Re: What IS a flying car, anyway?
Dan Goodman
> Really, what is the difference between SFnal "flying car" and a
> helicopter? If it is the ability to roll on a road at highway speed,
> then why would anyone want one? The whole point of flying is to AVOID
> roads and other limitations of the ground. If it is cost, then we
> could legitimately say "flying cars already exist", as some low-end
> helicopters may be cheaper than high-end cars (although still more
> expensive to use and maintain). Is it ease of operation?
The constant prediction is not "flying cars will be available soon" but
"flying cars will soon _completely replace ground cars."
Also, note that flying cars are supposed to be able to operate on the
ground -- which helicopters aren't exactly good at.
Flying cars -- called that by manufacturers, and more car-like than
helicopters -- have been marketed over the decades. None have caught
on.
--
--
Dan Goodman
"I have always depended on the kindness of stranglers."
Tennessee Williams, A Streetcar Named Expire
Journal http://dsgood.livejournal.com
Futures http://clerkfuturist.wordpress.com
Mirror Journal http://dsgood.insanejournal.com
Mirror 2 http://dsgood.wordpress.com
Links http://del.icio.us/dsgood
Joseph Nebus
>Flying cars -- called that by manufacturers, and more car-like than
>helicopters -- have been marketed over the decades. None have caught
>on.
On the other hand, making fun of Moller will probably always
be with us.
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Snyder
wrote:
>"Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> writes:
>
>>Flying cars -- called that by manufacturers, and more car-like than
>>helicopters -- have been marketed over the decades. None have caught
>>on.
>
> On the other hand, making fun of Moller will probably always
>be with us.
Until we can put fusion-powered AI's to doing it for us.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
cryptoguy
> "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> writes:
> >Flying cars -- called that by manufacturers, and more car-like than
> >helicopters -- have been marketed over the decades. None have caught
> >on.
>
> On the other hand, making fun of Moller will probably always
> be with us.
Moller has/had some success, but it doesn't meet most of the criteria
listed above. He has made more progress than I realized.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awHji8dUIUk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bdd4Jt_rBE&feature=related
Peter Trei
Marcus L. Rowland
Goodman <dsg...@iphouse.com> writes
>il...@rcn.com wrote:
>
>> Really, what is the difference between SFnal "flying car" and a
>> helicopter? If it is the ability to roll on a road at highway speed,
>> then why would anyone want one? The whole point of flying is to AVOID
>> roads and other limitations of the ground. If it is cost, then we
>> could legitimately say "flying cars already exist", as some low-end
>> helicopters may be cheaper than high-end cars (although still more
>> expensive to use and maintain). Is it ease of operation?
>
>The constant prediction is not "flying cars will be available soon" but
>"flying cars will soon _completely replace ground cars."
>
>Also, note that flying cars are supposed to be able to operate on the
>ground -- which helicopters aren't exactly good at.
>
>Flying cars -- called that by manufacturers, and more car-like than
>helicopters -- have been marketed over the decades. None have caught
>on.
>
spots his girlfriend driving in to work in her flying car, waves at her,
and they both set their cars to hover, then the boyfriend climbs out of
his car and onto hers (walking on the wing, which is teeny and has a
vertical rotor blade inset into it) and they have a little talk. No
falling out of the sky, no wobbling, just two rock steady machines
hanging there in exactly the way that bricks don't. Picture of it here:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v336/MarcusRowland/ji1.jpg
Basically, that's what people want from a flying car - something that
you drive exactly like an ordinary one, that hovers when you need it to,
that's pretty much idiot-proof, and costs less to run than a Citroen
2CV. Not going to happen, I fear.
--
Marcus L. Rowland http://www.forgottenfutures.com/
http://www.forgottenfutures.org/
LJ:ffutures http://www.forgottenfutures.co.uk/
Forgotten Futures - The Scientific Romance Role Playing Game
Diana: Warrior Princess & Elvis: The Legendary Tours
The Original Flatland Role Playing Game
pmfan57
<forgottenfutu...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> In message <4900bff5$0$90338$80460...@auth.newsreader.iphouse.com>, Dan
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yeah, that photo shows exactly what life will be like the far off
future world of 1960.
Derek Lyons
*yawn*, those videos show a state of the art vehicle - for 1950.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Marcus L. Rowland
<7b8b9c58-c4ab-4e45...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
pmfan57 <jwra...@gmail.com> writes
>>
>> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v336/MarcusRowland/ji1.jpg
>>
>> Basically, that's what people want from a flying car - something that
>> you drive exactly like an ordinary one, that hovers when you need it to,
>> that's pretty much idiot-proof, and costs less to run than a Citroen
>> 2CV. Not going to happen, I fear.
>> --
>
>future world of 1960.
Actually _Just Imagine_ is set in 1980. See
http://davidszondy.com/future/Flight/justimaginecar.htm
Which is part of a rather interesting site about the world of tomorrow
as imagined in the 1930s and other stuff including flying cars.
jerry warner
Dan Goodman wrote:
> il...@rcn.com wrote:
>
> > Really, what is the difference between SFnal "flying car" and a
> > helicopter? If it is the ability to roll on a road at highway speed,
> > then why would anyone want one? The whole point of flying is to AVOID
> > roads and other limitations of the ground. If it is cost, then we
> > could legitimately say "flying cars already exist", as some low-end
> > helicopters may be cheaper than high-end cars (although still more
> > expensive to use and maintain). Is it ease of operation?
>
> The constant prediction is not "flying cars will be available soon" but
> "flying cars will soon _completely replace ground cars."
>
> Also, note that flying cars are supposed to be able to operate on the
> ground -- which helicopters aren't exactly good at.
>
> Flying cars -- called that by manufacturers, and more car-like than
> helicopters -- have been marketed over the decades. None have caught
> on.
>
Judging by the accidents around here we already have flying
cars - with cellphone operators! Its crazy around here.
People dont even bother to "fly" in their own lanes now -
just "get out of my way".
Jordan179
<forgottenfutu...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> Basically, that's what people want from a flying car - something that
> you drive exactly like an ordinary one, that hovers when you need it to,
> that's pretty much idiot-proof, and costs less to run than a Citroen
> 2CV. Not going to happen, I fear.
