And have been since before they became a science fiction standard.


some supposedly due for
> release this year or next year ... but just looking at the mess on the
> roads in "two" dimensions is enough to let anyone with a brain know
> that letting them loose in "three" dimensions is going to be a complete
> disaster. :-(
>
>
> There are numerous lists of these "predictions" on the internet already:
> http://www.google.com/search?q=scifi+predict+real+life
>

[David Friedman]

In article <110120140957044769%***@YourISP.com>,
Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote:

> In article <lapiks$qo4$***@online.de>, ingo-***@web.de says...
> > Am 10.01.2014 06:40, schrieb David Dalton:
> > > And also what are some open predictions that you think
> > > may still come true?
> >
> > One day, I will have my flying car. :-)
>
> There's a few companies working on flying cars, some supposedly due for
> release this year or next year ... but just looking at the mess on the
> roads in "two" dimensions is enough to let anyone with a brain know
> that letting them loose in "three" dimensions is going to be a complete
> disaster. :-(
>
>
> There are numerous lists of these "predictions" on the internet already:
> http://www.google.com/search?q=scifi+predict+real+life

Not clear. There's a lot more room in three dimensions.

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
_Salamander_: http://tinyurl.com/6957y7e
_How to Milk an Almond,..._ http://tinyurl.com/63xg8gx

[Your Name]

In article <ddfr-***@news.giganews.com>, David
Friedman <***@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:

> In article <110120140957044769%***@YourISP.com>,
> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <lapiks$qo4$***@online.de>, ingo-***@web.de says...
> > > Am 10.01.2014 06:40, schrieb David Dalton:
> > > > And also what are some open predictions that you think
> > > > may still come true?
> > >
> > > One day, I will have my flying car. :-)
> >
> > There's a few companies working on flying cars, some supposedly due for
> > release this year or next year ... but just looking at the mess on the
> > roads in "two" dimensions is enough to let anyone with a brain know
> > that letting them loose in "three" dimensions is going to be a complete
> > disaster. :-(
> >
> >
> > There are numerous lists of these "predictions" on the internet already:
> > http://www.google.com/search?q=scifi+predict+real+life
>
> Not clear. There's a lot more room in three dimensions.

That simply means more chance of someone coming out of "nowhere" to hit
you.

[David DeLaney]

On 2014-01-11, David Friedman <***@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote:
>> In article <lapiks$qo4$***@online.de>, ingo-***@web.de says...
>> > One day, I will have my flying car. :-)
>>
>> There's a few companies working on flying cars, some supposedly due for
>> release this year or next year ... but just looking at the mess on the
>> roads in "two" dimensions is enough to let anyone with a brain know
>> that letting them loose in "three" dimensions is going to be a complete
>> disaster. :-(
>
> Not clear. There's a lot more room in three dimensions.

Fairly clear, because while that is the case, it's also a lot harder to keep
a watch out in 4\pi of spherical directions than it is in 360 degrees of
planar ones; you can't build roads in the air; and if you have a problem in
mid-air, despite what Bugs Bunny demonstrated, you cannot simply put on your
air brakes and stop dead while you try to fix it or wait for help. Plus drunken
teenagers or adults make all of this so much worse...

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[Your Name]

In article <***@earthlink.com>, David
DeLaney <***@earthlink.net> wrote:

> On 2014-01-11, David Friedman <***@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> > Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote:
> >> In article <lapiks$qo4$***@online.de>, ingo-***@web.de says...
> >> > One day, I will have my flying car. :-)
> >>
> >> There's a few companies working on flying cars, some supposedly due for
> >> release this year or next year ... but just looking at the mess on the
> >> roads in "two" dimensions is enough to let anyone with a brain know
> >> that letting them loose in "three" dimensions is going to be a complete
> >> disaster. :-(
> >
> > Not clear. There's a lot more room in three dimensions.
>
> Fairly clear, because while that is the case, it's also a lot harder to keep
> a watch out in 4\pi of spherical directions than it is in 360 degrees of
> planar ones; you can't build roads in the air; and if you have a problem in
> mid-air, despite what Bugs Bunny demonstrated, you cannot simply put on your
> air brakes and stop dead while you try to fix it or wait for help. Plus
> drunken
> teenagers or adults make all of this so much worse...

One article I read was talking about the flying cars piloting
themselves ... but seeing as cars can't even drive themselves in two
dimensions yet, flying them in three dimensions will be a long way in
the future. (Technically planes do already fly themselves much of the
time, but the amount of traffic would be dramatically increased with
everone having flying cars.)

[Thomas Koenig]

Stanislav Lem's washing mashines seem a fair prediction of
our smartphones. He just chose the wrong gadgets :-)

[Doc O'Leary]

In article <***@earthlink.com>,
David DeLaney <***@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Fairly clear, because while that is the case, it's also a lot harder to keep
> a watch out in 4\pi of spherical directions than it is in 360 degrees of
> planar ones; you can't build roads in the air; and if you have a problem in
> mid-air, despite what Bugs Bunny demonstrated, you cannot simply put on your
> air brakes and stop dead while you try to fix it or wait for help. Plus
> drunken
> teenagers or adults make all of this so much worse...

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.

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
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
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.

--
iPhone apps that matter: http://appstore.subsume.com/
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, theremailer.net,
and probably your server, too.

[Greg Goss]

Doc O'Leary <***@8usenet2013.subsume.com> wrote:

>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.

Trains and planes are a nuisance because you have no flexibility once
you get near your destination. Generally people on planes either rent
a car when they get there, or mooch transportation from the people
that they're visiting.

Building a virtual train out of self-driving bits? That's kinda like
building an internet by making self-driving packets. It'll never
work.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[Doc O'Leary]

In article <***@mid.individual.net>,
Greg Goss <***@gossg.org> wrote:

> Doc O'Leary <***@8usenet2013.subsume.com> wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> Trains and planes are a nuisance because you have no flexibility once
> you get near your destination.

That is only what you have come to know based on the current, flawed
implementation of those technologies. These are sci-fi newsgroups, so
I'm asking you to engage in future thinking. You have to engage in the
world building exercise that imagines superior technologies as actually
existing and in common place usage, with all the connected changes they
imply.

One example for flying cars: what *does* make sense as a destination?
How far can you fly with it, and how much do you still have to drive?
Like I said, why would you drive much at all? And does it make sense to
have the destination as a parking garage, only to have to still get down
to ground level, walk to an office building, and wait for an elevator
ride to get back up to the same height you flew in at? The technology
forces you to reconsider everything about how people live.

> Generally people on planes either rent
> a car when they get there, or mooch transportation from the people
> that they're visiting.

Because, generally, what makes a plane air-worthy can be compromised by
driving around in traffic. Point being, any new technology that makes
sense in creating a flying car must *necessarily* be first proven
effective in creating better planes. If you're not seeing that, and
we're not, you won't be seeing flying cars any time soon. Simple as
that.

> Building a virtual train out of self-driving bits? That's kinda like
> building an internet by making self-driving packets. It'll never
> work.

I don't even understand the analogy you're trying to make. Self-driving
cars *are* a virtual train. There are some advantages they might have
over a physical train, but many disadvantages, too. My point simply is
that it's not futuristic technology to combine two existing vehicle
types, be it car-plane or car-train, certainly not simply because the
"rails" are done in software instead of hardware. I think it'll work
just fine, if you throw enough resources at the problem, but the more
sensible thing to do would be to use physical rails so that you don't
*need* to waste those resources tackling what is a solved problem.

--
iPhone apps that matter: http://appstore.subsume.com/
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, theremailer.net,
and probably your server, too.

[Greg Goss]

Doc O'Leary <***@8usenet2013.subsume.com> wrote:
> Greg Goss <***@gossg.org> wrote:

>> Generally people on planes either rent
>> a car when they get there, or mooch transportation from the people
>> that they're visiting.
>
>> Building a virtual train out of self-driving bits? That's kinda like
>> building an internet by making self-driving packets. It'll never
>> work.
>
>I don't even understand the analogy you're trying to make. Self-driving
>cars *are* a virtual train.

It's sarcasm. The internet works because the packets can travel
together without significant wastage, or separate off to different
destinations, all with very low overhead. The "virtual train" model
of automated long-distance freeways with local driving at each end
done by individual driving makes cars a close analogy to the internet.

>the more
>sensible thing to do would be to use physical rails so that you don't
>*need* to waste those resources tackling what is a solved problem.

I disagree with "physical rails", except for long distances.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[Doc O'Leary]

In article <***@mid.individual.net>,
Greg Goss <***@gossg.org> wrote:

> Doc O'Leary <***@8usenet2013.subsume.com> wrote:
> > Greg Goss <***@gossg.org> wrote:
>
> >> Building a virtual train out of self-driving bits? That's kinda like
> >> building an internet by making self-driving packets. It'll never
> >> work.
> >
> >I don't even understand the analogy you're trying to make. Self-driving
> >cars *are* a virtual train.
>
> It's sarcasm.

Then it just wasn't very good. I never said that self-driving
technology *couldn't* work (it most certainly can), just that it was a
poor solution to a problem that was solved centuries ago.

> The internet works because the packets can travel
> together without significant wastage, or separate off to different
> destinations, all with very low overhead. The "virtual train" model
> of automated long-distance freeways with local driving at each end
> done by individual driving makes cars a close analogy to the internet.

And yet the physical reality of the Internet is that the vast distances
are covered by backbone routes that are more like rails than a "drive
anywhere" highway. The whole "self-driving packets" bit is nonsense;
the packets don't do the routing. If you're going to draw an analogy,
use something you better understand.

> I disagree with "physical rails", except for long distances.

That's the wrong way to look at it. Things scale better when you think
fractally. Distances matter less than time, because they can be scaled
with speed. That's why you apparently don't notice that highways are,
indeed, "physical rails" inasmuch as you only on-load and off-load at
specific locations (ramps). All roads function similarly; they are
rickety rails that are both dangerous to be on and dangerous to be off.
Your vehicle control doesn't scale, and as a result the daily death and
accident rate is nothing but a statistic.

It takes very little futuristic thinking to imagine a rails system that
functions better, allowing you to get around without having to manage
the vehicle much more than getting connected to the first waypoint on
the network and again when exiting. Vastly simplifies the problem of
"self-driving", in very much the way it works for the Internet. Sarcasm
free.

--
iPhone apps that matter: http://appstore.subsume.com/
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, theremailer.net,
and probably your server, too.

[Scott Lurndal]

Doc O'Leary <***@8usenet2013.subsume.com> writes:

>And yet the physical reality of the Internet is that the vast distances
>are covered by backbone routes that are more like rails than a "drive
>anywhere" highway. The whole "self-driving packets" bit is nonsense;
>the packets don't do the routing. If you're going to draw an analogy,
>use something you better understand.

To be fair, there are network protocols where the packets _are_ self-driving.

Infiniband directed route packets come to mind.

scott

[J. Clarke]

In article <droleary-***@news.eternal-september.org>,
***@8usenet2013.subsume.com says...
>
> In article <***@mid.individual.net>,
> Greg Goss <***@gossg.org> wrote:
>
> > Doc O'Leary <***@8usenet2013.subsume.com> wrote:
> > > Greg Goss <***@gossg.org> wrote:
> >
> > >> Building a virtual train out of self-driving bits? That's kinda like
> > >> building an internet by making self-driving packets. It'll never
> > >> work.
> > >
> > >I don't even understand the analogy you're trying to make. Self-driving
> > >cars *are* a virtual train.
> >
> > It's sarcasm.
>
> Then it just wasn't very good. I never said that self-driving
> technology *couldn't* work (it most certainly can), just that it was a
> poor solution to a problem that was solved centuries ago.

However if everyone rides horses then you have a horse-poop problem, and
horses have to be fed even when not in use. Or perhaps you are thinking
of some other form of personal transportation that has been in use for
several centuries? If so, what?

