Great SF predictions
Mike Schilling
technological advances; what makes a great SF author is his ability to
predict the consequences. For example, it wasn't hard in the early 20th
century to write a story in which everyone got around in automobiles, but it
would have taken real insight to write about traffic jams.
Anyway, I was reminded about this last night when re-reading RAH's "Lost
Legacy" [1], in which Dr. Ben Coburn, wanting to enjoy a dinner out without
interruptions, deliberately leaves his "pocketphone" in his other suit.
1. In the SFBC collection _Off the Main Sequence_, edited by Andrew Wheeler.
lal_truckee
> I recall an Asimov essay in which he opined that anyone can predict
> technological advances; what makes a great SF author is his ability to
> predict the consequences. For example, it wasn't hard in the early 20th
> century to write a story in which everyone got around in automobiles, but it
> would have taken real insight to write about traffic jams.
Well, you're on the right track. Except it wouldn't take special insight
to predict traffic jams, since traffic jams were already a fact of life
in the horse drawn era urban areas - photos exist.
Insight would be predicting changes in dating and sexual behavior
deriving from all those backseats; prior to the automobile courting was
an observable activity, post it could be a private activity. Major
social ramifications, still being sorted out today (see: "morning after
pill.")
Dorothy J Heydt
Mike Schilling <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I recall an Asimov essay in which he opined that anyone can predict
>technological advances; what makes a great SF author is his ability to
>predict the consequences. For example, it wasn't hard in the early 20th
>century to write a story in which everyone got around in automobiles, but it
>would have taken real insight to write about traffic jams.
>
>Anyway, I was reminded about this last night when re-reading RAH's "Lost
>Legacy" [1], in which Dr. Ben Coburn, wanting to enjoy a dinner out without
>interruptions, deliberately leaves his "pocketphone" in his other suit.
Heinlein did that one twice, actually: the better-known instance
is in _Space Cadet_. A trainload of cadet-hopefuls are on their
way to the Academy; Matt's phone rings and he has to listen to
his father bugging him about take care of this, be sure to do
that, don't do the other thing, and how's your ankle? Tex tells
Matt he should have done what he (Tex) did: pack his phone in his
duffel so he CAN'T answer it.
Notice that neither of them suggests that Matt simply turn the
ringer off. That's because in Heinlein's day you COULDN'T turn a
phone off; it was against PUC regulations or maybe just against
AT&T policy. The only way Heinlein was able to get his own
landline, sitting on his desk, to have a turn-off switch was to
put an extension out in the garage that would always ring; even
though no one would hear it.
THAT's what he didn't predict: the concept of being able to turn
the phone off.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
Mark Blunden
> In article <shM%g.23697$7I1....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
> Mike Schilling <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I recall an Asimov essay in which he opined that anyone can predict
>> technological advances; what makes a great SF author is his ability
>> to predict the consequences. For example, it wasn't hard in the
>> early 20th century to write a story in which everyone got around in
>> automobiles, but it would have taken real insight to write about
>> traffic jams.
>>
>> Anyway, I was reminded about this last night when re-reading RAH's
>> "Lost Legacy" [1], in which Dr. Ben Coburn, wanting to enjoy a
>> dinner out without interruptions, deliberately leaves his
>> "pocketphone" in his other suit.
>
> Heinlein did that one twice, actually: the better-known instance
> is in _Space Cadet_. A trainload of cadet-hopefuls are on their
> way to the Academy; Matt's phone rings and he has to listen to
> his father bugging him about take care of this, be sure to do
> that, don't do the other thing, and how's your ankle? Tex tells
> Matt he should have done what he (Tex) did: pack his phone in his
> duffel so he CAN'T answer it.
And in Star Beast he predicts mobile phones with built-in GPS transponders,
as the protagonist deliberately leaves his at home when absconding in order
to avoid being tracked.
--
Mark Blunden.
Joe Bednorz
GPS transponders aren't necessary for tracking a mobile phone. (Does
no one remember how O.J. Simpson was found?)
--
Free SF and more online: <http://www.mindspring.com/~jbednorz/Free/>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer>:
"WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY"
All the best, Joe Bednorz
r.r...@thevine.net
wrote:
I recall reading someone's diatribe about that new-fangled device that
allowed young mothers to flounce around town, going hither and yon at
all hours of the day, instead of being modestly and quietly at home,
and the moral decay that was sure to bring about the fall of Society
as We Know It. Who would have thought that the baby carriage would be
such a revolutionary invention?
Rebecca
jackli...@earthlink.net
IIRC that was John Campbell's standard for any story that described a
new technology, you should demonstrate how it would effect the "normal"
population. The "normal" population took some of their clues for
devices from Campbell's writings.
http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/AuthorTotalNewsList.asp?AuNum=65
Jon Schild
I once heard an old man talking about how everyone was so worried that
the automobile was destroying morality, the way kids could get out away
from neighbors who might report observations to their parents. Kids even
driving to the next town where nobody knew them, where they could
carouse without being caught, etc. But he pointed out that nobody seems
to remember the way it was when he was a young man. True, with a horse
and carriage they couldn't go far. But, "the horse knew the way home."
The young lovers could do all sorts of things in the dark of night while
the horse took them home on his own, and nobody would be the wiser So I
think based on the statements of someone who was there, it could be a
private activity longer ago than many think.
Things like the morning after pill and popularity of abortion are more
after effects of the sexual revolution in the late 60s and early 70s
than the automobile. And so far as I know, no author predicted such a
complete rejection of social norms.
Ken from Chicago
<r.r...@thevine.net> wrote in message
news:sod0k2p695tl4d2d9...@4ax.com...
Robocars would unravel cities. No need to bunch up so tightly if you can
spread out and your car automatically takes you where you wanna go. The
elderly could gain more independence. Parents can stop chaffeuring their
kids around. Cars could get more maintenance by automatically going to gas
stations, oil stations and mechanics for fuel, maintenance and
repairs--without requiring people to change daily itineraries. Everyone
could have valet parking at restaurants, movie theaters, sporting events,
jobs, etc. Ground transportation would skyrocket since you could have a
truck travel 24/7, or fleets of trucks, with a human supervisors. Road rage,
new drivers, drowsy drivers, drunk drivers, distracted drivers, youth
drivers would be eliminated.
Plus advertising and the entertainment industry would be boosted with a
whole new market for video ads and entertainment.
Traffic jams could be eliminated as cars automatically reroute themselves
around accidents, crash, lane closures, detours, etc. Even intersection
stops could be eliminated as cars time themselves thru intersections to
alternate with cross traffic.
-- Ken from Chicago
il...@rcn.com
> spread out and your car automatically takes you where you wanna go. The
> elderly could gain more independence. Parents can stop chaffeuring their
> kids around. Cars could get more maintenance by automatically going to gas
> stations, oil stations and mechanics for fuel, maintenance and
> repairs--without requiring people to change daily itineraries. Everyone
> could have valet parking at restaurants, movie theaters, sporting events,
> jobs, etc. Ground transportation would skyrocket since you could have a
> truck travel 24/7, or fleets of trucks, with a human supervisors. Road rage,
> new drivers, drowsy drivers, drunk drivers, distracted drivers, youth
> drivers would be eliminated.
AND... there would be no reason to OWN a car, except as a luxury item.
What you are describing is much better suited for a fleet of robotic
taxis than private cars. All of them networked in order to contiunously
update traffic information and optimize routes.
Which I find not at all implausible in a few decades.