No, but I think that things fitting _more_ of the bill than a
helicopter will eventually become available. The hardest part is
"something that you drive exactly like an ordinary one," because the
mechanics of flight, even of the most heavily fly-by-wired flight,
require three-dimensional maneuvering at high speeds, which implies
more skill than that required to fly a car. I think that an aircar
will mostly be flown by its onboard computer, with manual backup being
an option reserved only for extremely skilled drivers (there'll
probably be a two-level licensing system where ordinary drivers are
not allowed to remove the autopilot). The next hardest part is cost:
obviously in absolute terms aircars will always be more expensive than
groundcars, but eventually the average level of wealth will rise to a
point where an aircar becomes affordable by the middle classes.
As for "idiot-proof," the history of technology strongly suggests that
no matter how well you "proof" it, _some_ idiot, somewhere, will find
a way to die in it or kill someone else with it. No cure for that,
I'm afraid, though a smart computer and backup descent systems could
do a lot to _reduce the rate_ of fatal accidents.
Come to think about it, the "wing-walking" behavior you described
strikes me as both idiotic and _exactly_ the kind of thing that a
testosterone-addled young man might do in front of his girlfriend.
- Jordan
Jordan179
>
> *yawn*, those videos show a state of the art vehicle - for 1950.
What's your specific criticism? Or do you just not like the styling?
What, in particular, do you think an aircar designed today _should_
feature?
- Jordan
William Black
"Jordan179" <JSBass...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fdbd309a-f7cb-40db...@p10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
No, but I think that things fitting _more_ of the bill than a
helicopter will eventually become available. The hardest part is
"something that you drive exactly like an ordinary one," because the
mechanics of flight, even of the most heavily fly-by-wired flight,
require three-dimensional maneuvering at high speeds, which implies
more skill than that required to fly a car.
-------------------------------
No.
The major problem is reliability.
With a car, if it breaks down you phone your breakdown service...
Aircraft are extremely reliable and they have a series of very complex
systems to make sure people keep them correctly maintained.
This is because very few people walk away if the thing fails in flight.
If a broken down car produced a large hole and a lot of flying metal they'd
have a far more stringent system for maintaining them.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Jordan179
> The constant prediction is not "flying cars will be available soon" but
> "flying cars will soon _completely replace ground cars."
I never made any such prediction -- I think that even far into the
future, ground cars will still occupy a niche market -- just like
horse-drawn carriages do today.
> Also, note that flying cars are supposed to be able to operate on the
> ground -- which helicopters aren't exactly good at.
It's not actually necessary for an "aircar" to be able to operate on
the ground (beyond taxiing), though that might be the case for a
"flying car" (however that differs from an "aircar"). The reason why
helicopters aren't designed to taxi is that they are VTOL's.
> Flying cars -- called that by manufacturers, and more car-like than
> helicopters -- have been marketed over the decades. None have caught
> on.
The Dan Goodman of 1890:
"Motor carriages have been invented and marketed over the decades.
None have caught on."
Generally speaking, a successful product is presaged by abortive
attempts to market it, before the attempt that actually works. This
is _not_ to say that _all_ product that fail to catch on _will_ catch
on -- just that, if there is a significant potential market, any
product is likely to catch on whenever the technology reaches the
point of practicality.
Note the history of videophones, which are now in general use by the
younger generation.
- Jordan
Derek Lyons
Try reading my comment in context with what you snipped. You'll note
it has nothing to do with styling or features.
rap...@gmail.com
> Judging by the accidents around here we already have flying
> cars - with cellphone operators! Its crazy around here.
> People dont even bother to "fly" in their own lanes now -
> just "get out of my way".
Maybe, the first thing that is needed is automatic cars in general.
If an automatic system isn't trusted to drive a normal car, would it
be allowed to control most of the controls of a flying car?
Apparently, one of the issues with automatic cars is that if there is
a crash, the company would be held responsible. This makes them non-
economical. This would be true even if they drive the car safer than
the owner.
Ofc, flying could turn out to be easier, as you just need to watch the
altimeter.
Jordan179
wrote:
>
> The major problem is reliability.
>
> With a car, if it breaks down you phone your breakdown service...
>
> Aircraft are extremely reliable and they have a series of very complex
> systems to make sure people keep them correctly maintained.
>
> This is because very few people walk away if the thing fails in flight.
>
> If a broken down car produced a large hole and a lot of flying metal they'd
> have a far more stringent system for maintaining them.
Wouldn't the logical solution to this be extreme redundancy and a
backup soft-landing system? This adds to cost, of course, but I never
claimed that aircars could be made affordable to the middle classes
_now_ -- I was assuming 50-100 years from now, when the average person
will be richer.
- Jordan
William Black
-----------------------------
Then you're back in 'private plane' territory for costs.
Experience seems to suggest that the cost of capital items falls as time
passes but that training costs rise.
These days it costs several thousand dollars US to get a PPL, and tens of
thousands if you want to fly something the size of a mini-bus, but only
several hundred dollars to get a driving license.
The other issue is terrorist and criminal use.
Road blocks and VCPs work.
You can't have a road block in the sky...
Derek Lyons
>Ofc, flying could turn out to be easier, as you just need to watch the
>altimeter.
And the terrain, and the traffic near you.
il...@rcn.com
> attempts to market it, before the attempt that actually works. This
> is _not_ to say that _all_ product that fail to catch on _will_ catch
> on -- just that, if there is a significant potential market, any
> product is likely to catch on whenever the technology reaches the
> point of practicality.
>
> Note the history of videophones, which are now in general use by the
> younger generation.
I think the history of videophones is not very encouraging to would-be
makers of flying cars, because no videophone *intended as such from
the start* ever caught on. The evolution pretty much everyone who
thought about such things assumed was:
telephone -> videophone -> portable videophone
What happened instead is, younger generation used to webcams decided
they wanted mobile ones. Webcams got incorporated into cellphones:
videocamera -> digital videocamera -> webcam -> portable videophone
AFAIK, absolutely nobody expected this developement before it
happened, and "landline videophones" still do not exist. Unless you
consider webcam a landline videophone.
William Black
<il...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:e0ef77c2-fa17-456b...@v22g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
AFAIK, absolutely nobody expected this developement before it
happened, and "landline videophones" still do not exist. Unless you
consider webcam a landline videophone.
----------------------
http://www.elextronika.com/tvphone/metaeye.htm
The military and the medical profession have been using them for years now.
They're expensive and not terribly good quality but they can be made secure,
which is all that counts for some people...
rap...@gmail.com
> raph...@gmail.com wrote:
> >Ofc, flying could turn out to be easier, as you just need to watch the
> >altimeter.
>
> And the terrain, and the traffic near you.
True, but the autopilot component only needs to watch the height and
the terrain is pretty static. The driver can decide to turn left/
right.