> > The internet works because the packets can travel
> > together without significant wastage, or separate off to different
> > destinations, all with very low overhead. The "virtual train" model
> > of automated long-distance freeways with local driving at each end
> > done by individual driving makes cars a close analogy to the internet.
>
> And yet the physical reality of the Internet is that the vast distances
> are covered by backbone routes that are more like rails than a "drive
> anywhere" highway. The whole "self-driving packets" bit is nonsense;
> the packets don't do the routing. If you're going to draw an analogy,
> use something you better understand.
>
> > I disagree with "physical rails", except for long distances.
>
> That's the wrong way to look at it. Things scale better when you think
> fractally. Distances matter less than time, because they can be scaled
> with speed. That's why you apparently don't notice that highways are,
> indeed, "physical rails" inasmuch as you only on-load and off-load at
> specific locations (ramps). All roads function similarly; they are
> rickety rails that are both dangerous to be on and dangerous to be off.
> Your vehicle control doesn't scale, and as a result the daily death and
> accident rate is nothing but a statistic.
>
> It takes very little futuristic thinking to imagine a rails system that
> functions better, allowing you to get around without having to manage
> the vehicle much more than getting connected to the first waypoint on
> the network and again when exiting. Vastly simplifies the problem of
> "self-driving", in very much the way it works for the Internet. Sarcasm
> free.

Ok, tell us how to make a rail system that takes me from my driveway to
my office on rails, not on roads, in 30 minutes or less, without my
having to move from one vehicle to another, and that can accomodate a
change in routing to pick up a jar of peanut butter on the way home.

[Robert Bannister]

On 14/01/2014 8:51 am, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <droleary-***@news.eternal-september.org>,
> ***@8usenet2013.subsume.com says...
>>
>> In article <***@mid.individual.net>,
>> Greg Goss <***@gossg.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Doc O'Leary <***@8usenet2013.subsume.com> wrote:
>>>> Greg Goss <***@gossg.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Building a virtual train out of self-driving bits? That's kinda like
>>>>> building an internet by making self-driving packets. It'll never
>>>>> work.
>>>>
>>>> I don't even understand the analogy you're trying to make. Self-driving
>>>> cars *are* a virtual train.
>>>
>>> It's sarcasm.
>>
>> Then it just wasn't very good. I never said that self-driving
>> technology *couldn't* work (it most certainly can), just that it was a
>> poor solution to a problem that was solved centuries ago.
>
> However if everyone rides horses then you have a horse-poop problem, and
> horses have to be fed even when not in use.

In fact, towards the end of the 19th century the traffic situation with
horse-drawn vehicles was as bad if not worse than today. There are a few
photographs and drawings around of grid lock in London and elsewhere.
Road accidents were also very common. No speedometers or speed limits
back then.

--
Robert Bannister - 1940-71 SE England
1972-now W Australia

[Leszek Karlik]

On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 18:47:42 +0100, Doc O'Leary
<***@8usenet2013.subsume.com> wrote:

[...]
> I don't even understand the analogy you're trying to make. Self-driving
> cars *are* a virtual train.

No, self-driving cars are, basically, taxis with robot drivers instead of
human drivers, which makes them cheaper, so people will be better able
to afford them.

A limousine with a driver is a self-driving car from the point of view
of a CEO and it's nothing like a virtual train.

--
Leszek 'Leslie' Karlik
http://leslie.hell.pl/

[Greg Goss]

"Leszek Karlik" <***@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 18:47:42 +0100, Doc O'Leary
><***@8usenet2013.subsume.com> wrote:
>
>[...]
>> I don't even understand the analogy you're trying to make. Self-driving
>> cars *are* a virtual train.
>
>No, self-driving cars are, basically, taxis with robot drivers instead of
>human drivers, which makes them cheaper, so people will be better able
>to afford them.
>
>A limousine with a driver is a self-driving car from the point of view
>of a CEO and it's nothing like a virtual train.

That's because the limo driver cannot see out the window five cars
ahead. Linking the cars and the computing power into a networked unit
provides the ability to reach much higher densities than simple taxis.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[David Friedman]

In article <***@mid.individual.net>,
Greg Goss <***@gossg.org> wrote:

> "Leszek Karlik" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 18:47:42 +0100, Doc O'Leary
> ><***@8usenet2013.subsume.com> wrote:
> >
> >[...]
> >> I don't even understand the analogy you're trying to make. Self-driving
> >> cars *are* a virtual train.
> >
> >No, self-driving cars are, basically, taxis with robot drivers instead of
> >human drivers, which makes them cheaper, so people will be better able
> >to afford them.
> >
> >A limousine with a driver is a self-driving car from the point of view
> >of a CEO and it's nothing like a virtual train.
>
> That's because the limo driver cannot see out the window five cars
> ahead. Linking the cars and the computing power into a networked unit
> provides the ability to reach much higher densities than simple taxis.

That was the old idea of intelligent highways, which I gather proved
unworkable. The current model is decentralized, with a computer instead
of a human driver.

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
_Salamander_: http://tinyurl.com/6957y7e
_How to Milk an Almond,..._ http://tinyurl.com/63xg8gx

[J. Clarke]

In article <ddfr-***@news.giganews.com>,
***@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com says...
>
> In article <***@mid.individual.net>,
> Greg Goss <***@gossg.org> wrote:
>
> > "Leszek Karlik" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 18:47:42 +0100, Doc O'Leary
> > ><***@8usenet2013.subsume.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >[...]
> > >> I don't even understand the analogy you're trying to make. Self-driving
> > >> cars *are* a virtual train.
> > >
> > >No, self-driving cars are, basically, taxis with robot drivers instead of
> > >human drivers, which makes them cheaper, so people will be better able
> > >to afford them.
> > >
> > >A limousine with a driver is a self-driving car from the point of view
> > >of a CEO and it's nothing like a virtual train.
> >
> > That's because the limo driver cannot see out the window five cars
> > ahead. Linking the cars and the computing power into a networked unit
> > provides the ability to reach much higher densities than simple taxis.
>
> That was the old idea of intelligent highways, which I gather proved
> unworkable.

Not so much unworkable as that nobody wanted to build one without cars
to run on them and nobody wanted to build the cars without a road to run
them on.

> The current model is decentralized, with a computer instead
> of a human driver.

[David Friedman]

In article <***@news.newsguy.com>,
"J. Clarke" <***@cox.net> wrote:

> > That was the old idea of intelligent highways, which I gather proved
> > unworkable.
>
> Not so much unworkable as that nobody wanted to build one without cars
> to run on them and nobody wanted to build the cars without a road to run
> them on.

One of my colleagues was involved in intelligent highway projects, and
it sounded from her account as though they eventually concluded that the
projects were unworkable.

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
_Salamander_: http://tinyurl.com/6957y7e
_How to Milk an Almond,..._ http://tinyurl.com/63xg8gx

[Doc O'Leary]

In article <ddfr-***@news.giganews.com>,
David Friedman <***@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:

> One of my colleagues was involved in intelligent highway projects, and
> it sounded from her account as though they eventually concluded that the
> projects were unworkable.

The problem with intelligent highways is that drivers remain
unintelligent. And we're all to blame, in some ways. Who among us
hasn't had the "bright" idea to change over to a faster moving lane or
take some other self-centered action? Given human nature, it's almost a
guarantee that telling people that there will be a traffic slowdown 5
miles ahead would result in a lot of them gunning it in an attempt to
get ahead of everyone else.

--
iPhone apps that matter: http://appstore.subsume.com/
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, theremailer.net,
and probably your server, too.

[Rod Speed]

Greg Goss <***@gossg.org> wrote
> Leszek Karlik <***@gmail.com> wrote
>> Doc O'Leary <***@8usenet2013.subsume.com> wrote

>>> I don't even understand the analogy you're trying to make.
>>> Self-driving cars *are* a virtual train.

No, and nothing like it. with self driving cars the individual car can
leave the collection of cars at any intersection if that makes sense.

>> No, self-driving cars are, basically, taxis with robot
>> drivers instead of human drivers, which makes them
>> cheaper, so people will be better able to afford them.

That isnt clear compared with driving the car yourself.

>> A limousine with a driver is a self-driving car from the
>> point of view of a CEO and it's nothing like a virtual train.

> That's because the limo driver cannot see out the window five cars ahead.

No, it's because the self driving car can leave the collection
of cars at any intersection where that makes sense. That isnt
true of any train.

> Linking the cars and the computing power into a networked unit
> provides the ability to reach much higher densities than simple taxis.

True, but that is a relatively small factor in the
advantages of self driving cars over trains.

[David Friedman]

In article <***@mid.individual.net>,
"Rod Speed" <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> No, self-driving cars are, basically, taxis with robot
> >> drivers instead of human drivers, which makes them
> >> cheaper, so people will be better able to afford them.
>
> That isnt clear compared with driving the car yourself.

One thing that makes them cheaper is that one car can suffice for
several households more readily than with ordinary cars. As with a taxi.

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
_Salamander_: http://tinyurl.com/6957y7e
_How to Milk an Almond,..._ http://tinyurl.com/63xg8gx

[Rod Speed]

David Friedman <***@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <***@gmail.com> wrote

>>>> No, self-driving cars are, basically, taxis with robot
>>>> drivers instead of human drivers, which makes them
>>>> cheaper, so people will be better able to afford them.

>> That isnt clear compared with driving the car yourself.

> One thing that makes them cheaper is that one car can suffice for
> several households more readily than with ordinary cars. As with a taxi.

That isn't really cheaper than older well used cars as
private vehicles, particularly if you take out the registration
cost because its not part of what is being discussed.

[J. Clarke]

In article <ddfr-***@news.giganews.com>,
***@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com says...
>
> In article <***@mid.individual.net>,
> "Rod Speed" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> No, self-driving cars are, basically, taxis with robot
> > >> drivers instead of human drivers, which makes them
> > >> cheaper, so people will be better able to afford them.
> >
> > That isnt clear compared with driving the car yourself.
>
> One thing that makes them cheaper is that one car can suffice for
> several households more readily than with ordinary cars. As with a taxi.

Why does a self-driving car "suffice for several households more readily
than with ordinary cars"? A taxi does _not_ "suffice for several
households" except in areas where there is high enough population
density to support mass-transit or the distances are short enough and
the climate mild enough that walking or cycling is a viable way of
getting to work.

[Your Name]

In article <***@mid.individual.net>, Greg Goss
<***@gossg.org> wrote:

> "Leszek Karlik" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 18:47:42 +0100, Doc O'Leary
> ><***@8usenet2013.subsume.com> wrote:
> >
> >[...]
> >> I don't even understand the analogy you're trying to make. Self-driving
> >> cars *are* a virtual train.
> >
> >No, self-driving cars are, basically, taxis with robot drivers instead of
> >human drivers, which makes them cheaper, so people will be better able
> >to afford them.
> >
> >A limousine with a driver is a self-driving car from the point of view
> >of a CEO and it's nothing like a virtual train.
>
> That's because the limo driver cannot see out the window five cars
> ahead.

He / she better be able to look ahead if he's a good driver. Only
morons drive looking solely at the car directly in front of them -
you're meant to look further ahead to see what's happening.



> Linking the cars and the computing power into a networked unit
> provides the ability to reach much higher densities than simple taxis.

So far all the commerically used self-driving cars are simply small
single-carriage trains running on their specially built tracks / roads
/ pathways.

[Greg Goss]

Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote:
>In article <***@mid.individual.net>, Greg Goss


>> >A limousine with a driver is a self-driving car from the point of view
>> >of a CEO and it's nothing like a virtual train.
>>
>> That's because the limo driver cannot see out the window five cars
>> ahead.
>
>He / she better be able to look ahead if he's a good driver. Only
>morons drive looking solely at the car directly in front of them -
>you're meant to look further ahead to see what's happening.

Has Infiniti or whoever it was revealed the techology that their car
uses to "look two cars ahead"? In the example in their TV ad, the
intervening gasoline truck is wide enough to block the view of the
truck with the collapsing load.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ko4I8icB4Q8

--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[J. Clarke]

In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@gossg.org says...
>
> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote:
> >In article <***@mid.individual.net>, Greg Goss
>
>
> >> >A limousine with a driver is a self-driving car from the point of view
> >> >of a CEO and it's nothing like a virtual train.
> >>
> >> That's because the limo driver cannot see out the window five cars
> >> ahead.
> >
> >He / she better be able to look ahead if he's a good driver. Only
> >morons drive looking solely at the car directly in front of them -
> >you're meant to look further ahead to see what's happening.
>
> Has Infiniti or whoever it was revealed the techology that their car
> uses to "look two cars ahead"? In the example in their TV ad, the
> intervening gasoline truck is wide enough to block the view of the
> truck with the collapsing load.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ko4I8icB4Q8

Doppler radar.