Sean O'Hara
> But he pointed out that nobody seems
> to remember the way it was when he was a young man. True, with a horse
> and carriage they couldn't go far. But, "the horse knew the way home."
> The young lovers could do all sorts of things in the dark of night while
> the horse took them home on his own, and nobody would be the wiser
What, nobody watches Fort Apache or McLintock! anymore? That's a
pretty standard trope in western films, though we of course never
see the lovers do anything untoward (though it is sometimes implied).
--
Sean O'Hara | http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com
Zapp Brannigan: So, crawling back to the Big Z like a bird on its belly.
-Futurama
Michael S. Schiffer
news:1161879281....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>> Robocars would unravel cities. No need to bunch up so tightly
>> if you can spread out and your car automatically takes you
>> where you wanna go. The elderly could gain more independence.
>> Parents can stop chaffeuring their kids around. Cars could get
>> more maintenance by automatically going to gas stations, oil
>> stations and mechanics for fuel, maintenance and
>> repairs--without requiring people to change daily itineraries.
>> Everyone could have valet parking at restaurants, movie
>> theaters, sporting events, jobs, etc. Ground transportation
>> would skyrocket since you could have a truck travel 24/7, or
>> fleets of trucks, with a human supervisors. Road rage, new
>> drivers, drowsy drivers, drunk drivers, distracted drivers,
>> youth drivers would be eliminated.
> AND... there would be no reason to OWN a car, except as a luxury
> item.
Spoken like a man with an empty trunk. :-) Or perhaps one who
rides buses and commuter rail cars that are free of grafitti. As a
regular user of both sorts of transportation, I can think of one or
two reasons people might prefer their own vehicle to a fleet of
shared ones.
(Vice versa too, of course, or I wouldn't take the L, but a robocar
might well shift the balance the other way for me.)
Mike
--
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS
msch...@condor.depaul.edu
lal_truckee
>
> GPS transponders aren't necessary for tracking a mobile phone. (Does
> no one remember how O.J. Simpson was found?)
Singularly large white SUV on the Santa Monica Freeway, driving very slowly?
il...@rcn.com
> > AND... there would be no reason to OWN a car, except as a luxury
> > item.
>
> Spoken like a man with an empty trunk. :-)
Every taxi I ever took had a sizeable trunk :-)
> Or perhaps one who
> rides buses and commuter rail cars that are free of grafitti. As a
> regular user of both sorts of transportation, I can think of one or
> two reasons people might prefer their own vehicle to a fleet of
> shared ones.
>
> (Vice versa too, of course, or I wouldn't take the L, but a robocar
> might well shift the balance the other way for me.)
Definitely would for me. Where I live, a car is a necessity even if you
ride a train -- you have to get to the train station first! A robot
taxi (with a large trunk) arriving at my doorstep would be enough for
me to give up my car.
Michael S. Schiffer
news:1161885046.2...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:
>> > AND... there would be no reason to OWN a car, except as a
>> > luxury item.
>> Spoken like a man with an empty trunk. :-)
> Every taxi I ever took had a sizeable trunk :-)
Sure, it's hard to track down the last one you took when you need to
get the stuff you're storing in it. :-)
>> Or perhaps one who
>> rides buses and commuter rail cars that are free of grafitti.
>> As a regular user of both sorts of transportation, I can think
>> of one or two reasons people might prefer their own vehicle to
>> a fleet of shared ones.
>> (Vice versa too, of course, or I wouldn't take the L, but a
>> robocar might well shift the balance the other way for me.)
> Definitely would for me. Where I live, a car is a necessity even
> if you ride a train -- you have to get to the train station
> first! A robot taxi (with a large trunk) arriving at my doorstep
> would be enough for me to give up my car.
And conversely, owning a robocar (so I could read during the trip,
could send it home and not worry about paying for parking downtown,
etc.) would be sufficient for me to give up the L.
il...@rcn.com
>
> > Every taxi I ever took had a sizeable trunk :-)
>
> Sure, it's hard to track down the last one you took when you need to
> get the stuff you're storing in it. :-)
Oh, now I get it :) Yes, my car's trunk is empty most of the time.
The Hurkle Beast
news:1161889043.2...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
As a man who always has trouble stuffing the groceries in the
trunk.....I found this exchange hilarious.
Mike Schilling
"The Hurkle Beast" <hur...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:ehr46f$4lt$1...@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
Robert DeNiro as a gangster shopping for cars: "Look at the size of this
trunk. You can put three bodies in there."
Howard Brazee
>AND... there would be no reason to OWN a car, except as a luxury item.
>What you are describing is much better suited for a fleet of robotic
>taxis than private cars. All of them networked in order to contiunously
>update traffic information and optimize routes.
Lots of people want to be in the car they are comfortable with, that
has maps in the left pocket, and their favorite CD or DVD in the
right.
And the baby's seat already is strapped in.
Howard Brazee
>> > Every taxi I ever took had a sizeable trunk :-)
>>
>> Sure, it's hard to track down the last one you took when you need to
>> get the stuff you're storing in it. :-)
>
>Oh, now I get it :) Yes, my car's trunk is empty most of the time.
I keep golf clubs in my car. If the weather is good and my heart
feels good, I stop at the course after work.
I don't want to take them into my cube every day.
Howard Brazee
<mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Robert DeNiro as a gangster shopping for cars: "Look at the size of this
>trunk. You can put three bodies in there."
I think it was in one of Donald E. Westlake's Dortmunder books where
thieves talk about the advantage of stealing cars from physicians.
Mike Schilling
"Howard Brazee" <how...@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:c9d2k2tuj3dfpbi36...@4ax.com...
Kelp loves to steal cars with M.D. plates because doctors have money and
care about comfort, so they buy the best. And when you're done with it, you
can park it anywhere legal or not, and passers-by will assume there was a
medical emergency rather than calling the cops, allowing a clean getaway.
Ken from Chicago
<il...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:1161879281....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Yep, or you could lease out your car while you're working.
People like to own stuff and don't want to worry about cigarette smoke, food
stains, tears, etc.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ENa0h.22157$e66....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Robocars would have built-in anti-theft systems.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
Call in your orders to the store and have the car go pick them up. Give
access to the trunk to store personnel--who are trained packers--and you
only have to unload when the car returns home.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Michael S. Schiffer" <msch...@condor.depaul.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns98688449ADAE...@130.133.1.4...
Precisely. People love driving, but DESPISE commuting. Personally I'd like
to nap, read or play video games en route.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Jon Schild" <j...@aros.net> wrote in message
news:37a5d$4540c60d$42dbd96e$16...@aros.net...
With robocars, parents could monitor what kids are doing, who they are with,
for how long, where they went. Same goes for car owners who lend out their
cars. They can lock the car's route to a predetermined destination, as well
as maximum speed, number of stops, etc.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Dorothy J Heydt" <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in message
news:J7pFH...@kithrup.com...
Why should he? So many people today don't seem to realize they can turn
their cell phones off. I keep hearing people talking about leaving their
phones in the car, etc. to avoid hearing it or tired of being "leashed" by
it.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"lal_truckee" <lal_t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:on60h.22103$e66....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
You can trace cell phone signals to nearest cell phone towers.
-- Ken from Chicago
David Johnston
<mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Robert DeNiro as a gangster shopping for cars: "Look at the size of this
>trunk. You can put three bodies in there."
>
Wasn't he trying to sell cars?
David Harmon
Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote,
>Robocars would have built-in anti-theft systems.