William Black
<rap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:48309adc-2e8a-49cd...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
------------------------
Depends on how many other flying cars are about the place.
Wayne Throop
: http://www.elextronika.com/tvphone/metaeye.htm
: http://www.best4systems.co.uk/product.asp?ProdID=735&utm_source=Froogle&utm_medium=Shopping-Comparison
:
: The military and the medical profession have been using them for years now.
: They're expensive and not terribly good quality but they can be made secure,
: which is all that counts for some people...
So... internet-protocol-based videoconferencing can't be made secure?
If so, what in particular is insecure about VPN? You'd get far more
bandwidth.
Anyways, yes, ISDN-based videoconferencing phones existed for
some time, and were used. I've used 'em. Like, in the early
to mid '90s. But mostly, by business/professional work, not
ordinary-person-to-ordinary-person.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
William Black
"Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> wrote in message
news:12252...@sheol.org...
>: "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk>
> : http://www.elextronika.com/tvphone/metaeye.htm
> :
> http://www.best4systems.co.uk/product.asp?ProdID=735&utm_source=Froogle&utm_medium=Shopping-Comparison
> :
> : The military and the medical profession have been using them for years
> now.
> : They're expensive and not terribly good quality but they can be made
> secure,
> : which is all that counts for some people...
>
> So... internet-protocol-based videoconferencing can't be made secure?
Of course it can.
But this technology has been about for an awful long time now.
pmfan57
<forgottenfutu...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> In message
> <7b8b9c58-c4ab-4e45-b215-c75696821...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> pmfan57 <jwrag...@gmail.com> writes
Man, check this flying electric saucer out from the same site:
http://davidszondy.com/future/Flight/electric_saucer.htm
Wish I had one of those. I'd forego the local for one of those.
William December Starr
pmfan57 <jwra...@gmail.com> said:
> "Marcus L. Rowland" <forgottenfutu...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> Actually _Just Imagine_ is set in 1980. See
>>
>> http://davidszondy.com/future/Flight/justimaginecar.htm
>>
>> Which is part of a rather interesting site about the world of tomorrow
>> as imagined in the 1930s and other stuff including flying cars.
That photo looks like a real life injury just waiting to happen.
I hope the actress was wearing a harness, or at least a strong belt,
under her clothes and that she was attached to a safety line from
behind. Even if that prop prop (not a typo) is spinning too slowly
to do any harm, just sliding down the curved nose right onto it is
going to hurt.
> Man, check this flying electric saucer out from the same site:
>
> http://davidszondy.com/future/Flight/electric_saucer.htm
>
> Wish I had one of those. I'd forego the local for one of those.
Caption: "I can't see *what* the fuck is under me!"
-- wds
Derek Lyons
>On Oct 28, 6:13 pm, fairwa...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) wrote:
>> raph...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >Ofc, flying could turn out to be easier, as you just need to watch the
>> >altimeter.
>>
>> And the terrain, and the traffic near you.
>
>True, but the autopilot component only needs to watch the height and
>the terrain is pretty static.
You and your vehicle are a) not static, and b) moving in relation to
the terrain.
Jordan179
wrote:
>
> Then you're back in 'private plane' territory for costs.
>
> Experience seems to suggest that the cost of capital items falls as time
> passes but that training costs rise.
You're ignoring the effects of the Information Revolution -- the
aircar driver would mostly be giving orders to a computer pilot, and
even when flying "manually" would mostly be flying-by-wire.
> The other issue is terrorist and criminal use.
>
> Road blocks and VCPs work.
>
> You can't have a road block in the sky...
Are you honestly saying that we should discourage the use of aircars
because criminals might use them?
And yes, advances in technology _could_ give one the equivalent of a
"road block in the sky," through any of a number of possible measures,
which I'll discuss in detail if you like.
- Jordan
William Black
Are you honestly saying that we should discourage the use of aircars
because criminals might use them?
---------------------
No.
I'm saying it's one aspect of the problem.
The main one remains the issue of what happens when they unintentionally
drop out of the air.
Modern motor cars are incredibly reliable.
My car has broken down exactly once in the twelve years that I've had it,
and it is not an expensive model.
In an air car a breakdown rate as high as that would be catastrophic.
Jordan179
>
> > Note the history of videophones, which are now in general use by the
> > younger generation.
>
> I think the history of videophones is not very encouraging to would-be
> makers of flying cars, because no videophone *intended as such from
> the start* ever caught on. The evolution pretty much everyone who
> thought about such things assumed was:
I said nothing about whether or not we would evolve flying cars from
cars, from airplanes, or from something else (such as the personal
jetwing). The development path doesn't matter as much as does the
implications of ever-increasing wealth and energy per capita combined
with ever-increasing avionics automatic control capabilities. These
make aircars eventually inevitable, just as developments in
electronics made videophones eventually inevitable.
- Jordan
Matthias Warkus
> These
> make aircars eventually inevitable, just as developments in
> electronics made videophones eventually inevitable.
There are, however, "inevitable" technological developments which come
into being yet never make a broad and lasting impact. In transport
alone, I can think of supersonic passenger aeroplanes, ultralarge
tankers, and guideway buses. Much the same goes for maglev and monorail,
though you could argue whether they were inevitable.
mawa
--
http://www.prellblog.de
Jordan179
wrote:
Supersonic passenger airplanes haven't caught on _yet_; that hardly
means that they will _never_ catch on. The current intensive work on
private suborbital spacecraft may mean that their role may wind up
being usurped by _hypersonic_ passenger airplanes, though if that
happened I don't think that there would be _no_ SST's.
From the POV of 50 years ago, ultralarge tankers _have_ come about.
You're very specifically restricting yourself to the size class
_above_ the current "supertankers," but of course if we built those,
there would then be a _new_ size class above _that_ which was not yet
popular, and so on.
"Never" is a long time: if you said "have _not yet_ made a broad and
lasting impact," I could agree with you.
- Jordan
Jordan179
wrote:
>
> Modern motor cars are incredibly reliable.
>
> My car has broken down exactly once in the twelve years that I've had it,
> and it is not an expensive model.
>
> In an air car a breakdown rate as high as that would be catastrophic.
Not if the car had emergency soft-landing systems, including the
ability to steer itself to an appropriate landing site on the way
down. That is exactly what current aircar designers are working
toward.
You seem to be assuming that "breakdown in midair" implies "crash."
- Jordan
Jordan179
>
> You and your vehicle are a) not static, and b) moving in relation to
> the terrain.