[Greg Goss]

"J. Clarke" <***@cox.net> wrote:

>In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@gossg.org says...

>> Has Infiniti or whoever it was revealed the techology that their car
>> uses to "look two cars ahead"? In the example in their TV ad, the
>> intervening gasoline truck is wide enough to block the view of the
>> truck with the collapsing load.
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ko4I8icB4Q8
>
>Doppler radar.

How does radar "see" through the intervening truck? Does it bounce
off the roadway under the truck?
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[J. Clarke]

In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@gossg.org says...
>
> "J. Clarke" <***@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@gossg.org says...
>
> >> Has Infiniti or whoever it was revealed the techology that their car
> >> uses to "look two cars ahead"? In the example in their TV ad, the
> >> intervening gasoline truck is wide enough to block the view of the
> >> truck with the collapsing load.
> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ko4I8icB4Q8
> >
> >Doppler radar.
>
> How does radar "see" through the intervening truck? Does it bounce
> off the roadway under the truck?

Or there's a low-mounted sensor that sees under the truck directly.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 1/13/14 7:48 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@gossg.org says...
>>
>> "J. Clarke" <***@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@gossg.org says...
>>
>>>> Has Infiniti or whoever it was revealed the techology that their car
>>>> uses to "look two cars ahead"? In the example in their TV ad, the
>>>> intervening gasoline truck is wide enough to block the view of the
>>>> truck with the collapsing load.
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ko4I8icB4Q8
>>>
>>> Doppler radar.
>>
>> How does radar "see" through the intervening truck? Does it bounce
>> off the roadway under the truck?
>
> Or there's a low-mounted sensor that sees under the truck directly.
>
>


I'm trying to figure out how that would work, reliably. Or maybe their
technology SOMETIMES can look two cars ahead, but let's not bet on that,
shall we?


--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com

[Robert Bannister]

On 13/01/2014 11:36 am, Your Name wrote:
> In article <***@mid.individual.net>, Greg Goss
> <***@gossg.org> wrote:
>
>> "Leszek Karlik" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 18:47:42 +0100, Doc O'Leary
>>> <***@8usenet2013.subsume.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>> I don't even understand the analogy you're trying to make. Self-driving
>>>> cars *are* a virtual train.
>>>
>>> No, self-driving cars are, basically, taxis with robot drivers instead of
>>> human drivers, which makes them cheaper, so people will be better able
>>> to afford them.
>>>
>>> A limousine with a driver is a self-driving car from the point of view
>>> of a CEO and it's nothing like a virtual train.
>>
>> That's because the limo driver cannot see out the window five cars
>> ahead.
>
> He / she better be able to look ahead if he's a good driver. Only
> morons drive looking solely at the car directly in front of them -
> you're meant to look further ahead to see what's happening.

Unfortunately, so many people have bought SUVs that the driver of a
normal car can't see anything. Tinted windows add to the insult.
--
Robert Bannister - 1940-71 SE England
1972-now W Australia

[Doc O'Leary]

In article <***@honest-mistake>,
"Leszek Karlik" <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 18:47:42 +0100, Doc O'Leary
> <***@8usenet2013.subsume.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
> > I don't even understand the analogy you're trying to make. Self-driving
> > cars *are* a virtual train.
>
> No, self-driving cars are, basically, taxis with robot drivers instead of
> human drivers, which makes them cheaper, so people will be better able
> to afford them.

Afford them? Why would we even buy them? My whole point is that I'm
abstracting the problem of moving people from point A to point B.
Currently, that is done with a dedicated vehicle when you want to
reliably have it at your disposal. Adding a human driver to that is
rather expensive but, as you note, it allows you to re-examine the root
problem and, as a result, you can offer a redundant array of inexpensive
vehicles (RAIV, aka taxi) to achieve the same A to B service.

To make a car self-driving doesn't change that, other than probably
lowering the cost. Whereas a family now might have 2 or 3 vehicles to
shuttle everyone around, their needs could likely be met by just 1
chauffeured vehicle. It makes you pause to think about what is going to
be in it for the car makers.

And, like I said, even then it might make more sense to further expand
the sharing of a vehicle beyond a family. As I have written about
previously (maybe not here), it might make sense to have a neighborhood
shuttle that does nothing but take people from their houses to the
closest mass transit station. That's becomes even easier to provide
when you introduce a self-driving vehicle. The simply fact is that *so*
much can and will change with such a technology that it is just silly to
project current social norms out into the future.

> A limousine with a driver is a self-driving car from the point of view
> of a CEO and it's nothing like a virtual train.

Only because said CEO is a rich 1%-er. A self-driving car to many other
people can be seen as a dedicated taxi asset/employee. Not service,
because you *own* it, and it can go out and make you money while you're
either doing your regular job, or just relaxing. Even that aspect has a
social equilibrium, as noted above. Think things through beyond just
the knee-jerk attack on one minor feature (virtual trains) that
self-driving vehicles can provide. That's what world building is all
about.

--
iPhone apps that matter: http://appstore.subsume.com/
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, theremailer.net,
and probably your server, too.

[Greg Goss]

Doc O'Leary <***@8usenet2013.subsume.com> wrote:


>> No, self-driving cars are, basically, taxis with robot drivers instead of
>> human drivers, which makes them cheaper, so people will be better able
>> to afford them.
>
>Afford them? Why would we even buy them? My whole point is that I'm
>abstracting the problem of moving people from point A to point B.
>Currently, that is done with a dedicated vehicle when you want to
>reliably have it at your disposal. Adding a human driver to that is
>rather expensive but, as you note, it allows you to re-examine the root
>problem and, as a result, you can offer a redundant array of inexpensive
>vehicles (RAIV, aka taxi) to achieve the same A to B service.

I don't take taxis because they're expensive and have long delays for
pickup in my sprawled city. The supply of taxis is artificially held
low to make the driver's pay a living wage, and to allow adequate
maintenance on the vehicles.

Taking the driver out of the system would allow more of these robocabs
to be around, so that one might be available within two or three hours
of bar closing time.

Tracking user-caused damage (eg bar barf) might require a membership,
so the model might be closer to the car-share companies than to taxis.
Some of the limited-supply cab drivers avoid bar closing, because the
nuisance and clean-up doesn't pay them enough.

Most cities have micro-rent companies or co-ops that let you call up
an app that tells you where the last user left the car. But you still
have to walk to that car, which makes it as inconvenient as a bus, and
unworkable for suburbanites. It also doesn't support daily commutes
where the vehicles all start in the suburbs and get left downtown.

A cross between the taxis and the micro-rent companies is where you're
effectively renting the car, rather than hiring a driver. The costs
are mostly capital rather than mostly labour.

Call up the app and the car comes to you. And if you take the driver
out of the picture, then artificially restricting the supply becomes
less of an issue.

>To make a car self-driving doesn't change that, other than probably
>lowering the cost. Whereas a family now might have 2 or 3 vehicles to
>shuttle everyone around, their needs could likely be met by just 1
>chauffeured vehicle. It makes you pause to think about what is going to
>be in it for the car makers.

What was in it for the car makers to stretch lifetimes from 5 years to
20? Detroit ignored that market shift and the Japanese took over.
There is more than one car company.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[J. Clarke]

In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@gossg.org says...
>
> Doc O'Leary <***@8usenet2013.subsume.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> No, self-driving cars are, basically, taxis with robot drivers instead of
> >> human drivers, which makes them cheaper, so people will be better able
> >> to afford them.
> >
> >Afford them? Why would we even buy them? My whole point is that I'm
> >abstracting the problem of moving people from point A to point B.
> >Currently, that is done with a dedicated vehicle when you want to
> >reliably have it at your disposal. Adding a human driver to that is
> >rather expensive but, as you note, it allows you to re-examine the root
> >problem and, as a result, you can offer a redundant array of inexpensive
> >vehicles (RAIV, aka taxi) to achieve the same A to B service.
>
> I don't take taxis because they're expensive and have long delays for
> pickup in my sprawled city. The supply of taxis is artificially held
> low to make the driver's pay a living wage, and to allow adequate
> maintenance on the vehicles.
>
> Taking the driver out of the system would allow more of these robocabs
> to be around, so that one might be available within two or three hours
> of bar closing time.
>
> Tracking user-caused damage (eg bar barf) might require a membership,
> so the model might be closer to the car-share companies than to taxis.
> Some of the limited-supply cab drivers avoid bar closing, because the
> nuisance and clean-up doesn't pay them enough.
>
> Most cities have micro-rent companies or co-ops that let you call up
> an app that tells you where the last user left the car. But you still
> have to walk to that car, which makes it as inconvenient as a bus, and
> unworkable for suburbanites. It also doesn't support daily commutes
> where the vehicles all start in the suburbs and get left downtown.
>
> A cross between the taxis and the micro-rent companies is where you're
> effectively renting the car, rather than hiring a driver. The costs
> are mostly capital rather than mostly labour.
>
> Call up the app and the car comes to you. And if you take the driver
> out of the picture, then artificially restricting the supply becomes
> less of an issue.
>
> >To make a car self-driving doesn't change that, other than probably
> >lowering the cost. Whereas a family now might have 2 or 3 vehicles to
> >shuttle everyone around, their needs could likely be met by just 1
> >chauffeured vehicle. It makes you pause to think about what is going to
> >be in it for the car makers.
>
> What was in it for the car makers to stretch lifetimes from 5 years to
> 20? Detroit ignored that market shift and the Japanese took over.
> There is more than one car company.

Actually that stretch is more due to improved lubrication and compliance
with emissions laws than with any intent on the part of the
manufacturers. The engine in my Jeep is, other than the electronic
engine control which is there for emissions and the roller valve lifters
that are there to cope with reduced zinc content in the oil, not much
different from the ones that were being put in Jeeps in the '60s. But
it can be expected to last more than 200,000 miles where in the '60s it
would last about 100,000.

[David Friedman]

In article <***@mid.individual.net>,
Greg Goss <***@gossg.org> wrote:

> The supply of taxis is artificially held
> low to make the driver's pay a living wage, and to allow adequate
> maintenance on the vehicles.

I think you have it backwards. The medallion system holds down the
number of cabs, hence holds down the demand for cab drivers, hence tends
to lower their wage, not raise it.

The medallion belongs to someone who has paid a very high price, in many
cities I think well over a hundred thousand dollars, for it. The need to
get a return on that investment is the wedge between the higher revenue
resulting from the reduced number of cabs and the lower wage paid to cab
drivers.

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
_Salamander_: http://tinyurl.com/6957y7e
_How to Milk an Almond,..._ http://tinyurl.com/63xg8gx

[Bernard Peek]

On 13/01/14 18:16, Doc O'Leary wrote:

> And, like I said, even then it might make more sense to further expand
> the sharing of a vehicle beyond a family. As I have written about
> previously (maybe not here), it might make sense to have a neighborhood
> shuttle that does nothing but take people from their houses to the
> closest mass transit station. That's becomes even easier to provide
> when you introduce a self-driving vehicle. The simply fact is that *so*
> much can and will change with such a technology that it is just silly to
> project current social norms out into the future.

You could possibly take the level of abstraction one step further and
consider a system analogous to container freight. The object of the
exercise is not to get a vehicle from A to B, it is to get a passenger
from A to B. Moving the vehicle too is wasteful.

Build a small short-range shuttle capable of collecting a passenger pod.
Deliver the pod to a hub where it can be loaded on to a train, or plane
as appropriate. The same system could handle some freight.


--
Bernard Peek
***@shrdlu.com

[Leszek Karlik]

On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 19:16:58 +0100, Doc O'Leary
<***@8usenet2013.subsume.com> wrote:

[...]
>> No, self-driving cars are, basically, taxis with robot drivers instead
>> of human drivers, which makes them cheaper, so people will be better
>> able
>> to afford them.

> Afford them? Why would we even buy them?