Robocars would have built-in lock the doors and home to the nearest
police station systems. (Stranger in a Strange Land, RAH.)
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
There's probably a Goulart story in that somewhere..
Ted
Joseph Nebus
No, selling bodies.
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Meilinger
> Precisely. People love driving, but DESPISE commuting. Personally I'd like
> to nap, read or play video games en route.
I'm pretty sure I've seen drivers on my commute doing all three.
Possibly at the same time. It's the only explanation I can come up
with, at least.
I do remember reading about one of the Charlies Angels actresses
(I think it was Drew Barrymore) being pulled over because she was
watching a movie while driving.
Pete
Peter Meilinger
> With robocars, parents could monitor what kids are doing, who they are with,
> for how long, where they went. Same goes for car owners who lend out their
> cars. They can lock the car's route to a predetermined destination, as well
> as maximum speed, number of stops, etc.
Sure, until someone posts instructions on getting around the safeguards
on the net. Of course, they'll probalby make it illegal to even discuss
getting around the safeguards. That'll stop 'em.
Pete
Ed
I remember in "Forever Knight," Nick Knight, vampire cop, drives around
in a really cool 1966 Cadillac convertable... because it has the
largest trunk space of any car made and he can use it as an emergency
"coffin" if he has to.
Joe Bednorz
He might have had to explain to his parents (or the Academy
authorities) *why* he'd turn the phone off. His parents especially
would know the difference between not answering the phone and the phone
being unreachable.
Which brings up another "prediction" by Heinlein. In "Between
Planets" a character uses his phone answering service to screen his
calls. (The story was written in 1951.) David Gerrold wrote a column
in PC TECHNIQUES(?) magazine about how amazed he was by the accuracy of
that throw-away piece of background.
>
>Why should he? So many people today don't seem to realize they can turn
>their cell phones off. I keep hearing people talking about leaving their
>phones in the car, etc. to avoid hearing it or tired of being "leashed" by
>it.
>
More than that, I think it makes a better point in the story to stow
the phone in luggage to avoid it. I think that's where a lot of the
"failed prediction" talk comes from.
Along those same lines, in "The Roads Must Roll" Heinlein probably
wasn't talking about as major a change as some might think. It's just
commuter trains writ large.
I've ridden Amtrak. Could get up and walk around. Nice dining car.
Not a bad way to travel. A bar car could be an even bigger
improvement. But the problem with passenger trains is the same as it is
for roadcities. You're moving a ridiculous amount of mass and taking up
valuable track space to move a much smaller mass of people.
It's difficult to stow people in a space efficient manner. See "The
Fifth Element" where Bruce Willis is stowed in a tiny hyper-sleep like
chamber for the duration of one FTL flight.
--
Free SF and more online: <http://www.mindspring.com/~jbednorz/Free/>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer>:
"WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY"
All the best, Joe Bednorz
Joe Bednorz
>Robocars would have built-in anti-theft systems.
>
Sudden flashback to the scene in STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND where the
reporter's cab is hijacked by remote control by the authorities.
r.r...@thevine.net
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
><r.r...@thevine.net> wrote in message
>news:sod0k2p695tl4d2d9...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:04:17 GMT, lal_truckee <lal_t...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Mike Schilling wrote:
>>>> I recall an Asimov essay in which he opined that anyone can predict
>>>> technological advances; what makes a great SF author is his ability to
>>>> predict the consequences. For example, it wasn't hard in the early 20th
>>>> century to write a story in which everyone got around in automobiles,
>>>> but it
>>>> would have taken real insight to write about traffic jams.
>>>
>>>Well, you're on the right track. Except it wouldn't take special insight
>>>to predict traffic jams, since traffic jams were already a fact of life
>>>in the horse drawn era urban areas - photos exist.
>>>
>>>Insight would be predicting changes in dating and sexual behavior
>>>deriving from all those backseats; prior to the automobile courting was
>>>an observable activity, post it could be a private activity. Major
>>>social ramifications, still being sorted out today (see: "morning after
>>>pill.")
>>
>> I recall reading someone's diatribe about that new-fangled device that
>> allowed young mothers to flounce around town, going hither and yon at
>> all hours of the day, instead of being modestly and quietly at home,
>> and the moral decay that was sure to bring about the fall of Society
>> as We Know It. Who would have thought that the baby carriage would be
>> such a revolutionary invention?
>>
>> Rebecca
>
>Robocars would unravel cities. No need to bunch up so tightly if you can
>spread out and your car automatically takes you where you wanna go. The
>elderly could gain more independence. Parents can stop chaffeuring their
>kids around. Cars could get more maintenance by automatically going to gas
>stations, oil stations and mechanics for fuel, maintenance and
>repairs--without requiring people to change daily itineraries. Everyone
>could have valet parking at restaurants, movie theaters, sporting events,
>jobs, etc. Ground transportation would skyrocket since you could have a
>truck travel 24/7, or fleets of trucks, with a human supervisors. Road rage,
>new drivers, drowsy drivers, drunk drivers, distracted drivers, youth
>drivers would be eliminated.
>
Am I the only one who finds the thought of turning my driving over to
a machine to be disturbing? I don't mind if someone else drives, but
trusting tech that much....
Rebecca
r.r...@thevine.net
wrote:
>In the Year of the Dog, the Great and Powerful Jon Schild declared:
>> But he pointed out that nobody seems
>> to remember the way it was when he was a young man. True, with a horse
>> and carriage they couldn't go far. But, "the horse knew the way home."
>> The young lovers could do all sorts of things in the dark of night while
>> the horse took them home on his own, and nobody would be the wiser
>
>What, nobody watches Fort Apache or McLintock! anymore? That's a
>pretty standard trope in western films, though we of course never
>see the lovers do anything untoward (though it is sometimes implied).
I have seen some experts say that it wasn't that people didn't do
things "back when", it's just that it was understood that if you did
do things, you were going to get married. So, the number of
percentage of unmarried teens that get pregnant has increased in
modern days, but not the number of teenage pregnancies. Take this
with as much salt as you want, since I don't have any good cites for
it.
Rebecca
Joe Bednorz
Heinlein's "Every generation thinks it invented sex" seems apropos.
Except for the past 30+ years it's turned into "Everyone thinks sex was
invented in the 1960s in the USA."
Ed
That was one of the points of the otherwise lackluster "I, Robot,"
where Will Smith's character is one of the few (if not the only) who
insists on the most part on doing his own driving.
Ken from Chicago
"David Harmon" <sou...@netcom.com> wrote in message
news:45a86dab....@news.west.earthlink.net...
That's definitely anti-theft.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Joe Bednorz" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:8f83k2p8iajpi3ek7...@4ax.com...
No, the authorities "commandeer" not "hijack".
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Peter Meilinger" <p_mei...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1161921394.4...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Cars outside of America can come with video players in the front seat.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
<r.r...@thevine.net> wrote in message
news:t983k2lq8threfijf...@4ax.com...
You already do. Power steering, power brakes, anti-lock brakes,
stabilitrack, cruise control, smart cruise control, auto-park, etc.
Meanwhile OVER TEN TIMES the number of die every year since 2001 die in
America in car crashes than died 9/11/2001.
-- Ken from Chicago
jackli...@earthlink.net
Mike Schilling wrote:
> I recall an Asimov essay in which he opined that anyone can predict
> technological advances; what makes a great SF author is his ability to
> predict the consequences. For example, it wasn't hard in the early 20th
> century to write a story in which everyone got around in automobiles, but it
> would have taken real insight to write about traffic jams.