Any computerized "autopilot" not capable of noticing _its own_
movement would be pretty darn pathetic. FYI, we're not talking about
something that simply locks the controls, or even keeps to a course,
we're talking about something that navigates with sensors and a map.
- Jordan
William Black
--------------------------
No.
Breakdown in mid-air means the altimeter tends towards zero in a manner
uncontrollable by the operator.
Everyone's trying to get a. 'emergency soft-landing system' but so far the
boffins at every major airplane company in the world haven't got anywhere
near it, to the extent that none has ever been fitted to any commercial
airliner.
Faulty flying things make great big holes in the ground when they stop
working properly.
The number of holes in the ground seems to be proportionate to the number of
the things up there and the technology used.
If you put more of the things in the air you will, for a given level of
technology, have more holes in the ground.
Wayne Throop
: Everyone's trying to get a. 'emergency soft-landing system' but so far the
: near it, to the extent that none has ever been fitted to any commercial
: airliner.
I'm not sure that that's a good criteria for "gotten near it".
That's more a criteria for "have gotten it".
There is the Carter Aviation gyroplane, or "slowed-rotor compound
aircraft". The PAV versions would doubtless would still leave an
indentation in the ground, but maybe not as deep a hole as one might
suppose of either helicopter or airplane. And the general concept does
scale fairly large.
I don't claim this is "gotten near it", but the notion of having
an unloaded rotor available, and hence vaguely-gyroplane-like
unpowered modes, doesn't seem totally unpromising, does it?
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> : "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk>
> : Everyone's trying to get a. 'emergency soft-landing system' but so far the
> : boffins at every major airplane company in the world haven't got anywhere
> : near it, to the extent that none has ever been fitted to any commercial
> : airliner.
>
> I'm not sure that that's a good criteria for "gotten near it".
> That's more a criteria for "have gotten it".
>
It's much more a criterion for "Has not only figured out how, but has
made it economically feasible and rammed through the changes to the
15,000 regulations necessary".
You won't get a commercial airliner to install ANYTHING unless it's
either (A) mandated by federal regulations, or (B) seriously increasing
passenger carrying capacity without reducing other functionality. If
your Soft Landing 2000 system weighs 2.4 pounds and doesn't require a
redesign or changing of wiring, etc., systems, yeah, they'll probably
install it. If it's anything like the size and complexity you'd expect,
though, you won't get ANYONE to install it. It'll be too heavy, too
large, too complex, and too costly for the benefit.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
cryptoguy
Not for large passenger aircraft, but should work for flying cars:
Peter Trei
William Black
No.
But an auto gyro needs some sort of landing strip for normal operation.
Wayne Throop
: But an auto gyro needs some sort of landing strip for normal operation.
Apparently some of these "slowed-rotor compound aircraft" can power
the rotor during takeoff and landing, and do true vtol. But they
are designed to allow decoupling the rotor from power, to act more
like an autogyro. In an emergency landing, they'd need some space,
but maybe not as much as might be thought. Maybe.
John F. Eldredge
This is assuming that the flying car is over, or almost over, an
"appropriate landing site" when it has the failure. This may not be the
case. For example, if you are currently over mountainous, forested
terrain, for example, suitable landing sites will be in very short supply.
--
John F. Eldredge -- jo...@jfeldredge.com
PGP key available from http://pgp.mit.edu
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better
than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
Brion K. Lienhart
> : "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk>
> : But an auto gyro needs some sort of landing strip for normal operation.
>
> Apparently some of these "slowed-rotor compound aircraft" can power
> the rotor during takeoff and landing, and do true vtol. But they
> are designed to allow decoupling the rotor from power, to act more
> like an autogyro. In an emergency landing, they'd need some space,
> but maybe not as much as might be thought. Maybe.
And that the failure isn't rotor breaks off.
William Black
"John F. Eldredge" <jo...@jfeldredge.com> wrote in message
news:6n37nhF...@mid.individual.net...
> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 09:39:49 -0700, Jordan179 wrote:
>
>> On Oct 30, 10:14 am, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Modern motor cars are incredibly reliable.
>>>
>>> My car has broken down exactly once in the twelve years that I've had
>>> it, and it is not an expensive model.
>>>
>>> In an air car a breakdown rate as high as that would be catastrophic.
>>
>> Not if the car had emergency soft-landing systems, including the ability
>> to steer itself to an appropriate landing site on the way down. That is
>> exactly what current aircar designers are working toward.
>>
>> You seem to be assuming that "breakdown in midair" implies "crash."
>>
>> - Jordan
>
> This is assuming that the flying car is over, or almost over, an
> "appropriate landing site" when it has the failure. This may not be the
> case. For example, if you are currently over mountainous, forested
> terrain, for example, suitable landing sites will be in very short supply.
If it's over a forested mountainous site when it fails I don't care that
much, I'm not going up in one and I spend a statistically insignificant
time driving through them.
If it's directly over my bedroom I care a very great deal.
As I live next to a golf course I can imagine my home being hit multiple
times a day as the imbeciles who say stuff like 'I'll take it in to have
that service done tomorrow dear' turn out to be the same imbeciles who say
'I think I can just make it to the golf course...'
Wayne Throop
: And that the failure isn't rotor breaks off.
True. But how often does an autogyro have rotor failure as opposed to
motor falure? And I think the notion is, relative to helicopters, the
rotor of these Carter Aviation thingies (even with all the mechanical
hoo-hah needed to do stol or vtol) are considerably simpler, mechanicaly,
than helicopter rotors. I could of course be entirely wrong, but that's
what I tenatively conclude (or, to use the technical term, "guess").
Or put another way, I also wouldn't like to be in a car when a wheel falls
off at speed (though I'd even less like to be in an autogyro when a
rotor falls off in flight, but still I wouldn't like either one).
Jordan179
wrote:
>
> No.
>
> Breakdown in mid-air means the altimeter tends towards zero in a manner
> uncontrollable by the operator.
>
> Everyone's trying to get a. 'emergency soft-landing system' but so far the
> boffins at every major airplane company in the world haven't got anywhere
> near it, to the extent that none has ever been fitted to any commercial
> airliner.
Ok.
You are talking about two different scales of problem here.
A commercial airliner weighs hundreds of tons, and would require a
ridiculously massive system to not only soft-land it on the event of
engine failure _and_ keep it from coming apart under the stress of its
own weight while suspended from such soft-landing system.