The sentence "Some people can't afford a taxi." doesn't mean that
some people are not able to buy a taxi cab. :-)) When I was a student,
I used public transport, because taxis were pretty much too expensive
for my budget.

Whey there's a fleet of municipal smart cars that don't need taxi
drivers, you could plausibly have taxis at a price point of
public transport. Say, a monthly "taxi card", with a discount
for being lower-priority (for students and poor people) and
surcharge for being a high-priority passenger.

[snip the rest, because I seem to be generally agreeing with you]

--
Leszek 'Leslie' Karlik
http://leslie.hell.pl/

[Your Name]

In article <***@honest-mistake>, Leszek Karlik
<***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 19:16:58 +0100, Doc O'Leary
> <***@8usenet2013.subsume.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
> >> No, self-driving cars are, basically, taxis with robot drivers instead
> >> of human drivers, which makes them cheaper, so people will be better
> >> able
> >> to afford them.
>
> > Afford them? Why would we even buy them?
>
> The sentence "Some people can't afford a taxi." doesn't mean that
> some people are not able to buy a taxi cab. :-)) When I was a student,
> I used public transport, because taxis were pretty much too expensive
> for my budget.
>
> Whey there's a fleet of municipal smart cars that don't need taxi
> drivers, you could plausibly have taxis at a price point of
> public transport. Say, a monthly "taxi card", with a discount
> for being lower-priority (for students and poor people) and
> surcharge for being a high-priority passenger.
>
> [snip the rest, because I seem to be generally agreeing with you]

Just pretend you're a parcel, stick a label on your forehead, and book
yourself on a courier delivery service ... just make sure it's not a
holiday weekend, otherwise you might get left in the van until the next
working day. ;-)

[J. Clarke]

In article <droleary-***@news.eternal-september.org>,
***@8usenet2013.subsume.com says...
>
> In article <***@honest-mistake>,
> "Leszek Karlik" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 18:47:42 +0100, Doc O'Leary
> > <***@8usenet2013.subsume.com> wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> > > I don't even understand the analogy you're trying to make. Self-driving
> > > cars *are* a virtual train.
> >
> > No, self-driving cars are, basically, taxis with robot drivers instead of
> > human drivers, which makes them cheaper, so people will be better able
> > to afford them.
>
> Afford them? Why would we even buy them?

Because they keep out butts off the ground, the rain off our heads, and
get us back and forth to work, play, and shopping?

> My whole point is that I'm
> abstracting the problem of moving people from point A to point B.

People don't ride in abstractions, they ride in vehicles.

> Currently, that is done with a dedicated vehicle when you want to
> reliably have it at your disposal. Adding a human driver to that is
> rather expensive but, as you note, it allows you to re-examine the root
> problem and, as a result, you can offer a redundant array of inexpensive
> vehicles (RAIV, aka taxi) to achieve the same A to B service.

So can you guarantee that your robotaxi will be in my driveway ready to
go when my wife's water breaks?

> To make a car self-driving doesn't change that, other than probably
> lowering the cost.

How would it "lower the cost"? You're adding new sensors and a more
powerful processor plus amortizing development cost. The incremental
cost might be small but it is unlikely to be negative unless you
completely remove the manual controls.

> Whereas a family now might have 2 or 3 vehicles to
> shuttle everyone around, their needs could likely be met by just 1
> chauffeured vehicle.

How? If I need to be at my job and my wife needs to be at her job, in
opposite directions, how does a chauffeured vehicle address that other
than by having one of us arrive at the office very early?

> It makes you pause to think about what is going to
> be in it for the car makers.

The same thing that's always in it, the profit on a new car.

> And, like I said, even then it might make more sense to further expand
> the sharing of a vehicle beyond a family.

Yes, you have said this but you have not provided any usage models that
demonstrate that your supposed benefits will actually occur.

> As I have written about
> previously (maybe not here), it might make sense to have a neighborhood
> shuttle that does nothing but take people from their houses to the
> closest mass transit station.

They call that a "bus". You need a certain population density for it to
be economically viable.

> That's becomes even easier to provide
> when you introduce a self-driving vehicle.

How?

> The simply fact is that *so*
> much can and will change with such a technology that it is just silly to
> project current social norms out into the future.

So show us how things will be different. Use things called "numbers".
>
> > A limousine with a driver is a self-driving car from the point of view
> > of a CEO and it's nothing like a virtual train.
>
> Only because said CEO is a rich 1%-er. A self-driving car to many other
> people can be seen as a dedicated taxi asset/employee. Not service,
> because you *own* it, and it can go out and make you money while you're
> either doing your regular job, or just relaxing.

'Fraid not. Ever try to get a taxi medallion? If not, try it. Trying
to put your self-driving car to work as a taxi withou a medallion is
just going to get it impounded if it doesn't get stolen first.

> Even that aspect has a
> social equilibrium, as noted above. Think things through beyond just
> the knee-jerk attack on one minor feature (virtual trains) that
> self-driving vehicles can provide. That's what world building is all
> about.

[Robert Bannister]

On 14/01/2014 9:01 am, J. Clarke wrote:

> They call that a "bus". You need a certain population density for it to
> be economically viable.

And even then, they are rarely full or even in use except during the
morning and afternoon rush hours, so only a few, inner city routes make
a real profit.
--
Robert Bannister - 1940-71 SE England
1972-now W Australia

[David Friedman]

In article <***@news.newsguy.com>,
"J. Clarke" <***@cox.net> wrote:

> How? If I need to be at my job and my wife needs to be at her job, in
> opposite directions, how does a chauffeured vehicle address that other
> than by having one of us arrive at the office very early?

If there are three self-driving cars shared among three families and you
don't have four people in those families who all go to work at the same
time, both you and your wife get to work on time, even though there is
only one car per family, not two. The less correlation there is among
times a car is needed, the lower the ratio of cars to people that's
workable.

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
_Salamander_: http://tinyurl.com/6957y7e
_How to Milk an Almond,..._ http://tinyurl.com/63xg8gx

[Bernard Peek]

On 12/01/14 17:47, Doc O'Leary wrote:
>> >Building a virtual train out of self-driving bits? That's kinda like
>> >building an internet by making self-driving packets. It'll never
>> >work.
> I don't even understand the analogy you're trying to make.

Actually it is a very close analogy because over the Internet packets
are self-driven. Each packet carries its destination address which it
uses to tell the hardware where the packet wants to go.


--
Bernard Peek
***@shrdlu.com

[Doc O'Leary]

In article <***@mid.individual.net>,
Bernard Peek <***@shrdlu.com> wrote:

> On 12/01/14 17:47, Doc O'Leary wrote:
> >> >Building a virtual train out of self-driving bits? That's kinda like
> >> >building an internet by making self-driving packets. It'll never
> >> >work.
> > I don't even understand the analogy you're trying to make.
>
> Actually it is a very close analogy because over the Internet packets
> are self-driven. Each packet carries its destination address which it
> uses to tell the hardware where the packet wants to go.

You either don't understand how the Internet works, or what
"self-driving" means. My car is not self-driving simply because it
carries a GPS system with a destination address, even if it could be
wired to control the car. My point remains that, to a large degree,
such a system (including the Internet) is easiest to implement when most
of the travel is done on "rails".

--
iPhone apps that matter: http://appstore.subsume.com/
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, theremailer.net,
and probably your server, too.

[J. Clarke]

In article <droleary-***@news.eternal-september.org>,
***@8usenet2013.subsume.com says...
>
> In article <***@mid.individual.net>,
> Bernard Peek <***@shrdlu.com> wrote:
>
> > On 12/01/14 17:47, Doc O'Leary wrote:
> > >> >Building a virtual train out of self-driving bits? That's kinda like
> > >> >building an internet by making self-driving packets. It'll never
> > >> >work.
> > > I don't even understand the analogy you're trying to make.
> >
> > Actually it is a very close analogy because over the Internet packets
> > are self-driven. Each packet carries its destination address which it
> > uses to tell the hardware where the packet wants to go.
>
> You either don't understand how the Internet works, or what
> "self-driving" means. My car is not self-driving simply because it
> carries a GPS system with a destination address, even if it could be
> wired to control the car. My point remains that, to a large degree,
> such a system (including the Internet) is easiest to implement when most
> of the travel is done on "rails".

That's the logic that Detroit was using in their many attempts at
producing self-driving cars. Google is using different logic--their
view is that if can't coexist on an ordinary road with ordinary cars
driven by human drivers then it is not viable in the market.

[David Johnston]

On 1/12/2014 10:47 AM, Doc O'Leary wrote:
> In article <***@mid.individual.net>,
> Greg Goss <***@gossg.org> wrote:
>
>> Doc O'Leary <***@8usenet2013.subsume.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Trains and planes are a nuisance because you have no flexibility once
>> you get near your destination.
>
> That is only what you have come to know based on the current, flawed
> implementation of those technologies. These are sci-fi newsgroups, so
> I'm asking you to engage in future thinking. You have to engage in the
> world building exercise that imagines superior technologies as actually
> existing and in common place usage, with all the connected changes they
> imply.
>
> One example for flying cars: what *does* make sense as a destination?
> How far can you fly with it, and how much do you still have to drive?
> Like I said, why would you drive much at all?

Driving much isn't necessary to be a "flying car". Classic science
fiction flying cars only touch down to park because they ignore the
issue of how much power it takes to remain constantly hovering.

What is necessary is for it to be

A. Inexpensive enough that the middle class can afford one.
B. Capable of being parked on a street parking space or inside a
standard residential garage.

[Your Name]

In article <lav2rb$s25$***@dont-email.me>, David Johnston
<***@block.net> wrote:
> On 1/12/2014 10:47 AM, Doc O'Leary wrote:
> > In article <***@mid.individual.net>,
> > Greg Goss <***@gossg.org> wrote:
> >> Doc O'Leary <***@8usenet2013.subsume.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> 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.
> >>
> >> Trains and planes are a nuisance because you have no flexibility once
> >> you get near your destination.
> >
> > That is only what you have come to know based on the current, flawed
> > implementation of those technologies. These are sci-fi newsgroups, so
> > I'm asking you to engage in future thinking. You have to engage in the
> > world building exercise that imagines superior technologies as actually
> > existing and in common place usage, with all the connected changes they
> > imply.
> >
> > One example for flying cars: what *does* make sense as a destination?
> > How far can you fly with it, and how much do you still have to drive?
> > Like I said, why would you drive much at all?
>
> Driving much isn't necessary to be a "flying car". Classic science
> fiction flying cars only touch down to park because they ignore the
> issue of how much power it takes to remain constantly hovering.
>
> What is necessary is for it to be
>
> A. Inexpensive enough that the middle class can afford one.
> B. Capable of being parked on a street parking space or inside a
> standard residential garage.

Or, like the Jetsons, folded down into a briefcase. ;-)

Most of the flying car designs that I've seen are based on planes, so
they need short runways for take-off and landing.

Of course, if sci-fi really predicts the future, then cars of any sort
will be useless because we'll simply use Star Trek transporters to beam
everywhere. Live in New York, but work in Sydney? No problem, get there
in a fraction of a second. :-)

[David Johnston]

On 1/12/2014 5:07 PM, Your Name wrote:
> In article <lav2rb$s25$***@dont-email.me>, David Johnston
> <***@block.net> wrote:
>> On 1/12/2014 10:47 AM, Doc O'Leary wrote:
>>> In article <***@mid.individual.net>,
>>> Greg Goss <***@gossg.org> wrote:
>>>> Doc O'Leary <***@8usenet2013.subsume.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Trains and planes are a nuisance because you have no flexibility once
>>>> you get near your destination.
>>>
>>> That is only what you have come to know based on the current, flawed
>>> implementation of those technologies. These are sci-fi newsgroups, so
>>> I'm asking you to engage in future thinking. You have to engage in the
>>> world building exercise that imagines superior technologies as actually
>>> existing and in common place usage, with all the connected changes they
>>> imply.
>>>
>>> One example for flying cars: what *does* make sense as a destination?
>>> How far can you fly with it, and how much do you still have to drive?
>>> Like I said, why would you drive much at all?
>>
>> Driving much isn't necessary to be a "flying car". Classic science
>> fiction flying cars only touch down to park because they ignore the
>> issue of how much power it takes to remain constantly hovering.
>>
>> What is necessary is for it to be
>>
>> A. Inexpensive enough that the middle class can afford one.
>> B. Capable of being parked on a street parking space or inside a
>> standard residential garage.
>
> Or, like the Jetsons, folded down into a briefcase. ;-)
>
> Most of the flying car designs that I've seen are based on planes, so
> they need short runways for take-off and landing.