>
> Legacy" [1], in which Dr. Ben Coburn, wanting to enjoy a dinner out without
> interruptions, deliberately leaves his "pocketphone" in his other suit.
>
Can anyone match Cleve Cartmill's "Deadline". Predicted the atomic
bomb, caused a major uproar, lives as an urban legend?
Tne anecdote out of science fiction's history that almost everyone
has heard of is the tale of how Cleve Cartmill, a competent writer of
middling abilities, published a story describing the workings of the
atomic bomb in a 1944 issue of John Campbell's magazine Astounding
Science Fiction, fourteen months before the first successful atomic
explosion at the Alamogordo testing grounds, thus causing a Federal
security agency to investigate both Cartmill and Campbell to see if
there had been a leak of top-secret military information.
http://www.asimovs.com/_issue_0310/ref.shtml
Ken from Chicago
"Ed" <edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1161944573.9...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Except you hate commuting. You like driving, but utterly despise commuting.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
That's why you robocars would have wifi updates for the latest virus
protection.
-- Ken from Chicago
Tapio Erola
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 20:18:38 -0500, Ken from Chicago wrote:
>
> >Robocars would have built-in anti-theft systems.
>
> Sudden flashback to the scene in STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND where the
> reporter's cab is hijacked by remote control by the authorities.
Urghh... One thing I would really like, legal or illegal, if I ever
owned a robocar: Manual override. Hidden, coded or whatever to keep
unauthorized people from using it. Preferably with transponder
off-switch.
Probably illegal as hell...
ObMovie: Another funky accessory: Anti-Theft system like the one advertised
in Robocop 2...
--
Tapio Erola
There are no mysteries, only unsolved puzzles.
Sea Wasp
> "Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ENa0h.22157$e66....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>>Kelp loves to steal cars with M.D. plates because doctors have money and
>>care about comfort, so they buy the best. And when you're done with it,
>>you can park it anywhere legal or not, and passers-by will assume there
>>was a medical emergency rather than calling the cops, allowing a clean
>>getaway.
>
>
> Robocars would have built-in anti-theft systems.
>
Would they be as touchily annoying as current "anti-theft" systems?
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
Sea Wasp
"That's far enough, Kloog..."
Sea Wasp
>>Am I the only one who finds the thought of turning my driving over to
>>a machine to be disturbing? I don't mind if someone else drives, but
>>trusting tech that much....
>>
>>Rebecca
>
>
> You already do. Power steering, power brakes, anti-lock brakes,
> stabilitrack, cruise control, smart cruise control, auto-park, etc.
I didn't have ANY of those in any car I owned until the past three
years. And none of those, even auto-park, is even vaguely close to
what you'd be doing if you were trusting the car to do the driving.
Sea Wasp
>
> Except you hate commuting. You like driving, but utterly despise commuting.
Why do you tell us what we like or hate?
I don't particularly LIKE driving, but my morning commute is rather
relaxing.
jonme...@gmail.com
> I recall an Asimov essay in which he opined that anyone can predict
> technological advances; what makes a great SF author is his ability to
> predict the consequences. For example, it wasn't hard in the early 20th
> century to write a story in which everyone got around in automobiles, but it
> would have taken real insight to write about traffic jams.
>
> Legacy" [1], in which Dr. Ben Coburn, wanting to enjoy a dinner out without
> interruptions, deliberately leaves his "pocketphone" in his other suit.
And then there's the ending of Jack Vance's "The Palace of Love", where
the villain forgets one essential item on the Evil Overlord's List:
SPOILER
If you need to risk capture by your enemies, leave the cell phone at
home.
Howard Brazee
>I have seen some experts say that it wasn't that people didn't do
>things "back when", it's just that it was understood that if you did
>do things, you were going to get married. So, the number of
>percentage of unmarried teens that get pregnant has increased in
>modern days, but not the number of teenage pregnancies. Take this
>with as much salt as you want, since I don't have any good cites for
>it.
I've read that teen pregnancies were as common back then - which
resulted in teen marriages.
r.r...@thevine.net
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
Some people do. I have power steering and power brakes, both of which
are merely assistive, not replacive, devices. And I know how they are
going to fail, and can handle that. I have only used cruise control
on really long trips, because I tend to find that I have to fuss with
it too much because of the other traffic. And I still drive a manual,
because I want to feel like I'm driving when I am in my car. I only
curse that decision when I am in stop-n-go traffic.
And none of that is the same as handing over every driving decision to
a machine. For example, I tend to take a route to work that is
slightly less efficient, because I like it more than the most
efficient route. And when I was working out in Dallas, I based my
decision on which route to take on which one would have more "moving"
in it, even though both routes would get me there in the same amount
of time. (The choice was between shorter/slower speed and
longer/higher speed.) Is the traffic control system going to take all
those individual quirks into consideration, or is it going to be more
like an airline or bus system, and decide that the easiest thing to do
is take a bunch of people from outlying areas to a hub, then switch
them over to other outbound systems? And what about when I get
frustrated because I know that, if I were driving, I could just cut
over a block down that residential street and save myself 2 minutes,
while the traffic control system wants me to spend 3 minutes getting
there by sticking to the main roads?
Rebecca
John Bauman
> Am I the only one who finds the thought of turning my driving over to
> a machine to be disturbing? I don't mind if someone else drives, but
> trusting tech that much....
>
Michael S. Schiffer
news:7kidnTAnJNv...@ptd.net:
And regulations and liability being what they are, it probably won't
be legal and salable till it's not just better than the average
human driver, but much better, assuming that proves practical. (And
if it doesn't, they'll never be street legal.) Though there may be
a stage in which various degrees of automation are treated like
cruise control, where the driver is still expected to be in control
and to take over at an instant's notice if conditions change.
(There will, of course, be people who ignore that, but the evidence
suggests that people are already reading, watching movies, and
otherwise neglecting the operation of their multi-ton murder weapons
now.)
I wonder if there was similar apprehension about the idea of
switching over from human-operated elevators. (A much simpler
problem, obviously, but still-- who wants to risk some mindless
machine slamming you down twenty stories? And what if it's an
emergency? I can tell that to Joe the operator, but an automatic
elevator will stop for every call button even if I left my inhaler
ten floors away.)
Mike
--
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS
msch...@condor.depaul.edu
Peter Meilinger
> Ken from Chicago wrote:
> > Robocars would have built-in anti-theft systems.
>
> Would they be as touchily annoying as current "anti-theft" systems?
'91 or '92, we were walking home from a bar on the sidewalk, not
particularly close to the curb, and a car we passed announces, very
loudly, "Alert! You are violating my perimeter!" Only time I've been
even vaguely tempted to key someone's car. I haven't encountered
any more like that, so maybe it did turn out to cause more trouble
than it prevented.
Then there was the quiet Sunday morning when I saw a guy double
park and head into an apartment building, and to make sure no one
messed with his car he deliberately set off the alarm and let it keep
going until he came back out. And I take it back, there have been
two instances where I've been tempted to key someone's car.
Pete
Default User
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 20:18:38 -0500 in rec.arts.sf.written, "Ken from
> Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote,
> > Robocars would have built-in anti-theft systems.
>
> Robocars would have built-in lock the doors and home to the nearest
> police station systems. (Stranger in a Strange Land, RAH.)