Furthermore, not being a small VTOL, it needs to keep flying forward
to maintain lift, and it can only soft-land in a very limited set of
places, And most airliner crashes occur at takeoff or landing, for
that reason, which means that a soft-landing system would be _useless_
in that situation.
An aircar would weigh only a few tons, and hence can easily be
suspended from either a parachute or one of its own engines revved up
to full power, without breaking up in midair. Being a small VTOL,
there are very few places where it _cannot_ safely land, at least in
an emergency. And it is far less likely to crash at takeoff or
landing; the worry you are expressing is that it will crash due to
midair engine failure.
I must assume that you are either fairly ignorant of aircraft design,
or are engaging in special pleading _against_ aircars -- why, I do not
know.
- Jordan
Jordan179
<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
> You won't get a commercial airliner to install ANYTHING unless it's
> either (A) mandated by federal regulations, or (B) seriously increasing
> passenger carrying capacity without reducing other functionality. If
> your Soft Landing 2000 system weighs 2.4 pounds and doesn't require a
> redesign or changing of wiring, etc., systems, yeah, they'll probably
> install it. If it's anything like the size and complexity you'd expect,
> though, you won't get ANYONE to install it. It'll be too heavy, too
> large, too complex, and too costly for the benefit.
Also the engineering task of preventing commercial airliner crashes
through soft-landing systems is much more daunting, because commercial
airliners are hundred-ton non-VTOL's while aircars are VTOL's weighing
only a few tons or so. Furthermore, the economics of operation are
much more constraining with commercial airliners than with personal
vehicles.
- Jordan
Jordan179
> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 09:39:49 -0700, Jordan179 wrote:
>
> > Not if the car had emergency soft-landing systems, including the ability
> > to steer itself to an appropriate landing site on the way down. That is
> > exactly what current aircar designers are working toward.
>
> > You seem to be assuming that "breakdown in midair" implies "crash."
>
> "appropriate landing site" when it has the failure. This may not be the
> case. For example, if you are currently over mountainous, forested
> terrain, for example, suitable landing sites will be in very short supply.
Given the ability to control the descent to _any_ degree (even by
angling a parachute or parawing), one's choice of landing sites would
be within a radius of _miles_, and given _that_, there are very few
terrains (even the Rocky Mountains or Sierra Nevadas) which offer _no_
suitable landing sites, where "suitable" is taken to mean "survivable
by the passengers and _not_ endangering people on the ground." Mind
you, I _am_ assuming flotation devices (so that one can set down on
water surfaces), and some "suitable" landing sites matching this
description will wreck the aircar as a _functional vehicle_.
- Jordan
Jordan179
Point being: the fact that a vehicle _can_ fail catastrophically in
operation does _not_ make it unsafe -- the question of _how often_
catastrophic failure is to be expected is relevant.
Most of the aircar designs I've seen involve multiple, independent
turbofan engines, with the ability to make an emergency landing on
half or less of the engines remaining operational and backup
parachutes in case _all_ the engines fail at the same time. Thus, a
catastrophic failure bad enough to cause the car to fall at terminal
velocity from the sky would be highly improbable -- at least as
improbable as having two wheels fall off a groundcar on the
superhighway, which would _also_ be fatal to the occupants.
- Jordan
Matthias Warkus
> Also the engineering task of preventing commercial airliner crashes
> through soft-landing systems is much more daunting, because commercial
> airliners are hundred-ton non-VTOL's while aircars are VTOL's weighing
> only a few tons or so.
How do you know? Your aircars are fusion-powered, and it'll be another
thirty years before we'll know how heavy a fusion power-plant and its
necessary AI control systems will weigh.
mawa
--
http://www.prellblog.de
William Black
An aircar would weigh only a few tons, and hence can easily be
suspended from either a parachute or one of its own engines revved up
to full power, without breaking up in midair. Being a small VTOL,
there are very few places where it _cannot_ safely land, at least in
an emergency. And it is far less likely to crash at takeoff or
landing; the worry you are expressing is that it will crash due to
midair engine failure.
-----------------------------
1. Getting something that weighs only a few tonnes down without killing the
occupants is a problem that has engaged military planners for years because
they'd very much like to land vehicles with a crew on-board...
2. Why is a small aircraft any less likely to crash on landing or takeoff?
As far as I'm aware all landings are considered as 'controlled crashes' by
the designers of such devices.
If you have thousands of the things you need to land them somewhere and if
it's at airports then why bother? If it's in your yard/street/local park
then the bloody things are going to be flying very low over residential
areas.
Low enough for any parachute not to deploy before it arrives in someone's
bedroom...
Jordan179
wrote:
> Jordan179 schrieb:
>
> > Also the engineering task of preventing commercial airliner crashes
> > through soft-landing systems is much more daunting, because commercial
> > airliners are hundred-ton non-VTOL's while aircars are VTOL's weighing
> > only a few tons or so.
>
> How do you know? Your aircars are fusion-powered,
They _are?_ When did I say anything about near-future aircars being
_fusion-powered?_
I'm assuming aircars running off either fossil or synthetic
hydrocarbons, or chemical fuel cells.
If synthetics or fuel cells, the _original_ energy would probably be
nuclear (fission OR fusion), but from a plant sitting firmly on the
ground. You've perhaps heard of "electricity?" Wonderful technology,
lets power be literally squirted down a wire!
- Jordan
Matthias Warkus
> On Nov 4, 3:16 am, Matthias Warkus <War...@students.uni-marburg.de>
> wrote:
>> Jordan179 schrieb:
>>
>>> Also the engineering task of preventing commercial airliner crashes
>>> through soft-landing systems is much more daunting, because commercial
>>> airliners are hundred-ton non-VTOL's while aircars are VTOL's weighing
>>> only a few tons or so.
>> How do you know? Your aircars are fusion-powered,
>
> They _are?_ When did I say anything about near-future aircars being
> _fusion-powered?_
You are the one who keeps bringing up hypersonic fusion-powered aircars
all the time, I was assuming you were talking about the same this time, too.
mawa
--
http://www.prellblog.de
Damien Sullivan
>2. Why is a small aircraft any less likely to crash on landing or takeoff?
>As far as I'm aware all landings are considered as 'controlled crashes' by
>the designers of such devices.
I think the idea is that there's a difference between a fast moving
aircraft trying to delicately make contact with the ground, and an an
aircar coming vertically on fans. Perception is that the latter has
more margin of error. Ditto for takeoff: you levitate up, then worry
about getting up to cruising speed, with a large buffer between you and
the ground. AIUI aircar isn't just a tiny airplane; it's VTOL, meaning
a buttload of jets or fans rather than playing games with lateral motion
and lift. Of course, the power requirements are high, especially if you
don't turn into a tiny airplane in crise mode.