Which why none of those designs really take off.

[Your Name]

In article <lavd3s$lta$***@dont-email.me>, David Johnston
<***@block.net> wrote:
> On 1/12/2014 5:07 PM, Your Name wrote:
> > In article <lav2rb$s25$***@dont-email.me>, David Johnston
> > <***@block.net> wrote:
> >> On 1/12/2014 10:47 AM, Doc O'Leary wrote:
> >>> In article <***@mid.individual.net>,
> >>> Greg Goss <***@gossg.org> wrote:
> >>>> Doc O'Leary <***@8usenet2013.subsume.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> 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.
> >>>>
> >>>> Trains and planes are a nuisance because you have no flexibility once
> >>>> you get near your destination.
> >>>
> >>> That is only what you have come to know based on the current, flawed
> >>> implementation of those technologies. These are sci-fi newsgroups, so
> >>> I'm asking you to engage in future thinking. You have to engage in the
> >>> world building exercise that imagines superior technologies as actually
> >>> existing and in common place usage, with all the connected changes they
> >>> imply.
> >>>
> >>> One example for flying cars: what *does* make sense as a destination?
> >>> How far can you fly with it, and how much do you still have to drive?
> >>> Like I said, why would you drive much at all?
> >>
> >> Driving much isn't necessary to be a "flying car". Classic science
> >> fiction flying cars only touch down to park because they ignore the
> >> issue of how much power it takes to remain constantly hovering.
> >>
> >> What is necessary is for it to be
> >>
> >> A. Inexpensive enough that the middle class can afford one.
> >> B. Capable of being parked on a street parking space or inside a
> >> standard residential garage.
> >
> > Or, like the Jetsons, folded down into a briefcase. ;-)
> >
> > Most of the flying car designs that I've seen are based on planes, so
> > they need short runways for take-off and landing.
>
> Which why none of those designs really take off.

They do take-off, they just need that runway. ;-)

I do know of at least one housing area for rich twits where each house
has its own hangar for a private plane and a taxi-way through to a
shared runway - it's based on the idea of the slightly more common
versions for boat owners.

[David Friedman]

In article <130120141307202555%***@YourISP.com>,
Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote:

> Of course, if sci-fi really predicts the future, then cars of any sort
> will be useless because we'll simply use Star Trek transporters to beam
> everywhere. Live in New York, but work in Sydney? No problem, get there
> in a fraction of a second. :-)

We already have the functional equivalent for many
purposes--telecommuting. A good deal easier to do.

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
_Salamander_: http://tinyurl.com/6957y7e
_How to Milk an Almond,..._ http://tinyurl.com/63xg8gx

[Rod Speed]

David Friedman <***@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote
> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote

>> Of course, if sci-fi really predicts the future, then cars of any sort
>> will be useless because we'll simply use Star Trek transporters to
>> beam everywhere. Live in New York, but work in Sydney? No
>> problem, get there in a fraction of a second. :-)

> We already have the functional equivalent for many
> purposes--telecommuting. A good deal easier to do.

But not predicted by any SF that I can think of.

[David Johnston]

On 1/12/2014 7:18 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
> David Friedman <***@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote
>> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote
>
>>> Of course, if sci-fi really predicts the future, then cars of any sort
>>> will be useless because we'll simply use Star Trek transporters to
>>> beam everywhere. Live in New York, but work in Sydney? No problem,
>>> get there in a fraction of a second. :-)
>
>> We already have the functional equivalent for many
>> purposes--telecommuting. A good deal easier to do.
>
> But not predicted by any SF that I can think of.

"The Machine Stops".

[Greg Goss]

"Rod Speed" <***@gmail.com> wrote:

>David Friedman <***@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote
>> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote
>
>>> Of course, if sci-fi really predicts the future, then cars of any sort
>>> will be useless because we'll simply use Star Trek transporters to
>>> beam everywhere. Live in New York, but work in Sydney? No
>>> problem, get there in a fraction of a second. :-)
>
>> We already have the functional equivalent for many
>> purposes--telecommuting. A good deal easier to do.
>
>But not predicted by any SF that I can think of.

One of the main income streams in Oath of Fealty was tele-operators of
technical equipment, especially on the moon. So it was predicted
circa 1980. What time frame do you consider "predicted"?

SF tends not to focus on the middle management drone types, so we
wouldn't see them even if they WERE in the building.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[Rod Speed]

Greg Goss <***@gossg.org> wrote
> Rod Speed <***@gmail.com> wrote
>> David Friedman <***@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote
>>> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote

>>>> Of course, if sci-fi really predicts the future, then cars of any sort
>>>> will be useless because we'll simply use Star Trek transporters to
>>>> beam everywhere. Live in New York, but work in Sydney? No
>>>> problem, get there in a fraction of a second. :-)

>>> We already have the functional equivalent for many
>>> purposes--telecommuting. A good deal easier to do.

>> But not predicted by any SF that I can think of.

> One of the main income streams in Oath of Fealty was
> tele-operators of technical equipment, especially on the moon.

That is remote control, not the same thing as working from home.

> So it was predicted circa 1980.

I was doing it then so that isnt a prediction.

> What time frame do you consider "predicted"?

That doesn't count IMO. The Machine Stops
does, but I haven't read it myself so I can't say
if that really predicted telecommuting either.

> SF tends not to focus on the middle management drone types,
> so we wouldn't see them even if they WERE in the building.

But telecommuting isnt just seen with middle management drone types.

[Your Name]

In article <ddfr-***@news.giganews.com>, David
Friedman <***@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> In article <130120141307202555%***@YourISP.com>,
> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote:
> >
> > Of course, if sci-fi really predicts the future, then cars of any sort
> > will be useless because we'll simply use Star Trek transporters to beam
> > everywhere. Live in New York, but work in Sydney? No problem, get there
> > in a fraction of a second. :-)
>
> We already have the functional equivalent for many purposes --
> telecommuting. A good deal easier to do.

Telecommuting doesn't really work, which is why so few real-world
businesses actually have that ability. It's only slightly more
realistic than the "paperless office", which still doesn't exist
(despite predictions in sci-fi stories).

One reason is because costs businesses a lot more (or is taken out of
employees wages) since they then have to pay for the internet
connection, modem, extra printers, etc. to be installed in employees
houses. Another reason is because some people are simply lazy and don't
do any work if they stay at home.

[sna]

"Your Name" <***@YourISP.com> wrote in message
news:130120141632490428%***@YourISP.com...
> In article <ddfr-***@news.giganews.com>, David
> Friedman <***@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>> In article <130120141307202555%***@YourISP.com>,
>> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Of course, if sci-fi really predicts the future, then cars of any sort
>> > will be useless because we'll simply use Star Trek transporters to beam
>> > everywhere. Live in New York, but work in Sydney? No problem, get there
>> > in a fraction of a second. :-)
>>
>> We already have the functional equivalent for many purposes --
>> telecommuting. A good deal easier to do.

> Telecommuting doesn't really work,

Like hell it doesn't.

which is why so few real-world
> businesses actually have that ability.

Plenty do, most obviously with the major telecoms operations
that can do almost everything config wise remotely and only
need to have someone physically visit the exchange when the
system has worked out that a card has failed and someone
needs to go there and physically change the card if it has failed
etc.

Our local TV transmitters are all done like that now.

The used to have people on site all day and now someone
only goes there when something needs to be changed
physically or they are installing some new hardware etc.

And call centers outside the country are absolutely classic
telecommuting.

It's only slightly more
> realistic than the "paperless office", which still doesn't exist
> (despite predictions in sci-fi stories).

I don't get any paper at all from any of my ISPs
or any of the financial institutions I use anymore.

> One reason is because costs businesses a lot more (or is taken out of
> employees wages) since they then have to pay for the internet
> connection, modem, extra printers, etc. to be installed in employees
> houses.

Must be why all of the financial institutions charge more
if you want a paper bill now.

Another reason is because some people are simply lazy and don't
> do any work if they stay at home.

Some are like that at the workplace too. It is completely trivial
to check if they are doing any work or not in both cases.

[Your Name]

In article <***@mid.individual.net>, sna <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

> "Your Name" <***@YourISP.com> wrote in message
> news:130120141632490428%***@YourISP.com...
> > In article <ddfr-***@news.giganews.com>, David
> > Friedman <***@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> >> In article <130120141307202555%***@YourISP.com>,
> >> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Of course, if sci-fi really predicts the future, then cars of any sort
> >> > will be useless because we'll simply use Star Trek transporters to beam
> >> > everywhere. Live in New York, but work in Sydney? No problem, get there
> >> > in a fraction of a second. :-)
> >>
> >> We already have the functional equivalent for many purposes --
> >> telecommuting. A good deal easier to do.
>
> > Telecommuting doesn't really work,
>
> Like hell it doesn't.

Oh dear, here we go with the pedantic fools who can't read. I never
said nowhere does it. :-\



> Plenty do, most obviously with the major telecoms operations
> that can do almost everything config wise remotely and only
> need to have someone physically visit the exchange when the
> system has worked out that a card has failed and someone
> needs to go there and physically change the card if it has failed
> etc.

Ignoring the fact that that isn't really "telecommuting" ... the lines
testing from the help desk (for example) is highly unreliable. I've
often had the line tested from there and been told there's nothing
wrong with it (despite the fact that I can hear the crackling on the
line while talking to them!). I've then insisted that a technician is
sent out to check it, and they have always found a problem with the
line when they do.

[Robert Bannister]

On 13/01/2014 1:43 pm, sna wrote:
>
>
> "Your Name" <***@YourISP.com> wrote in message
> news:130120141632490428%***@YourISP.com...
>> In article <ddfr-***@news.giganews.com>, David
>> Friedman <***@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>>> In article <130120141307202555%***@YourISP.com>,
>>> Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Of course, if sci-fi really predicts the future, then cars of any sort
>>> > will be useless because we'll simply use Star Trek transporters to
>>> beam
>>> > everywhere. Live in New York, but work in Sydney? No problem, get
>>> there
>>> > in a fraction of a second. :-)
>>>
>>> We already have the functional equivalent for many purposes --
>>> telecommuting. A good deal easier to do.
>
>> Telecommuting doesn't really work,
>
> Like hell it doesn't.
>
> which is why so few real-world
>> businesses actually have that ability.
>
> Plenty do, most obviously with the major telecoms operations
> that can do almost everything config wise remotely and only
> need to have someone physically visit the exchange when the
> system has worked out that a card has failed and someone
> needs to go there and physically change the card if it has failed
> etc.
>
> Our local TV transmitters are all done like that now.
>
> The used to have people on site all day and now someone
> only goes there when something needs to be changed
> physically or they are installing some new hardware etc.
>
> And call centers outside the country are absolutely classic
> telecommuting.
>
> It's only slightly more
>> realistic than the "paperless office", which still doesn't exist
>> (despite predictions in sci-fi stories).
>
> I don't get any paper at all from any of my ISPs
> or any of the financial institutions I use anymore.
>
>> One reason is because costs businesses a lot more (or is taken out of
>> employees wages) since they then have to pay for the internet
>> connection, modem, extra printers, etc. to be installed in employees
>> houses.
>
> Must be why all of the financial institutions charge more
> if you want a paper bill now.

OTOH, a lot of businesses and particularly government departments use a
great deal of paper in pointless "mission statements" and other bullshit
exercises. They even hire expensive "facilitators" to come in and make
work harder by introducing more paper-wasting bullshit.
--
Robert Bannister - 1940-71 SE England
1972-now W Australia

[John F. Eldredge]

On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 16:32:49 +1300, Your Name wrote:

> Telecommuting doesn't really work, which is why so few real-world
> businesses actually have that ability. It's only slightly more realistic
> than the "paperless office", which still doesn't exist (despite
> predictions in sci-fi stories).
>
> One reason is because costs businesses a lot more (or is taken out of
> employees wages) since they then have to pay for the internet
> connection, modem, extra printers, etc. to be installed in employees
> houses. Another reason is because some people are simply lazy and don't
> do any work if they stay at home.