They have those "bait cars" the cops use to trap car thieves that start
up then kill the engine and lock the doors. Leads to funny hidden
camera footage.
So, sort of part way there.
Brian
--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)
Gene Wirchenko
[snip]
>them over to other outbound systems? And what about when I get
>frustrated because I know that, if I were driving, I could just cut
>over a block down that residential street and save myself 2 minutes,
>while the traffic control system wants me to spend 3 minutes getting
>there by sticking to the main roads?
I wrote up my adventures with a GPS-based map system and
submitted it to RISKS. Unfortunately, it did not make the cut. The
system made some rather poor decisions at times, one time telling me
to turn left when I should have turned right. I turned right, and
then the system caught on. There were other examples.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.
Gene Wirchenko
>On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 20:32:50 -0500, Ken from Chicago wrote:
>>"Dorothy J Heydt" <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in message
>>news:J7pFH...@kithrup.com...
[snip]
>>> THAT's what he didn't predict: the concept of being able to turn
>>> the phone off.
>
> He might have had to explain to his parents (or the Academy
>authorities) *why* he'd turn the phone off. His parents especially
>would know the difference between not answering the phone and the phone
>being unreachable.
My mother used to unplug her phone when she wanted peace and
quiet. She said that some people were aghast. "You can't do that!"
and the like. Well, of course she could.
[snip]
Michael S. Schiffer
news:4194k21b9ke5h8o1l...@4ax.com:
>...
> And none of that is the same as handing over every driving
> decision to a machine. For example, I tend to take a route to
> work that is slightly less efficient, because I like it more
> than the most efficient route. And when I was working out in
> Dallas, I based my decision on which route to take on which one
> would have more "moving" in it, even though both routes would
> get me there in the same amount of time. (The choice was
> between shorter/slower speed and longer/higher speed.) Is the
> traffic control system going to take all those individual quirks
> into consideration, or is it going to be more like an airline or
> bus system, and decide that the easiest thing to do is take a
> bunch of people from outlying areas to a hub, then switch them
> over to other outbound systems?
I observe that freeways likewise trade fine control over routing for
greater overall efficiency. (And sometimes it's faster to take
surface streets-- but you're still not allowed to switch from one
system to the other anywhere but a designated entry or exit.)
Likewise, there are times when it would be faster to cut off the
road entirely-- drive through someone's yard, or enter a parking lot
by driving over the grass and sidewalk instead of waiting till you
get to the entrance. (You can do it walking, why not driving?) Any
different system is likely to require different compromises-- if the
advantages outweigh the disadvantages, then people will switch. If
they don't, then it'll remain a curiosity.
So either an automated system will get most people where they're
going faster and more comfortably than self-driving most of the
time, or else no one will buy the systems in the first place.
(Which is possible, though I'm guessing that it's a matter of time
for development-- whether that time is closer to fifteen years or
fifty is another question.) Just as no one would buy a plane ticket
if you only told them "You'll have to wait hours to get on, you'll
have to consent to searches previously reserved for those under
arrest, you'll go a circuitous route, and you'll be at the mercy of
the transport company's schedule and the weather", without
mentioning the part about travelling ten times as fast as a car, or
being orders of magnitude safer. Ditto if you said "we're building
a road that you can only leave every few miles, and if one person
has an accident you'll be backed up for miles" without the part
about no stoplights and higher permitted speeds.
And what about when I get
> frustrated because I know that, if I were driving, I could just
> cut over a block down that residential street and save myself 2
> minutes, while the traffic control system wants me to spend 3
> minutes getting there by sticking to the main roads?
What if I get frustrated when the airliner I'm riding passes *right*
over my house and lands many miles away, so that I have to spend
hours getting back there by other means? Why did I pay to let
someone else make navigation decisions that inconvenience me? And
why do I then drive home in a car limited to roads when I could walk
a bee line that would cover a much shorter distance?
Certainly an automated car that's slower, less flexible, and offers
no compensatory advantages relative to self-driving would be a pain
and a half-- I don't know why anyone would try to sell one. (Except
maybe as a remedial device for the disabled.) Is that really the
only kind that seems imaginable with plausible automation advance?
Ken from Chicago
"Default User" <defaul...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4qeub4F...@individual.net...
Yeah, I saw those on one of those tv magazine shows. The thieves are
pounding on the steering wheel, door, window, whatnot. Hysterical.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Tapio Erola" <t...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
news:m3slha5...@localhost.localdomain...
> Joe Bednorz <inv...@invalid.invalid> writes:
>
>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 20:18:38 -0500, Ken from Chicago wrote:
>>
>> >Robocars would have built-in anti-theft systems.
>>
>> Sudden flashback to the scene in STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND where the
>> reporter's cab is hijacked by remote control by the authorities.
>
> Urghh... One thing I would really like, legal or illegal, if I ever
> owned a robocar: Manual override. Hidden, coded or whatever to keep
> unauthorized people from using it. Preferably with transponder
> off-switch.
Robocars would be programmed by the owner who may drive it.
> Probably illegal as hell...
Manual override would be a key selling point to overcoming initial
reluctance.
> ObMovie: Another funky accessory: Anti-Theft system like the one
> advertised
> in Robocop 2...
You're gonna make us remember ROBOCOP 2?
> --
> Tapio Erola
>
> There are no mysteries, only unsolved puzzles.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Sea Wasp" <seawasp...@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote in message
news:4541F828...@sgeobviousinc.com...
> Ken from Chicago wrote:
>> "Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:ENa0h.22157$e66....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>>Kelp loves to steal cars with M.D. plates because doctors have money and
>>>care about comfort, so they buy the best. And when you're done with it,
>>>you can park it anywhere legal or not, and passers-by will assume there
>>>was a medical emergency rather than calling the cops, allowing a clean
>>>getaway.
>>
>>
>> Robocars would have built-in anti-theft systems.
>>
>
> Would they be as touchily annoying as current "anti-theft" systems?
Annoyance level up to the owner: Passcode. Pass phrase. Voiceprint.
Fingerprint. Retina scan. Breathalyzer. DNA scan. Remote starter. Key.
You set the level of security.
> --
> Sea Wasp
> /^\
> ;;; Live Journal:
> http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
> Ken from Chicago wrote:
>
>>
>> Except you hate commuting. You like driving, but utterly despise
>> commuting.
>
> Why do you tell us what we like or hate?
Megalomania.
> I don't particularly LIKE driving, but my morning commute is rather
> relaxing.
>
>
> --
> Sea Wasp
> /^\
> ;;; Live Journal:
> http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
>
Then that's not "real" commuting. That's a morning drive.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
You've never been on an elevator ... "car"?
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
<r.r...@thevine.net> wrote in message
news:4194k21b9ke5h8o1l...@4ax.com...
That's where "smart" cruise control comes in. It has motion detectors to
automatically adjust your speed to the vehicle in front. If it slows down,
you slow down. If they speed up, you speed up until you resume your cruising
speed. If they stop you stop.
> And none of that is the same as handing over every driving decision to
> a machine. For example, I tend to take a route to work that is
> slightly less efficient, because I like it more than the most
> efficient route. And when I was working out in Dallas, I based my
> decision on which route to take on which one would have more "moving"
> in it, even though both routes would get me there in the same amount
> of time. (The choice was between shorter/slower speed and
> longer/higher speed.) Is the traffic control system going to take all
> those individual quirks into consideration, or is it going to be more
> like an airline or bus system, and decide that the easiest thing to do
> is take a bunch of people from outlying areas to a hub, then switch
> them over to other outbound systems? And what about when I get
> frustrated because I know that, if I were driving, I could just cut
> over a block down that residential street and save myself 2 minutes,
> while the traffic control system wants me to spend 3 minutes getting
> there by sticking to the main roads?