>If you have thousands of the things you need to land them somewhere and if
>it's at airports then why bother? If it's in your yard/street/local park
>then the bloody things are going to be flying very low over residential
>areas.
No reason they have to be very low, vs. levitating or flying up several
hundred or a few thousand feet.
>Low enough for any parachute not to deploy before it arrives in someone's
>bedroom...
Jetliners can arrive in a whole neighborhood of bedrooms. Again, it's
all about the actual frequency of accidents.
-xx- Damien X-)
William Black
"Damien Sullivan" <pho...@ofb.net> wrote in message
news:ger6u7$t3a$7...@naig.caltech.edu...
> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>If you have thousands of the things you need to land them somewhere and if
>>it's at airports then why bother? If it's in your yard/street/local park
>>then the bloody things are going to be flying very low over residential
>>areas.
>
> No reason they have to be very low, vs. levitating or flying up several
> hundred or a few thousand feet.
The point I'm making is that they do have to be very low at some point when
either landing or taking off.
If they land in a back-yard then they're far too low near my bedroom...
>>Low enough for any parachute not to deploy before it arrives in someone's
>>bedroom...
>
> Jetliners can arrive in a whole neighborhood of bedrooms. Again, it's
> all about the actual frequency of accidents.
"Of course it's safe, I did the modifications myself..."
Michael Stemper
>"Damien Sullivan" <pho...@ofb.net> wrote in message news:ger6u7$t3a$7...@naig.caltech.edu...
>> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>it's at airports then why bother? If it's in your yard/street/local park
>>>then the bloody things are going to be flying very low over residential
>>>areas.
>>
>> No reason they have to be very low, vs. levitating or flying up several
>> hundred or a few thousand feet.
>
>The point I'm making is that they do have to be very low at some point when
>either landing or taking off.
As a matter of fact, their height-above-ground has to be less than
epsilon, for any positive value of epsilon, doesn't it?
>> Jetliners can arrive in a whole neighborhood of bedrooms. Again, it's
>> all about the actual frequency of accidents.
>
>"Of course it's safe, I did the modifications myself..."
(spoilers for forty-year-old story)
This reminds me of "10:01 A.M.", by Alexander B. Malec. Some kid decided
that he didn't like the pesky, government-mandated, height-above-ground
restrictions, so he disabled that system. He also disconnected the flight
recording unit (the one that he knew about, anyway).
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
A bad day sailing is better than a good day at the office.
Damien Sullivan
>>>it's at airports then why bother? If it's in your yard/street/local park
>>>then the bloody things are going to be flying very low over residential
>>>areas.
>>
>> No reason they have to be very low, vs. levitating or flying up several
>> hundred or a few thousand feet.
>
>The point I'm making is that they do have to be very low at some point when
>either landing or taking off.
>
>If they land in a back-yard then they're far too low near my bedroom...
Yes, but they aren't necessarily *flying* at that point. They might
have pure vertical descent and ascent at that point, so that an accident
means they crash straight down, rather than sliding into your bedroom.
-xx- Damien X-)
Beowulf Bolt
>
> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >If they land in a back-yard then they're far too low near my
> >bedroom...
>
> Yes, but they aren't necessarily *flying* at that point. They might
> have pure vertical descent and ascent at that point, so that an
> accident means they crash straight down, rather than sliding into your
> bedroom.
We cannot even keep ground-bound vehicles from flying off the road and
into houses
(http://johnrongerude.com/images/car-accident-pickup-truck-smashed-into-house.jpg).
I am skeptical that any mechanism will prevent *flying* cars from doing
this an order of magnitude more often.
Biff
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"All around me darkness gathers, fading is the sun that shone,
we must speak of other matters, you can be me when I'm gone..."
- SANDMAN #67, Neil Gaiman
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Throop
: We cannot even keep ground-bound vehicles from flying off the road and
: into houses (http://johnrongerude.com/images/car-accident-pickup-
: truck-smashed-into-house.jpg). I am skeptical that any mechanism will
: prevent *flying* cars from doing this an order of magnitude more often.
One might think making aircraft smart enough to hit an unoccupied spot
when crippled, as a person might avoid squashing an pet or infant one
trips over, it's an AI-hard problem, and so perpetually 20 years in
the future. However, it may not be quite *that* hard. The key for such
crash-safety isn't to focus on making the mechanics more nearly perfect,
but the avionics smarter. IMO.
Mind you, software doesn't have a good reputation for fail-safety,
but I think avionics is already an exception to that; it's pretty
failure-resistant. And if the mishap (whatever it may be) leaves
some airfoils/whatnot operable, then aiming so as to hit an unoccupied
spot on the ground as softly as possible may well be feasible. And I
rather imagine, such features will be deployed on groundcars first.
Antilock braking systems are already a teeny tiny step along that road.
William December Starr
Beowulf Bolt <abd.al...@shaw.ca> said:
> We cannot even keep ground-bound vehicles from flying off the road
> and into houses
> (http://johnrongerude.com/images/car-accident-pickup-truck-smashed-into-house.jpg).
>
> I am skeptical that any mechanism will prevent *flying* cars from
> doing this an order of magnitude more often.
"But what's *wrong* with putting a pair of fully autonomous
proximity-triggered Vulcan auto-cannons on every rooftop in
the land?"
-- wds
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
I strongly endorse this policy.
Marcus L. Rowland
Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> writes
>William December Starr wrote:
>> In article <491223...@shaw.ca>,
>> Beowulf Bolt <abd.al...@shaw.ca> said:
>>
>>> We cannot even keep ground-bound vehicles from flying off the road
>>> and into houses
>>>
>>>(http://johnrongerude.com/images/car-accident-pickup-truck-smashed-int
>>>o-house.jpg).
>>>
>>> I am skeptical that any mechanism will prevent *flying* cars from
>>> doing this an order of magnitude more often.
>> "But what's *wrong* with putting a pair of fully autonomous
>> proximity-triggered Vulcan auto-cannons on every rooftop in
>> the land?"
>
> I strongly endorse this policy.