I am currently working a telecommuting job; I am working as a programmer
for a firm in Boston, from my home in Nashville. The employer is
providing me a laptop to use, primarily for security reasons (the job
involves health-care information). The Internet connection, modem, and
printer are those I have at home for my own use; I don't do much
printing, so the use of my printer isn't a big deal. For this particular
work-team, more people are off-site than on-site.

The problem with the "paperless office" concept is that computers allowed
bureaucracies, whether governmental or private, to actually increase the
amount of paperwork involved.

[Your Name]

In article <***@mid.individual.net>, John F. Eldredge
<***@jfeldredge.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 16:32:49 +1300, Your Name wrote:
> >
> > Telecommuting doesn't really work, which is why so few real-world
> > businesses actually have that ability. It's only slightly more realistic
> > than the "paperless office", which still doesn't exist (despite
> > predictions in sci-fi stories).
> >
> > One reason is because costs businesses a lot more (or is taken out of
> > employees wages) since they then have to pay for the internet
> > connection, modem, extra printers, etc. to be installed in employees
> > houses. Another reason is because some people are simply lazy and don't
> > do any work if they stay at home.
>
> I am currently working a telecommuting job; I am working as a programmer
> for a firm in Boston, from my home in Nashville. The employer is
> providing me a laptop to use, primarily for security reasons (the job
> involves health-care information). The Internet connection, modem, and
> printer are those I have at home for my own use; I don't do much
> printing, so the use of my printer isn't a big deal. For this particular
> work-team, more people are off-site than on-site.

I didn't say that it doesn't work everywhere. It does work in some
cases, but it's not workable in most situations, nor for many types of
job.



> The problem with the "paperless office" concept is that computers allowed
> bureaucracies, whether governmental or private, to actually increase the
> amount of paperwork involved.

Many of the Government departments here in New Zealand have PDFs of
their forms on the website ... except they aren't proper form PDFs, so
you still have to print them out and fill them in with a pen. :-\

[Greg Goss]

David Johnston <***@block.net> wrote:


>Driving much isn't necessary to be a "flying car". Classic science
>fiction flying cars only touch down to park because they ignore the
>issue of how much power it takes to remain constantly hovering.

Hovering is expensive. But if you're going somewhere, so is flexing
your tires continuously. There's a reason why Greyhound is so
expensive for long distances, and planes are ludicrously cheap. It's
the same reason why swallows and butterflies can "afford' the energy
to migrate. Once you're up, it gets cheap to cover distances.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[Rod Speed]

Greg Goss <***@gossg.org> wrote
> David Johnston <***@block.net> wrote

>> Driving much isn't necessary to be a "flying car". Classic science
>> fiction flying cars only touch down to park because they ignore the
>> issue of how much power it takes to remain constantly hovering.

> Hovering is expensive. But if you're going somewhere, so is flexing
> your tires continuously. There's a reason why Greyhound is so
> expensive for long distances, and planes are ludicrously cheap.

That's because the planes hold a hell
of a lot more people than a bus does.

You don't get that result with the planes
that hold as few passengers as the bus does.

> It's the same reason why swallows and butterflies can "afford' the
> energy to migrate. Once you're up, it gets cheap to cover distances.

That mangles the story too.

[J. Clarke]

In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@gossg.org says...
>
> David Johnston <***@block.net> wrote:
>
>
> >Driving much isn't necessary to be a "flying car". Classic science
> >fiction flying cars only touch down to park because they ignore the
> >issue of how much power it takes to remain constantly hovering.
>
> Hovering is expensive. But if you're going somewhere, so is flexing
> your tires continuously. There's a reason why Greyhound is so
> expensive for long distances, and planes are ludicrously cheap.

Cheapest air fare I can find for Boston-LA is 135, Greyhound advanced
purchase for the same date is 139. Not a lot of difference. What's
truly ridiculous is the train, at 223.

> It's
> the same reason why swallows and butterflies can "afford' the energy
> to migrate. Once you're up, it gets cheap to cover distances.

[lal_truckee]

On 1/12/14 7:17 PM, J. Clarke wrote:

> Cheapest air fare I can find for Boston-LA is 135, Greyhound advanced
> purchase for the same date is 139. Not a lot of difference. What's
> truly ridiculous is the train, at 223.

Train counts as entertainment - the others, as misery.

[J. Clarke]

In article <lavmc0$t97$***@dont-email.me>, ***@yahoo.com says...
>
> On 1/12/14 7:17 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>
> > Cheapest air fare I can find for Boston-LA is 135, Greyhound advanced
> > purchase for the same date is 139. Not a lot of difference. What's
> > truly ridiculous is the train, at 223.
>
> Train counts as entertainment - the others, as misery.

How is sitting in a cattle-car class seat on a train for 3 days more
"miserable" than sitting in the same seat on an airliner for 3 hours?

If you think that the train is "entertaining" you've never ridden
Amtrak.

[Doc O'Leary]

In article <***@mid.individual.net>,
Greg Goss <***@gossg.org> wrote:

> Hovering is expensive.

From a physics standpoint, hovering is free. The only problem is that
we currently have no good technology, other than a physical structure,
that allows us to easily keep from turning potential energy into kinetic
energy. A lot of how things work depends a great deal on what
technology eventually gives us all flying vehicles.

> But if you're going somewhere, so is flexing
> your tires continuously. There's a reason why Greyhound is so
> expensive for long distances, and planes are ludicrously cheap.

It's not rolling resistance.

> It's
> the same reason why swallows and butterflies can "afford' the energy
> to migrate. Once you're up, it gets cheap to cover distances.

It's more than one reason. And sometimes it's only cheap for the
butterfly because they don't need to work at a location that involves
them going against a 25mph wind. The jet stream isn't a good place to
be if you're flying west . . .

--
iPhone apps that matter: http://appstore.subsume.com/
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, theremailer.net,
and probably your server, too.

[J. Clarke]

In article <droleary-***@news.eternal-september.org>,
***@8usenet2013.subsume.com says...
>
> In article <***@mid.individual.net>,
> Greg Goss <***@gossg.org> wrote:
>
> > Doc O'Leary <***@8usenet2013.subsume.com> wrote:
> >
> > >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.
> >
> > Trains and planes are a nuisance because you have no flexibility once
> > you get near your destination.
>
> That is only what you have come to know based on the current, flawed
> implementation of those technologies. These are sci-fi newsgroups, so
> I'm asking you to engage in future thinking. You have to engage in the
> world building exercise that imagines superior technologies as actually
> existing and in common place usage, with all the connected changes they
> imply.
>
> One example for flying cars: what *does* make sense as a destination?
> How far can you fly with it, and how much do you still have to drive?
> Like I said, why would you drive much at all? And does it make sense to
> have the destination as a parking garage, only to have to still get down
> to ground level, walk to an office building, and wait for an elevator
> ride to get back up to the same height you flew in at? The technology
> forces you to reconsider everything about how people live.

No, the technology has to fit how people live. Maybe 100 years after
everybody has flying cars the infrastructure would have been altered to
accommodate them but they aren't going to tear down every building in
the world and rebuild it for flying cars the first time somebody buys
one.

> > Generally people on planes either rent
> > a car when they get there, or mooch transportation from the people
> > that they're visiting.
>
> Because, generally, what makes a plane air-worthy can be compromised by
> driving around in traffic. Point being, any new technology that makes
> sense in creating a flying car must *necessarily* be first proven
> effective in creating better planes. If you're not seeing that, and
> we're not, you won't be seeing flying cars any time soon. Simple as
> that.

Why does technology that makes sense in creating a flying car have to
"be effective in creating better planes"? There's no need for a Mach 25
scramjet in a flying car.

> > Building a virtual train out of self-driving bits? That's kinda like
> > building an internet by making self-driving packets. It'll never
> > work.
>
> I don't even understand the analogy you're trying to make. Self-driving
> cars *are* a virtual train.

Only if there are dozens of them in a line on the same highway.

> There are some advantages they might have
> over a physical train, but many disadvantages, too. My point simply is
> that it's not futuristic technology to combine two existing vehicle
> types, be it car-plane or car-train, certainly not simply because the
> "rails" are done in software instead of hardware. I think it'll work
> just fine, if you throw enough resources at the problem, but the more
> sensible thing to do would be to use physical rails so that you don't
> *need* to waste those resources tackling what is a solved problem.

So you're going to run rails to everybody's house, everybody's job, ever
shopping center, every empty field?

[Robert Bannister]

On 13/01/2014 11:07 am, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <droleary-***@news.eternal-september.org>,
> ***@8usenet2013.subsume.com says...
>>
>> In article <***@mid.individual.net>,
>> Greg Goss <***@gossg.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Doc O'Leary <***@8usenet2013.subsume.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Trains and planes are a nuisance because you have no flexibility once
>>> you get near your destination.
>>
>> That is only what you have come to know based on the current, flawed
>> implementation of those technologies. These are sci-fi newsgroups, so
>> I'm asking you to engage in future thinking. You have to engage in the
>> world building exercise that imagines superior technologies as actually
>> existing and in common place usage, with all the connected changes they
>> imply.
>>
>> One example for flying cars: what *does* make sense as a destination?
>> How far can you fly with it, and how much do you still have to drive?
>> Like I said, why would you drive much at all? And does it make sense to
>> have the destination as a parking garage, only to have to still get down
>> to ground level, walk to an office building, and wait for an elevator
>> ride to get back up to the same height you flew in at? The technology
>> forces you to reconsider everything about how people live.
>
> No, the technology has to fit how people live. Maybe 100 years after
> everybody has flying cars the infrastructure would have been altered to
> accommodate them but they aren't going to tear down every building in
> the world and rebuild it for flying cars the first time somebody buys
> one.
>
>>> Generally people on planes either rent
>>> a car when they get there, or mooch transportation from the people
>>> that they're visiting.
>>
>> Because, generally, what makes a plane air-worthy can be compromised by
>> driving around in traffic. Point being, any new technology that makes
>> sense in creating a flying car must *necessarily* be first proven
>> effective in creating better planes. If you're not seeing that, and
>> we're not, you won't be seeing flying cars any time soon. Simple as
>> that.
>
> Why does technology that makes sense in creating a flying car have to
> "be effective in creating better planes"? There's no need for a Mach 25
> scramjet in a flying car.
>
>>> Building a virtual train out of self-driving bits? That's kinda like
>>> building an internet by making self-driving packets. It'll never
>>> work.
>>
>> I don't even understand the analogy you're trying to make. Self-driving
>> cars *are* a virtual train.
>
> Only if there are dozens of them in a line on the same highway.
>
>> There are some advantages they might have
>> over a physical train, but many disadvantages, too. My point simply is
>> that it's not futuristic technology to combine two existing vehicle
>> types, be it car-plane or car-train, certainly not simply because the
>> "rails" are done in software instead of hardware. I think it'll work
>> just fine, if you throw enough resources at the problem, but the more
>> sensible thing to do would be to use physical rails so that you don't
>> *need* to waste those resources tackling what is a solved problem.
>
> So you're going to run rails to everybody's house, everybody's job, ever
> shopping center, every empty field?

One of the problems I see with all city planning of roads, inner-city
freeways and public transport is the assumption that most people want to
come in from outer suburbs to the centre of the city, whereas many of
them want to cross the city to the other side or circle round to another
suburb. True, some cities have a ring road or circular bus route, but
the into the middle and then out again idea seems to prevail.
Were it not for this, then the rails, real or virtual, would simply be
for our current major roads.
--
Robert Bannister - 1940-71 SE England
1972-now W Australia

[Your Name]

In article <***@mid.individual.net>, Robert Bannister
<***@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>
> One of the problems I see with all city planning of roads, inner-city
> freeways and public transport is the assumption that most people want to
> come in from outer suburbs to the centre of the city, whereas many of
> them want to cross the city to the other side or circle round to another
> suburb. True, some cities have a ring road or circular bus route, but
> the into the middle and then out again idea seems to prevail.
> Were it not for this, then the rails, real or virtual, would simply be
> for our current major roads.