>
> Rebecca
Ah, common mistake. You're thinking of robocar as a centrally controlled
traffic system like air traffic control or elevator controls or train
controls. No, robocar would be more like your own personal chaffeur. It has
recommended routes, but you can direct it to take detours or your own
personal route. It would be a bad chaffeur not to listen to you. Bad, bad,
bad chaffeur.
Moreover with wifi networking it can monitor the internet to get updated
real-time traffic in the immediate vicinity or by pinging cars and road
monitors along the route your driveplan, and thus adjust your course
automatically, or alert you to approve course changes. Hubs would be bad.
Another word for "hub" is "bottleneck". Having real-time traffic allows for
cars to be more evenly distributed.
Also cooperative wifi networking would allow pairs of cars to do rock /
paper / scissors decisions as to who goes first--without stopping--during
mergers onto expressways, streets, lane closures, accidents. It's mergers
where most traffic jams up. That and distracted drivers.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Michael S. Schiffer" <msch...@condor.depaul.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns986978BDB5AA...@130.133.1.4...
You mean like trains or planes or ships?
-- Ken from Chicago
Ed
No, I liked the guy, as the cops are coming in started screaming; "It
wasn't me! It wasn't me! I can tell you who did it!"
Joe Bednorz
>
>"David Harmon" <sou...@netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:45a86dab....@news.west.earthlink.net...
>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 20:18:38 -0500 in rec.arts.sf.written, "Ken from
>> Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote,
>>>Robocars would have built-in anti-theft systems.
>>
>> Robocars would have built-in lock the doors and home to the nearest
>> police station systems. (Stranger in a Strange Land, RAH.)
>
>That's definitely anti-theft.
In SiaSL it was kidnapping combined with unlawful detention.
More like pro-theft.
--
Free SF and more online: <http://www.mindspring.com/~jbednorz/Free/>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer>:
"WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY"
All the best, Joe Bednorz
Joe Bednorz
>
>"Tapio Erola" <t...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
>news:m3slha5...@localhost.localdomain...
>> Joe Bednorz <inv...@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 20:18:38 -0500, Ken from Chicago wrote:
>>>
>>> >Robocars would have built-in anti-theft systems.
>>>
>>> Sudden flashback to the scene in STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND where the
>>> reporter's cab is hijacked by remote control by the authorities.
>>
>> Urghh... One thing I would really like, legal or illegal, if I ever
>> owned a robocar: Manual override. Hidden, coded or whatever to keep
>> unauthorized people from using it. Preferably with transponder
>> off-switch.
>
>Robocars would be programmed by the owner who may drive it.
>
Which would lead to the conclusion that anyone driving it is
authorized by the owner, making the owner legally responsible for
accidents and activities facilitated by the vehicle.
"Your car was used in the getaway. You had to authorize this.
Therefore you are an accessory. Book 'em, Dano."
Think that won't happen? Right now insurance companies are denying
claims for stolen cars because the cars are "theft-proof." Despite the
fact that there's a built-in back door:
------ Begin First Quote from Risks --------------
<http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/24.38.html#subj1>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 09:46:30 -0700
From: Joshua Levy <l...@csl.sri.com>
Subject: RFID car keys and insurance
[Source: Brad Stone, Pinch My Ride, *WiReD News*; PGN-ed]
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.08/carkey_pr.html
To make a long story short, Emad Wassef had his Lincoln Navigator
stolen from a Target parking lot in Orange County, California. He
reported the theft to police and his insurance company. Two weeks later
the SUV turned up near the Mexican boarder, stripped. His insurance
company (Unitrin Direct) claimed the transponder antitheft system is
absolutely nonspoofable.
Brad Stone (the author of the article) himself had had a similar
experience two years before, which he had written up for *Newsweeek*
[sic] in 2004, which led to many letters reporting similar thefts. Brad
suggests various possibilities. Cloned key? Masquerader requesting a
duplicate for an observed vehicle identification number? He also
discovered there is an emergency override known to insiders, involving a
particular nongeneric sequence of mechanical actions. The moral of this
story is that if you believe your transponder makes you more secure and
less likely to get stiffed by your insurance company, forget about it.
------ End First Quote from Risks --------------
There may be followups in succeeding issues of Risks.
>> Probably illegal as hell...
>
>Manual override would be a key selling point to overcoming initial
>reluctance.
Have manual override at first, then change to authority enforced.
The old bait and switch:
------ Begin Second Quote from Risks --------------
From <http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/24.38.html#subj2>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 18:15:10 +1200
From: Nickee Sanders <njsand...@ihug.co.nz>
Subject: Anti-hijack software: what a great idea!
A joint European effort is working on software that would enable
remote control of an aircraft that could override any attempts by
hijackers to control the plane, and force a safe landing. "The system
would be designed in such a way that even a computer hacker on board
could not get round it."
If successful, it would resolve various debates such as those going on
in Germany about shooting down hijacked commercial airliners. The
project is budgeted for 36m Euros.
[Source: Yahoo News, 22 Jul 2006; PGN-ed]
<http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1509&e=10&u=/afp/20060722/tc_afp/germanyeuunrest>
If only it were April Fools' Day...
Nickee Sanders, Software Engineer, Auckland, New Zealand
[Ah, perfect security at long last! How reassuring to RISKS readers.
PGN]
------ End Second Quote from Risks --------------
Those are posted to the comp.risks newsgroup for reading via Usenet.
Looks like a great source of ideas for written SF. In fact, a lot of it
reads like SF scare stories.
Joe Bednorz
>
>"Sea Wasp" <seawasp...@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote in message
>news:4541FA19...@sgeobviousinc.com...
>> Ken from Chicago wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Except you hate commuting. You like driving, but utterly despise
>>> commuting.
>>
>> Why do you tell us what we like or hate?
>
>Megalomania.
You can't have megalomania. *I* have megalomania.
Sea Wasp
> "Sea Wasp" <seawasp...@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote in message
> news:4541F828...@sgeobviousinc.com...
>
>>Ken from Chicago wrote:
>>
>>>"Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:ENa0h.22157$e66....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>>>>Kelp loves to steal cars with M.D. plates because doctors have money and
>>>>care about comfort, so they buy the best. And when you're done with it,
>>>>you can park it anywhere legal or not, and passers-by will assume there
>>>>was a medical emergency rather than calling the cops, allowing a clean
>>>>getaway.
>>>
>>>
>>>Robocars would have built-in anti-theft systems.
>>>
>>
>>Would they be as touchily annoying as current "anti-theft" systems?
>
>
> Annoyance level up to the owner: Passcode. Pass phrase. Voiceprint.
> Fingerprint. Retina scan. Breathalyzer. DNA scan. Remote starter. Key.
>
> You set the level of security.
Who CARES about the owner's method of access? I was asking if they
were going to be as touchily annoying to ME. I.e., waking up and
screaming bloody murder that can be heard for six blocks because a
wounded butterfly bumped against it.
Joe Bednorz
>
>
>Moreover with wifi networking it can monitor the internet to get updated
>real-time traffic in the immediate vicinity or by pinging cars and road
>monitors along the route your driveplan, and thus adjust your course
>automatically, or alert you to approve course changes. Hubs would be bad.