>
>
--
Marcus L. Rowland http://www.forgottenfutures.com/
http://www.forgottenfutures.org/
LJ:ffutures http://www.forgottenfutures.co.uk/
Forgotten Futures - The Scientific Romance Role Playing Game
Diana: Warrior Princess & Elvis: The Legendary Tours
The Original Flatland Role Playing Game
Default User
> In message <geuq97$s7l$3...@registered.motzarella.org>, "Sea Wasp (Ryk
> E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> writes
> > William December Starr wrote:
> >> "But what's wrong with putting a pair of fully autonomous
> > > proximity-triggered Vulcan auto-cannons on every rooftop in
> > > the land?"
> >
> > I strongly endorse this policy.
> >
> >
> "OMG, You killed Santa! You bastard!"
Santa Claus is gunning you down!
Brian
--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)
Joe Pfeiffer
>
> He enters people's houses without knocking. He spies on all of
> them at all times, especially children. He knows if you've been Bad or
> Good, and brings the "good children" gifts after he's sneaked into
> their houses. He's clearly a Nazi Pedophile (alas that the Soviet
> Union collapsed, or his suit would prove he was a Commie).
>
> And note that you only have to move ONE LETTER to transform
> SANTA into SATAN.
Jordan179
>
> We cannot even keep ground-bound vehicles from flying off the road and
> into houses
> I am skeptical that any mechanism will prevent *flying* cars from doing
> this an order of magnitude more often.
Ah, so you're posting from one of the alternate time lines where
groundcars have already been equipped with AI's by 2008? Can you tell
me when the technological POD took place?
- Jordan
Jordan179
>
> One might think making aircraft smart enough to hit an unoccupied spot
> when crippled, as a person might avoid squashing an pet or infant one
> trips over, it's an AI-hard problem, and so perpetually 20 years in
> the future. However, it may not be quite *that* hard. The key for such
> crash-safety isn't to focus on making the mechanics more nearly perfect,
> but the avionics smarter. IMO.
A combination, really. If the aircar can safely descend on at least
one functional engine _and_ has a backup parachute, then the amount of
damage needed to prevent it from soft-landing is greater. And the
softer the landing, the less it has to worry about what it hits --
though it still has to worry about hitting _some_ things.
Keep in mind that, save over cities, most terrain _is_ unoccupied.
And even in cities, save over the central cores, a lot of terrain is
unoccupied from moment to moment. The AI simply has to be able to
tell the difference between buildings, people and empty ground in
order to know where to attempt its landing.
By the way, what happened to the _driver?_ Are we assuming a worst-
case scenario in which the driver is unconscious _and_ the aircar is
crippled? _Most_ accidents won't be _that_ bad.
- Jordan
Jordan179
wrote:
>
> You are the one who keeps bringing up hypersonic fusion-powered aircars
Can you point to where I did on this thread?
What I said in some much earlier threads was that probably, _someday_
hypersonic fusion-powered aircars would exist, in the context of a
"someday" at least a couple of centuries in the future. I thought
that on _this_ thread the context was _near_-future aircars.
You don't see any difference between the two topics?
- Jordan
Jordan179
> I think the idea is that there's a difference between a fast moving
> aircraft trying to delicately make contact with the ground, and an an
> aircar coming vertically on fans. Perception is that the latter has
> more margin of error.
Not just "perception" -- also _physics_.
- Jordan
Matthias Warkus
> On Nov 4, 12:38 pm, Matthias Warkus <War...@students.uni-marburg.de>
> wrote:
>> You are the one who keeps bringing up hypersonic fusion-powered aircars
>> all the time ...
>
> Can you point to where I did on this thread?
>
> What I said in some much earlier threads was that probably, _someday_
> hypersonic fusion-powered aircars would exist, in the context of a
> "someday" at least a couple of centuries in the future.
Oh, sorry. I thought fusion was just thirty years away.
mawa
--
http://www.prellblog.de
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> In message <geuq97$s7l$3...@registered.motzarella.org>, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E.
> Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> writes
>> William December Starr wrote:
>>> In article <491223...@shaw.ca>,
>>> Beowulf Bolt <abd.al...@shaw.ca> said:
>>>
>>>> We cannot even keep ground-bound vehicles from flying off the road
>>>> and into houses
>>>>
>>>> (http://johnrongerude.com/images/car-accident-pickup-truck-smashed-int
>>>> o-house.jpg).
>>>>
>>>> I am skeptical that any mechanism will prevent *flying* cars from
>>>> doing this an order of magnitude more often.
>>> "But what's *wrong* with putting a pair of fully autonomous
>>> proximity-triggered Vulcan auto-cannons on every rooftop in
>>> the land?"
>>
>> I strongly endorse this policy.
>>
>>
> "OMG, You killed Santa! You bastard!"
He enters people's houses without knocking. He spies on all of them at
all times, especially children. He knows if you've been Bad or Good, and
brings the "good children" gifts after he's sneaked into their houses.
He's clearly a Nazi Pedophile (alas that the Soviet Union collapsed, or
his suit would prove he was a Commie).
And note that you only have to move ONE LETTER to transform SANTA into
SATAN.
Jaimie Vandenbergh
I prefer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixVuIBFK2x8
Cheers - Jaimie
--
Okay, it works now. Or at least it malfunctions in all the expected ways.
-- Mark Edwards, asr
Jordan179
wrote:
> Jordan179 schrieb:
>
> > Can you point to where I did on this thread?
>
> > What I said in some much earlier threads was that probably, _someday_
> > hypersonic fusion-powered aircars would exist, in the context of a
> > "someday" at least a couple of centuries in the future.
>
> Oh, sorry. I thought fusion was just thirty years away.
Ok, you _can't_ point to where I said that we would soon have
hypersonic fusion-powered aircars on this (or for that matter _any_)
thread.
Even if commercially-workable fusion _is_ "just thirty years
away" (which would be _nice_ but is hardly assured), what makes you
think that its first incarnation would be in a small and light enough
form to power a small aircraft?
Your statements, therefore, make no sense.
- Jordan
Kurt Busiek
<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> said:
> Marcus L. Rowland wrote:
>> "OMG, You killed Santa! You bastard!"
>
> He enters people's houses without knocking. He spies on all of them at
> all times, especially children. He knows if you've been Bad or Good,
> and brings the "good children" gifts after he's sneaked into their
> houses. He's clearly a Nazi Pedophile (alas that the Soviet Union
> collapsed, or his suit would prove he was a Commie).
>
> And note that you only have to move ONE LETTER to transform SANTA into SATAN.
I once did a comics story where Marvel's SON OF SATAN character was
told that they had to change his name, because the word "Satan" wasn't
allowed in kiddie books any more. But they didn't have the budget for
a new logo, so they were just rearranging the letters and calling him
"The Son of Santa."