Yep, that's one of the biggest problems with public transport here in
Auckland New Zealand. The buses, trains (what pitiful few there are),
ferries and even the motorway system all funnel people into the central
city ... and then the morons in charge wonder why there is "congestion"
in the city centre. (Other problems with public transport is expensive,
unreliable, and currently the ticketing system is a mess.)

Of course, the relatively low population density here (about the same
size as London, but with only 1.5 million people) also means public
transport won't work. So the fools are building "bus lanes" and "bus
terminals" (even a dedicated bus motorway at some points) everywhere,
so now you have to catch your local bus in to the local terminal,
change to another bus going to the city centre, change to another bus
going out of the city centre, and then change from that terminal to
another local bus. :-\

Even with motorway congestion it's quicker to take your own car than it
is to take multiple buses into and then out of the city centre. Plus
that gives you the advantage of stopping at the shops on the way home
to pick up the groceries, or picking up kids if they suddenly get sick
at school, etc., etc.

The idiots here have also been plannining a "second" harbour crossing
(bridge or tunnel, and technically it's the third) which they stupidly
want to build RIGHT next door to the existing main Harbour Bridge and
connect it in to the same city-centred motorway at both sides ... which
will achieve absolutely nothing since the main Harbour Bridge isn't a
congestion point (it's the badly designed on and off ramps as well as
the city-centric silliness). :-\

They've also added on-ramp traffic lights to manually slow down the
number of cars (buses, trucks, taxis, and motorbikes get a free lane)
entering the motorway when it's busy ... which of course simply piles
cars up on the local suburban streets instead.

[David DeLaney]

On 2014-01-13, Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote:
> Of course, the relatively low population density here (about the same
> size as London, but with only 1.5 million people) also means public
> transport won't work.

Public transit 'won't work', telecommuting 'doesn't work'... tell the truth,
you're employed by Daimler-Chrysler, aren't you? Ignorable lad, especially
since you're chastising everyone ELSE to 'think different because these are
SF groups'.

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[Your Name]

In article <***@earthlink.com>, David
DeLaney <***@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On 2014-01-13, Your Name <***@YourISP.com> wrote:
> > Of course, the relatively low population density here (about the same
> > size as London, but with only 1.5 million people) also means public
> > transport won't work.
>
> Public transit 'won't work', telecommuting 'doesn't work'... tell the truth,
> you're employed by Daimler-Chrysler, aren't you? Ignorable lad, especially
> since you're chastising everyone ELSE to 'think different because these are
> SF groups'.

I have no idea what you're babbling on about, and no desire to bother
trying to work it out. :-\

[J. Clarke]

In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@clubtelco.com
says...
>
> On 13/01/2014 11:07 am, J. Clarke wrote:
> > In article <droleary-***@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > ***@8usenet2013.subsume.com says...
> >>
> >> In article <***@mid.individual.net>,
> >> Greg Goss <***@gossg.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Doc O'Leary <***@8usenet2013.subsume.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> 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.
> >>>
> >>> Trains and planes are a nuisance because you have no flexibility once
> >>> you get near your destination.
> >>
> >> That is only what you have come to know based on the current, flawed
> >> implementation of those technologies. These are sci-fi newsgroups, so
> >> I'm asking you to engage in future thinking. You have to engage in the
> >> world building exercise that imagines superior technologies as actually
> >> existing and in common place usage, with all the connected changes they
> >> imply.
> >>
> >> One example for flying cars: what *does* make sense as a destination?
> >> How far can you fly with it, and how much do you still have to drive?
> >> Like I said, why would you drive much at all? And does it make sense to
> >> have the destination as a parking garage, only to have to still get down
> >> to ground level, walk to an office building, and wait for an elevator
> >> ride to get back up to the same height you flew in at? The technology
> >> forces you to reconsider everything about how people live.
> >
> > No, the technology has to fit how people live. Maybe 100 years after
> > everybody has flying cars the infrastructure would have been altered to
> > accommodate them but they aren't going to tear down every building in
> > the world and rebuild it for flying cars the first time somebody buys
> > one.
> >
> >>> Generally people on planes either rent
> >>> a car when they get there, or mooch transportation from the people
> >>> that they're visiting.
> >>
> >> Because, generally, what makes a plane air-worthy can be compromised by
> >> driving around in traffic. Point being, any new technology that makes
> >> sense in creating a flying car must *necessarily* be first proven
> >> effective in creating better planes. If you're not seeing that, and
> >> we're not, you won't be seeing flying cars any time soon. Simple as
> >> that.
> >
> > Why does technology that makes sense in creating a flying car have to
> > "be effective in creating better planes"? There's no need for a Mach 25
> > scramjet in a flying car.
> >
> >>> Building a virtual train out of self-driving bits? That's kinda like
> >>> building an internet by making self-driving packets. It'll never
> >>> work.
> >>
> >> I don't even understand the analogy you're trying to make. Self-driving
> >> cars *are* a virtual train.
> >
> > Only if there are dozens of them in a line on the same highway.
> >
> >> There are some advantages they might have
> >> over a physical train, but many disadvantages, too. My point simply is
> >> that it's not futuristic technology to combine two existing vehicle
> >> types, be it car-plane or car-train, certainly not simply because the
> >> "rails" are done in software instead of hardware. I think it'll work
> >> just fine, if you throw enough resources at the problem, but the more
> >> sensible thing to do would be to use physical rails so that you don't
> >> *need* to waste those resources tackling what is a solved problem.
> >
> > So you're going to run rails to everybody's house, everybody's job, ever
> > shopping center, every empty field?
>
> One of the problems I see with all city planning of roads, inner-city
> freeways and public transport is the assumption that most people want to
> come in from outer suburbs to the centre of the city, whereas many of
> them want to cross the city to the other side or circle round to another
> suburb. True, some cities have a ring road or circular bus route, but
> the into the middle and then out again idea seems to prevail.
> Were it not for this, then the rails, real or virtual, would simply be
> for our current major roads.

There is a railroad station between my house and my current work. The
trouble is that I have to drive 20 minutes to get there, and the train
puts me a mile from work, with a total transit time of more than an
hour. Further, it doesn't arrive or leave at times convenient to my
working hours. Driving directly to work is 30 minutes and I end up
across the street from work. And I have to pay more for the train
ticket than the cost of gas. So why would it be to my benefit to use a
train for any part of my commute?

If you have people going from one densely populated location to another,
or if the commute is long, then the train makes sense--this is why the
Long Island Railroad and Conrail work--they are carrying commuters 20-50
miles into one of the most densely populated areas on Earth. When the
population density is low and the commute is short, the train is just a
waste of resources.

I know train fans love trains, but the fact is that the circumstances
under which they make economic sense are limited.

[Robert Bannister]

On 13/01/2014 11:13 pm, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@clubtelco.com
> says...
>>
>> On 13/01/2014 11:07 am, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> In article <droleary-***@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>> ***@8usenet2013.subsume.com says...
>>>>
>>>> In article <***@mid.individual.net>,
>>>> Greg Goss <***@gossg.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Doc O'Leary <***@8usenet2013.subsume.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Trains and planes are a nuisance because you have no flexibility once
>>>>> you get near your destination.
>>>>
>>>> That is only what you have come to know based on the current, flawed
>>>> implementation of those technologies. These are sci-fi newsgroups, so
>>>> I'm asking you to engage in future thinking. You have to engage in the
>>>> world building exercise that imagines superior technologies as actually
>>>> existing and in common place usage, with all the connected changes they
>>>> imply.
>>>>
>>>> One example for flying cars: what *does* make sense as a destination?
>>>> How far can you fly with it, and how much do you still have to drive?
>>>> Like I said, why would you drive much at all? And does it make sense to
>>>> have the destination as a parking garage, only to have to still get down
>>>> to ground level, walk to an office building, and wait for an elevator
>>>> ride to get back up to the same height you flew in at? The technology
>>>> forces you to reconsider everything about how people live.
>>>
>>> No, the technology has to fit how people live. Maybe 100 years after
>>> everybody has flying cars the infrastructure would have been altered to
>>> accommodate them but they aren't going to tear down every building in
>>> the world and rebuild it for flying cars the first time somebody buys
>>> one.
>>>
>>>>> Generally people on planes either rent
>>>>> a car when they get there, or mooch transportation from the people
>>>>> that they're visiting.
>>>>
>>>> Because, generally, what makes a plane air-worthy can be compromised by
>>>> driving around in traffic. Point being, any new technology that makes
>>>> sense in creating a flying car must *necessarily* be first proven
>>>> effective in creating better planes. If you're not seeing that, and
>>>> we're not, you won't be seeing flying cars any time soon. Simple as
>>>> that.
>>>
>>> Why does technology that makes sense in creating a flying car have to
>>> "be effective in creating better planes"? There's no need for a Mach 25
>>> scramjet in a flying car.
>>>
>>>>> Building a virtual train out of self-driving bits? That's kinda like
>>>>> building an internet by making self-driving packets. It'll never
>>>>> work.
>>>>
>>>> I don't even understand the analogy you're trying to make. Self-driving
>>>> cars *are* a virtual train.
>>>
>>> Only if there are dozens of them in a line on the same highway.
>>>
>>>> There are some advantages they might have
>>>> over a physical train, but many disadvantages, too. My point simply is
>>>> that it's not futuristic technology to combine two existing vehicle
>>>> types, be it car-plane or car-train, certainly not simply because the
>>>> "rails" are done in software instead of hardware. I think it'll work
>>>> just fine, if you throw enough resources at the problem, but the more
>>>> sensible thing to do would be to use physical rails so that you don't
>>>> *need* to waste those resources tackling what is a solved problem.
>>>
>>> So you're going to run rails to everybody's house, everybody's job, ever
>>> shopping center, every empty field?
>>
>> One of the problems I see with all city planning of roads, inner-city
>> freeways and public transport is the assumption that most people want to
>> come in from outer suburbs to the centre of the city, whereas many of
>> them want to cross the city to the other side or circle round to another
>> suburb. True, some cities have a ring road or circular bus route, but
>> the into the middle and then out again idea seems to prevail.
>> Were it not for this, then the rails, real or virtual, would simply be
>> for our current major roads.
>
> There is a railroad station between my house and my current work. The
> trouble is that I have to drive 20 minutes to get there, and the train
> puts me a mile from work, with a total transit time of more than an
> hour. Further, it doesn't arrive or leave at times convenient to my
> working hours. Driving directly to work is 30 minutes and I end up
> across the street from work. And I have to pay more for the train
> ticket than the cost of gas. So why would it be to my benefit to use a
> train for any part of my commute?
>
> If you have people going from one densely populated location to another,
> or if the commute is long, then the train makes sense--this is why the
> Long Island Railroad and Conrail work--they are carrying commuters 20-50
> miles into one of the most densely populated areas on Earth. When the
> population density is low and the commute is short, the train is just a
> waste of resources.
>
> I know train fans love trains, but the fact is that the circumstances
> under which they make economic sense are limited.
>

That's what the conservatives said about rail in my city. Now the
no-longer-quite-new trains are packed and are much faster than you could
possibly drive and cheaper than using a car. It's the parking at the
train station that is the problem.

--
Robert Bannister - 1940-71 SE England
1972-now W Australia

[lal_truckee]

On 1/11/14 11:18 AM, Greg Goss wrote:
> Building a virtual train out of self-driving bits? That's kinda like
> building an internet by making self-driving packets. It'll never
> work.

Online irony is hard. I bet your correspondents miss the cheeky tongue.

[J. Clarke]

In article <droleary-***@news.eternal-september.org>,
***@8usenet2013.subsume.com says...
>
> In article <***@earthlink.com>,
> David DeLaney <***@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Fairly clear, because while that is the case, it's also a lot harder to keep
> > a watch out in 4\pi of spherical directions than it is in 360 degrees of
> > planar ones; you can't build roads in the air; and if you have a problem in
> > mid-air, despite what Bugs Bunny demonstrated, you cannot simply put on your
> > air brakes and stop dead while you try to fix it or wait for help. Plus
> > drunken
> > teenagers or adults make all of this so much worse...
>
> 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.
>
> 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
> 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
> 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.