>Another word for "hub" is "bottleneck". Having real-time traffic allows for
>cars to be more evenly distributed.
The results of automating that would be interesting. There's an urban
legend(?) that when the radio reports a traffic snafu, you should
actually try to take that route. Everyone else will be trying to avoid
it.
There's also the reporting delay factor. By the time the report comes
out and everyone has heard it, the snafu is gone. Plus, people may
remember the report long after the problem is cleared up.
--
<http://wondersmith.com/scifi/micro.htm> - microMEGAS by Voltaire.
"A daring and heretical yarn when published in 1752, "microMEGAS" is the
original SF short story, and still one of the best."
- Blake Linton Wilfong
All the best, Joe Bednorz
>
Sea Wasp
> "Sea Wasp" <seawasp...@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote in message
> news:4541FA19...@sgeobviousinc.com...
>
>>Ken from Chicago wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Except you hate commuting. You like driving, but utterly despise
>>>commuting.
>>
>>Why do you tell us what we like or hate?
>
>
> Megalomania.
I'm the only one entitled to that!
>
>
>>I don't particularly LIKE driving, but my morning commute is rather
>>relaxing.
>>
>
> Then that's not "real" commuting. That's a morning drive.
So it's only real commuting if you hate it?
Bill Snyder
<seawasp...@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote:
>Ken from Chicago wrote:
>> "Sea Wasp" <seawasp...@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote in message
>> news:4541FA19...@sgeobviousinc.com...
>>
>>>Ken from Chicago wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Except you hate commuting. You like driving, but utterly despise
>>>>commuting.
>>>
>>>Why do you tell us what we like or hate?
>>
>>
>> Megalomania.
>
> I'm the only one entitled to that!
Fine, you and Joe can be happy in your delusions of grandeur, while I
enjoy the reality.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
Sea Wasp
Insanity doesn't mean I'm wrong.
Ken from Chicago
"Joe Bednorz" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:kc15k25si8n841s3n...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 14:09:22 -0500, Ken from Chicago wrote:
>
>>
>>"Tapio Erola" <t...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
>>news:m3slha5...@localhost.localdomain...
>>> Joe Bednorz <inv...@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 20:18:38 -0500, Ken from Chicago wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >Robocars would have built-in anti-theft systems.
>>>>
>>>> Sudden flashback to the scene in STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND where the
>>>> reporter's cab is hijacked by remote control by the authorities.
>>>
>>> Urghh... One thing I would really like, legal or illegal, if I ever
>>> owned a robocar: Manual override. Hidden, coded or whatever to keep
>>> unauthorized people from using it. Preferably with transponder
>>> off-switch.
>>
>>Robocars would be programmed by the owner who may drive it.
>>
>
> Which would lead to the conclusion that anyone driving it is
> authorized by the owner, making the owner legally responsible for
> accidents and activities facilitated by the vehicle.
The built-in cameras would show otherwise.
The road tolls are only temporary.
Social Security Numbers will never be used as National Identity code.
The first one's free.
Besides, it's for your own good.
It's not like hijackers could hijack a plane remotely.
That and I'm sure the new Tamper-Proof ID that Congress is talking about for
immigrants will be tamper-proof--and only for immigrants.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
Local noise ordinance would automatically download into the vehicle about
how much--if any--noise could be allowed by car alarms. More likely the car
alarm would send signals to the owners phone, cell phone, and local police.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Joe Bednorz" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 14:14:09 -0500, Ken from Chicago wrote:
>
>>
>>"Sea Wasp" <seawasp...@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote in message
>>news:4541FA19...@sgeobviousinc.com...
>>> Ken from Chicago wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Except you hate commuting. You like driving, but utterly despise
>>>> commuting.
>>>
>>> Why do you tell us what we like or hate?
>>
>>Megalomania.
>
> You can't have megalomania. *I* have megalomania.
Fine, I have maximania.
> --
> Free SF and more online: <http://www.mindspring.com/~jbednorz/Free/>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer>:
> "WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY"
> All the best, Joe Bednorz
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Joe Bednorz" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 14:37:16 -0500, Ken from Chicago wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Moreover with wifi networking it can monitor the internet to get updated
>>real-time traffic in the immediate vicinity or by pinging cars and road
>>monitors along the route your driveplan, and thus adjust your course
>>automatically, or alert you to approve course changes. Hubs would be bad.
>>Another word for "hub" is "bottleneck". Having real-time traffic allows
>>for
>>cars to be more evenly distributed.
>
> The results of automating that would be interesting. There's an urban
> legend(?) that when the radio reports a traffic snafu, you should
> actually try to take that route. Everyone else will be trying to avoid
> it.
>
> There's also the reporting delay factor. By the time the report comes
> out and everyone has heard it, the snafu is gone. Plus, people may
> remember the report long after the problem is cleared up.
With the cars networked, you could have realtime data. You ping the cars
along your route to get anonymous location, direction and speed and you have
realtime traffic report. (Natch, law enforcement could get said data with a
warrant.)
> --
> <http://wondersmith.com/scifi/micro.htm> - microMEGAS by Voltaire.
> "A daring and heretical yarn when published in 1752, "microMEGAS" is the
> original SF short story, and still one of the best."
> - Blake Linton Wilfong
> All the best, Joe Bednorz
-- Ken from Chicago
John Schilling
<seawasp...@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote:
>Ken from Chicago wrote:
>> "Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:ENa0h.22157$e66....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>>>Kelp loves to steal cars with M.D. plates because doctors have money and
>>>care about comfort, so they buy the best. And when you're done with it,
>>>you can park it anywhere legal or not, and passers-by will assume there
>>>was a medical emergency rather than calling the cops, allowing a clean
>>>getaway.
>> Robocars would have built-in anti-theft systems.
> Would they be as touchily annoying as current "anti-theft" systems?
More to the point, would they be as *uselessly* annoying as the current
variety?
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
Peter Meilinger
> ------ Begin Second Quote from Risks --------------
> From <http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/24.38.html#subj2>
>
> Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 18:15:10 +1200
> From: Nickee Sanders <njsand...@ihug.co.nz>
> Subject: Anti-hijack software: what a great idea!
>
> A joint European effort is working on software that would enable
> remote control of an aircraft that could override any attempts by
> hijackers to control the plane, and force a safe landing. "The system
> would be designed in such a way that even a computer hacker on board
> could not get round it."
Leaving aside whether or not it really, truly could never be hacked,
what sort of success rate are they envisioning for the remote control
landings? I mean, if it were easy and reliable, they'd already be
doing it that way, right? Not to mention I would imagine suicidal
hijackers could still manage to crash the plane, which would
suck even though they couldn't aim it wherever they wanted
to.
I suppose the remote control would have a better chance of
working during a hijacking if you could really, truly keep the
hijackers out of the cockpit no matter what, but if that's the
case shouldn't the pilot and/or co-pilot still be in there, too,
and available to land the plane? How many scenarios can
you think of where there's absolutely no one in the cockpit?
Not to mention that hijackers in the cabin of the plane could
still probably damage the plane bad enough to crash it.
Assuming the scared and pissed off passengers leave them
alive long enough, of course.
Pete
Peter Meilinger
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 14:37:16 -0500, Ken from Chicago wrote:
> >Moreover with wifi networking it can monitor the internet to get updated
> >real-time traffic in the immediate vicinity or by pinging cars and road
> >monitors along the route your driveplan, and thus adjust your course
> >automatically, or alert you to approve course changes. Hubs would be bad.