The result (the character, not the story) can be seen at:
http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix4/sonofsantawhatthe.html
kdb
Matthias Warkus
> On Nov 7, 2:08 am, Matthias Warkus <War...@students.uni-marburg.de>
> wrote:
>> Jordan179 schrieb:
>>
>>> Can you point to where I did on this thread?
>>> What I said in some much earlier threads was that probably, _someday_
>>> hypersonic fusion-powered aircars would exist, in the context of a
>>> "someday" at least a couple of centuries in the future.
>> Oh, sorry. I thought fusion was just thirty years away.
>
> Ok, you _can't_ point to where I said that we would soon have
> hypersonic fusion-powered aircars on this (or for that matter _any_)
> thread.
Of course I can't. I'm not even trying to. I just want to make fun of you.
mawa
--
http://www.prellblog.de
Brion K. Lienhart
I've got the comic with the other Son of Santa around somewhere.
http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix4/son_of_santa.htm
Kurt Busiek
> Kurt Busiek wrote:
>> On 2008-11-06 17:45:13 -0800, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
>> <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> said:
>>
>>> Marcus L. Rowland wrote:
>>>> "OMG, You killed Santa! You bastard!"
>>>
>>> He enters people's houses without knocking. He spies on all of them
>>> at all times, especially children. He knows if you've been Bad or Good,
>>> and brings the "good children" gifts after he's sneaked into their
>>> houses. He's clearly a Nazi Pedophile (alas that the Soviet Union
>>> collapsed, or his suit would prove he was a Commie).
>>>
>>> And note that you only have to move ONE LETTER to transform SANTA
>>> into SATAN.
>>
>> I once did a comics story where Marvel's SON OF SATAN character was
>> told that they had to change his name, because the word "Satan" wasn't
>> allowed in kiddie books any more. But they didn't have the budget for
>> a new logo, so they were just rearranging the letters and calling him
>> "The Son of Santa."
>>
>> The result (the character, not the story) can be seen at:
>>
>> http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix4/sonofsantawhatthe.html
>
> I've got the comic with the other Son of Santa around somewhere.
> http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix4/son_of_santa.htm
I've never actually read that one, but with characters named
"Agonistes" in it, I'm betting it's not quite as much fun. Mine had
Elfthu, dammit! And Killer Kane and his Missile Toes!
kdb
Jordan179
wrote:
> Jordan179 schrieb:
>
> > Ok, you _can't_ point to where I said that we would soon have
> > hypersonic fusion-powered aircars on this (or for that matter _any_)
> > thread.
>
> Of course I can't. I'm not even trying to. I just want to make fun of you.
And instead making yourself look like a fool.
- Jordan
Matthias Warkus
Don't be so desperate, Jordan. You can do better than that.
mawa
--
http://www.prellblog.de
Bill Snyder
<War...@students.uni-marburg.de> wrote:
>Jordan179 schrieb:
>> On Nov 7, 10:28 am, Matthias Warkus <War...@students.uni-marburg.de>
>> wrote:
>>> Jordan179 schrieb:
>>>
>>>> Ok, you _can't_ point to where I said that we would soon have
>>>> hypersonic fusion-powered aircars on this (or for that matter _any_)
>>>> thread.
>>> Of course I can't. I'm not even trying to. I just want to make fun of you.
>>
>> And instead making yourself look like a fool.
>
>Don't be so desperate, Jordan. You can do better than that.
You really think so?
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
David DeLaney
>Matthias Warkus <War...@students.uni-marburg.de> wrote:
>>Jordan179 schrieb:
>>
>>Don't be so desperate, Jordan. You can do better than that.
>
>You really think so?
Aren't we supposed to have faith in the perfectibility of humanity, here?
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "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.
Brion K. Lienhart
Anti-Claus is the bestest villain name ever.
Bill Snyder
DeLaney) wrote:
>Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote:
>>Matthias Warkus <War...@students.uni-marburg.de> wrote:
>>>Jordan179 schrieb:
>>>> And instead making yourself look like a fool.
>>>
>>>Don't be so desperate, Jordan. You can do better than that.
>>
>>You really think so?
>
>Aren't we supposed to have faith in the perfectibility of humanity, here?
Rather begs the question on the species front, don't you think?
Matthias Warkus
Marcus L. Rowland
Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> writes
>On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 21:49:47 -0700, Joe Pfeiffer
><pfei...@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
>
>>"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> writes:
>>>
>>> He enters people's houses without knocking. He spies on all of
>>> them at all times, especially children. He knows if you've been Bad or
>>> Good, and brings the "good children" gifts after he's sneaked into
>>> their houses. He's clearly a Nazi Pedophile (alas that the Soviet
>>> Union collapsed, or his suit would prove he was a Commie).
>>>
>>> And note that you only have to move ONE LETTER to transform
>>> SANTA into SATAN.
>>
>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8g1TtJqHY_s
>
>I prefer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixVuIBFK2x8
>
> Cheers - Jaimie
Don't forget the safety instructions!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Z4OvK3Vn44&NR=1
And don't forget the Buffyverse version, of course, from _The Body_
“”Um…guys,” says Dawn. “Hello. Puberty. Sort of figured out
the whole no Santa thing.”
“That’s a myth,” says Anya.
“Yeah,” says Dawn.
“No,” says Anya. “I mean, it’s a myth that it’s a myth. There
is a Santa Claus.” Everyone looks at her in surprise. “Mm-hmm. Been
around since, like, the 1500s. But he wasn’t always called Santa. But
with, you know, Christmas night, flying reindeer, coming down the
chimney… all true.”
“All true?” asks Dawn.
“Well, he doesn’t traditionally bring presents so much as, you know,
disembowel children. But otherwise…”
“The reindeer part was nice,” says Tara.
Mike Schilling
>
> And don't forget the Buffyverse version, of course, from _The Body_
>
> the whole no Santa thing."
>
> "That's a myth," says Anya.
>
> "Yeah," says Dawn.
>
> "No," says Anya. "I mean, it's a myth that it's a myth. There
> is a Santa Claus." Everyone looks at her in surprise. "Mm-hmm. Been
> around since, like, the 1500s. But he wasn't always called Santa.
> But
> with, you know, Christmas night, flying reindeer, coming down the
>
> "All true?" asks Dawn.
>
> "Well, he doesn't traditionally bring presents so much as, you know,
>
> "The reindeer part was nice," says Tara.
"Until you realize what he used the antlers for, anyway."