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. When I can park the plane in the lower level of a
multilevel underground parking garage get back to me.

[Joy Beeson]

On Sat, 11 Jan 2014 09:57:04 +1300, Your Name <***@YourISP.com>
wrote:

> There's a few companies working on flying cars, some supposedly due for
> release this year or next year ... but just looking at the mess on the
> roads in "two" dimensions is enough to let anyone with a brain know
> that letting them loose in "three" dimensions is going to be a complete
> disaster. :-(

The flying cars were often self-driving cars.

We've been working on self-driving cars ever since the invention of
the starter motor. (One might say that the first step was eliminating
the horse.)

For a long time, one had to regulate the engine with a throttle and I
don't know what all. Now you don't even have to select a gear to
drive in.

I remember safety ads warning you to "pump" the brakes when stopping
on slick pavement. Brakes are self-pumping these days.

If my right leg starts getting sore, I can tell the car how fast I
want to go and take my foot off the accelerator.


--
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://joybeeson.home.comcast.net/
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.

[David DeLaney]

On 2014-01-12, Joy Beeson <***@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
> We've been working on self-driving cars ever since the invention of
> the starter motor. (One might say that the first step was eliminating
> the horse.)

Which, if you REALLY want a self-driving vehicle, was a giant step backwards...

Dave, the horse knows the way / to carry the sleigh / through ice and drif-ted
sno-ooow!
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[lal_truckee]

On 1/11/14 6:35 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:

> eliminating the horse

resulted in the demise of a true, practical, and widely available
self-driving carriage.

We've been scrambling ever since to just get back to what we gave up.

YASID -
I think it was half an ACE double. What I remember is a culture clash
between an advanced mechanized culture and an advanced genetic
engineering culture. Highlight of the memory is a race between a
genetically engineered riding animal and a flying car. After falling
behind early, the flying car finally beats the riding animal on the
return leg, barely. The rider is initially impressed until he asks the
car driver how many young does the car drop and finds out you don't get
baby cars to raise.

[David DeLaney]

On 2014-01-13, lal_truckee <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 1/11/14 6:35 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
>> eliminating the horse
>
> resulted in the demise of a true, practical, and widely available
> self-driving carriage.

Though you have to admit that the pollution issue was more immediate and
terrible than today's cars and trains and trucks produce.

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[lal_truckee]

On 1/13/14 10:06 AM, David DeLaney wrote:
> On 2014-01-13, lal_truckee <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 1/11/14 6:35 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
>>> eliminating the horse
>>
>> resulted in the demise of a true, practical, and widely available
>> self-driving carriage.
>
> Though you have to admit that the pollution issue was more immediate and
> terrible than today's cars and trains and trucks produce.

Might be easier to teach a horse to use the toilet than to teach a car
to drive.

[Your Name]

In article <lb1csr$p9j$***@dont-email.me>, lal_truckee
<***@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 1/13/14 10:06 AM, David DeLaney wrote:
> > On 2014-01-13, lal_truckee <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On 1/11/14 6:35 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
> >>> eliminating the horse
> >>
> >> resulted in the demise of a true, practical, and widely available
> >> self-driving carriage.
> >
> > Though you have to admit that the pollution issue was more immediate and
> > terrible than today's cars and trains and trucks produce.
>
> Might be easier to teach a horse to use the toilet than to teach a car
> to drive.

Plus the waste product from a horse has an actual use (in gardening)
whereas waste product from cars doesn't.

[Robert Bannister]

On 14/01/2014 3:57 am, Your Name wrote:
> In article <lb1csr$p9j$***@dont-email.me>, lal_truckee
> <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 1/13/14 10:06 AM, David DeLaney wrote:
>>> On 2014-01-13, lal_truckee <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On 1/11/14 6:35 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
>>>>> eliminating the horse
>>>>
>>>> resulted in the demise of a true, practical, and widely available
>>>> self-driving carriage.
>>>
>>> Though you have to admit that the pollution issue was more immediate and
>>> terrible than today's cars and trains and trucks produce.
>>
>> Might be easier to teach a horse to use the toilet than to teach a car
>> to drive.
>
> Plus the waste product from a horse has an actual use (in gardening)
> whereas waste product from cars doesn't.
>

But at the height of horse-drawn traffic, there was far more than could
be cleared up, and in 19th century London, there wasn't much room for
growing rhubarb or roses.

--
Robert Bannister - 1940-71 SE England
1972-now W Australia

[David Johnston]

On 1/10/2014 1:12 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <lapiks$qo4$***@online.de>, ingo-***@web.de says...
>>
>> Am 10.01.2014 06:40, schrieb David Dalton:
>>> What are some cases where science fiction has successfully
>>> predicted scientific or technological advances?
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Logic_Named_Joe
>>
>>
>> IIRC, Asimov described in some of his stories a giant computer, and
>> everybody had a terminal in his house to use it. To me, it has a lot in
>> common with our internet...
>
> Not really. It's the old mainframe and dumb terminals model, not the
> supercomputer on every desktop model that actually happened.
>
> Now they're trying to go back to that model with tablets and phones and
> the like acting as dumb terminals, but the fact is that tablets and
> phones already outperform '70s supercomputers so that trend I suspect is
> doomed to be short-lived.

Although I am amused that people frequently mention giant-sized
computers as a failed prediction without noting that server farms now
fill warehouses and continue to grow.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 1/10/14 2:45 PM, Ingo Siekmann wrote:
> Am 10.01.2014 06:40, schrieb David Dalton:
>> What are some cases where science fiction has successfully
>> predicted scientific or technological advances?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Logic_Named_Joe
>
>
> IIRC, Asimov described in some of his stories a giant computer, and
> everybody had a terminal in his house to use it. To me, it has a lot in
> common with our internet...
>


No, that's drastically different. Asimov was basically describing a
classic mainframe with terminals, just a LOT of widely distributed
terminals. But if someone went in and blew up Multivac, that'd be it for
everyone's communications and data.

By contrast, there's no one thing you could destroy that would shut
down the Internet. I'm not sure that you could shut it down by
destroying TEN things, including major comm hubs. There's a lot of
redundancy in the system. And all the data and computation is spread to
literally millions of machines. Vastly different.


--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com

[Ingo Siekmann]

Am 10.01.2014 21:45, schrieb Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor):
-snip

> No, that's drastically different. Asimov was basically describing a
> classic mainframe with terminals, just a LOT of widely distributed
> terminals.

-snip

I know, I know...
I meant it for the "the whole knowledge of the world is ready on your
desktop" angle.

If Asimov had mentioned it would be used for naughty pictures or slash
fan fiction, not to mention cats...

Bye
Ingo

[Robert Bannister]

On 11/01/2014 4:45 am, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
> On 1/10/14 2:45 PM, Ingo Siekmann wrote:
>> Am 10.01.2014 06:40, schrieb David Dalton:
>>> What are some cases where science fiction has successfully
>>> predicted scientific or technological advances?
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Logic_Named_Joe
>>
>>
>> IIRC, Asimov described in some of his stories a giant computer, and
>> everybody had a terminal in his house to use it. To me, it has a lot in
>> common with our internet...
>>
>
>
> No, that's drastically different. Asimov was basically describing a
> classic mainframe with terminals, just a LOT of widely distributed
> terminals. But if someone went in and blew up Multivac, that'd be it for
> everyone's communications and data.
>
> By contrast, there's no one thing you could destroy that would shut
> down the Internet. I'm not sure that you could shut it down by
> destroying TEN things, including major comm hubs. There's a lot of
> redundancy in the system. And all the data and computation is spread to
> literally millions of machines. Vastly different.
>
>
Cutting one ocean cable can slow it down significantly.

--
Robert Bannister - 1940-71 SE England
1972-now W Australia

[Greg Goss]

Robert Bannister <***@clubtelco.com> wrote:

>On 11/01/2014 4:45 am, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:

>> By contrast, there's no one thing you could destroy that would shut
>> down the Internet. I'm not sure that you could shut it down by
>> destroying TEN things, including major comm hubs. There's a lot of
>> redundancy in the system. And all the data and computation is spread to
>> literally millions of machines. Vastly different.
>>
>>
>Cutting one ocean cable can slow it down significantly.

Wasn't there a backhoe accident in the nineties that took out 30% of
the internet for a couple of days?
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[David DeLaney]

On 2014-01-10, Ingo Siekmann <ingo-***@web.de> wrote:
> Am 10.01.2014 06:40, schrieb David Dalton:
>> What are some cases where science fiction has successfully
>> predicted scientific or technological advances?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Logic_Named_Joe
>
> IIRC, Asimov described in some of his stories a giant computer, and
> everybody had a terminal in his house to use it. To me, it has a lot in
> common with our internet...

Sort of ... but that's actually an intranet, or more precisely a server and
a lot of terminals. Now if there were multiple such giant computers per city,
and they all talked to each other, so that anyone could retrieve data from any
of them? THEN I'd say he had the Internet in the palm of his brain.

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[Bernard Peek]

On 10/01/14 05:40, David Dalton wrote:
> What are some cases where science fiction has successfully
> predicted scientific or technological advances?


In general SF doesn't try to predict the future, it's far more likely to
warn us of something that might happen if we don't work to avoid it.

George Orwell predicted the surveillance society.



--
Bernard Peek
***@shrdlu.com

[Mike Dworetsky]

David Dalton wrote:
> What are some cases where science fiction has successfully
> predicted scientific or technological advances?
>
> And also what are some open predictions that you think
> may still come true?

Hugo Gernsback in 1911 predicted something like a picture phone, and
television. And people would have alphanumerics instead of surnames--that
part did not work out. Also lighting that responds to voice commands.
Ralph 124C 41+.

In the early 1980s a Niven-Pournell novel (King David's Spaceship) had
Imperial naval officers walking around a city on a newly rediscovered "lost"
colony planet, using wireless notebooks for information and communication,
which sounded a lot like tablets, iPads or iPhones.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

[Greg Goss]

"Mike Dworetsky" <***@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:

>In the early 1980s a Niven-Pournell novel (King David's Spaceship) had
>Imperial naval officers walking around a city on a newly rediscovered "lost"
>colony planet, using wireless notebooks for information and communication,
>which sounded a lot like tablets, iPads or iPhones.

I thought that KDS was just Pournelle. But I'm too lazy to look it
up.

The Niven/Pournelle "Mote in God's Eye" has people wandering around
recording stuff on tablets or PDAs with both local storage and
networked into the ship's computing resources. But Mote is getting
fairly close to the present. Wasn't it about that time that TCP/IP
was being designed?
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 11:12:56 -0700, Greg Goss
<***@gossg.org> wrote in
<news:***@mid.individual.net> in
rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,rec.arts.sf.misc,sci.physics:

> "Mike Dworetsky" <***@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:

>> In the early 1980s a Niven-Pournell novel (King David's
>> Spaceship) had Imperial naval officers walking around a
>> city on a newly rediscovered "lost" colony planet, using
>> wireless notebooks for information and communication,
>> which sounded a lot like tablets, iPads or iPhones.

> I thought that KDS was just Pournelle. But I'm too lazy
> to look it up.

It is. And as _A Spaceship for the King_ it first appeared
in 1971 in Analog.

[...]

Brian

[Mike Dworetsky]

Greg Goss wrote:
> "Mike Dworetsky" <***@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> In the early 1980s a Niven-Pournell novel (King David's Spaceship)
>> had Imperial naval officers walking around a city on a newly
>> rediscovered "lost" colony planet, using wireless notebooks for
>> information and communication, which sounded a lot like tablets,
>> iPads or iPhones.
>
> I thought that KDS was just Pournelle. But I'm too lazy to look it
> up.

Yes, you are right. The Pournelle novel is dated 1980, and there is a note
in the title pages that it is based on an earlier version published in
Analog SF in 1972.

>
> The Niven/Pournelle "Mote in God's Eye" has people wandering around
> recording stuff on tablets or PDAs with both local storage and
> networked into the ship's computing resources. But Mote is getting
> fairly close to the present. Wasn't it about that time that TCP/IP
> was being designed?

Mote was published in 1974, so it precedes King David.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)