> >Another word for "hub" is "bottleneck". Having real-time traffic allows for
> >cars to be more evenly distributed.
>
> The results of automating that would be interesting. There's an urban
> legend(?) that when the radio reports a traffic snafu, you should
> actually try to take that route. Everyone else will be trying to avoid
> it.
I can say from experience that this not normally the case. Never in
my experience, anyway. For one thing, there are only so many ways
to travel between the most popular point As and Bs. Most alternate
routes can't handle all that much extra traffic, so all you'd be doing
is making more problems, and probably not alleviating the original
problem all that much.
> There's also the reporting delay factor. By the time the report comes
> out and everyone has heard it, the snafu is gone. Plus, people may
> remember the report long after the problem is cleared up.
I've never experienced this, either, but it seems more likely. The
traffic reports on the radio are pretty frequent, though, and even
if they're not sent out immediately I'd say anyone paying attemtion
will know the most up to date conditions very shortly after they're
reported.
Pete
William December Starr
"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> said:
> "David Harmon" <sou...@netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:45a86dab....@news.west.earthlink.net...
>
>> Robocars would have built-in lock the doors and home to the
>> nearest police station systems. (Stranger in a Strange Land,
>> RAH.)
>
> That's definitely anti-theft.
Unless the cops are thieves.
--
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
Mike Schilling
> Ken from Chicago wrote:
>> "Sea Wasp" <seawasp...@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote in message
>> news:4541FA19...@sgeobviousinc.com...
>>
>>>Ken from Chicago wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Except you hate commuting. You like driving, but utterly despise
>>>>commuting.
>>>
>>>Why do you tell us what we like or hate?
>>
>>
>> Megalomania.
>
> I'm the only one entitled to that!
>
>>
>>
>>>I don't particularly LIKE driving, but my morning commute is rather
>>>relaxing.
>>>
>
>>
>> Then that's not "real" commuting. That's a morning drive.
>
> So it's only real commuting if you hate it?
Exactly. The same as jobs.
Gene Wirchenko
[snip]
>I observe that freeways likewise trade fine control over routing for
>greater overall efficiency. (And sometimes it's faster to take
>surface streets-- but you're still not allowed to switch from one
>system to the other anywhere but a designated entry or exit.)
>Likewise, there are times when it would be faster to cut off the
>road entirely-- drive through someone's yard, or enter a parking lot
>by driving over the grass and sidewalk instead of waiting till you
>get to the entrance. (You can do it walking, why not driving?) Any
>different system is likely to require different compromises-- if the
>advantages outweigh the disadvantages, then people will switch. If
>they don't, then it'll remain a curiosity.
There is an example of that in "Snowcrash". The Deliverator
takes a shortcut through a cookie-cutter development. Unfortunately,
the occupant of the property that he was cutting through had installed
a swimming pool.
[snip]
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.
Ken from Chicago
"William December Starr" <wds...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:ehunio$7gs$1...@panix3.panix.com...
Reporting it also to your insurance agency would be ... insurance ...
against that.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"John Schilling" <schi...@spock.usc.edu> wrote in message
news:mk15k2locgke1d2p5...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 12:14:31 GMT, Sea Wasp
> <seawasp...@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote:
>
>>Ken from Chicago wrote:
>>> "Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ENa0h.22157$e66....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>>>Kelp loves to steal cars with M.D. plates because doctors have money and
>>>>care about comfort, so they buy the best. And when you're done with it,
>>>>you can park it anywhere legal or not, and passers-by will assume there
>>>>was a medical emergency rather than calling the cops, allowing a clean
>>>>getaway.
>
>>> Robocars would have built-in anti-theft systems.
>
>> Would they be as touchily annoying as current "anti-theft" systems?
>
>
> More to the point, would they be as *uselessly* annoying as the current
> variety?
The noise would scare off thieves by attracting attention, while calls made
to the owner, police and insurance company as well as posting online video
of the theft taken from the robocar's external and internal cameras would
minimize chances of successful theft.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
> Ken from Chicago wrote:
>> "Sea Wasp" <seawasp...@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote in message
>> news:4541FA19...@sgeobviousinc.com...
>>
>>>Ken from Chicago wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Except you hate commuting. You like driving, but utterly despise
>>>>commuting.
>>>
>>>Why do you tell us what we like or hate?
>>
>>
>> Megalomania.
>
> I'm the only one entitled to that!
Fine, you and Joe Bednorz fight over who has megalomania, while I sit back
with maximania.
>>>I don't particularly LIKE driving, but my morning commute is rather
>>>relaxing.
>>>
>
>>
>> Then that's not "real" commuting. That's a morning drive.
>
> So it's only real commuting if you hate it?
You are correct.
> --
> Sea Wasp
> /^\
> ;;; Live Journal:
> http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
You don't have to be insane to have delusions.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
AMEN!
It's not "real" work if you like it.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Gene Wirchenko" <ge...@ocis.net> wrote in message
news:thv5k21aoa9ap75el...@4ax.com...
> "Michael S. Schiffer" <msch...@condor.depaul.edu> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>I observe that freeways likewise trade fine control over routing for
>>greater overall efficiency. (And sometimes it's faster to take
>>surface streets-- but you're still not allowed to switch from one
>>system to the other anywhere but a designated entry or exit.)
>>Likewise, there are times when it would be faster to cut off the
>>road entirely-- drive through someone's yard, or enter a parking lot
>>by driving over the grass and sidewalk instead of waiting till you
>>get to the entrance. (You can do it walking, why not driving?) Any
>>different system is likely to require different compromises-- if the
>>advantages outweigh the disadvantages, then people will switch. If
>>they don't, then it'll remain a curiosity.
>
> There is an example of that in "Snowcrash". The Deliverator
> takes a shortcut through a cookie-cutter development. Unfortunately,
> the occupant of the property that he was cutting through had installed
> a swimming pool.
>
> [snip]
That's why robocars would have wifi networking to constantly update maps.
Altho built-in sensors would detect obstacles so it could drive around, as
well as update its own map while posting data of said obstacle online for
others to note.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Peter Meilinger" <p_mei...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1162010091.1...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Exactly, while you might detour off a main road to a side street to avoid a
crash that just occurred, if you know ahead of time, you can simply reroute
along an alternative main road--since they have higher speed limits than
side streets.
Did I mention robocars would naturally have a higher speed limit than people
since they have no blind spots, no distraction, no drop off in skill level,
etc?
-- Ken from Chicago
Sea Wasp
>>Insanity doesn't mean I'm wrong.
>
> You don't have to be insane to have delusions.
>
All great men have been called mad!
Bill Snyder
<seawasp...@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote:
>Ken from Chicago wrote:
>> "Sea Wasp" <seawasp...@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote in message
>> news:45429FE3...@sgeobviousinc.com...
>
>>>Insanity doesn't mean I'm wrong.
>
>>
>> You don't have to be insane to have delusions.
>>
>
> All great men have been called mad!
Thank you, King Ludwig of Bavaria.
Derek Tattersall
> Ken from Chicago wrote:
>> "Sea Wasp" <seawasp...@sgeobviousinc.com> wrote in message
>> news:45429FE3...@sgeobviousinc.com...
>
>>>Insanity doesn't mean I'm wrong.
>
>>
>> You don't have to be insane to have delusions.
>>
>
> All great men have been called mad!
Although not all mad men have been called great.
--
Derek Tattersall