Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #214888 > unrolled thread

Computers on TV

Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers

Contents

  Computers on TV Douglas Miller <durgadas311@gmail.com> - 2020-10-25 16:47 -0700
    Re: Computers on TV Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-10-26 05:55 +0000
      Re: Computers on TV maus <maus@dmaus.org> - 2020-10-26 10:10 +0000
        Re: Computers on TV Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-10-26 11:13 +0000
          Re: Computers on TV Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-10-26 09:19 -0700
            Re: Computers on TV J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-10-26 12:52 -0400
              Re: Computers on TV Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-10-26 18:05 +0000
                Re: Computers on TV maus <maus@dmaus.org> - 2020-10-26 19:20 +0000
                  Re: Computers on TV Dallas <dallas@texas.usa> - 2020-10-26 14:52 -0500
                    Re: Computers on TV J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-10-26 18:10 -0400
                Re: Computers on TV J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-10-26 18:05 -0400
                  Re: Computers on TV Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-10-27 06:12 +0000
              Re: Computers on TV Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-10-26 15:40 -0700
                Re: Computers on TV Dallas <dallas@texas.usa> - 2020-10-26 18:17 -0500
                  Re: Computers on TV J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-10-27 00:04 -0400
                Re: Computers on TV J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-10-26 23:39 -0400
                Re: Computers on TV scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-10-27 14:44 +0000
              Re: Computers on TV Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2020-10-27 09:15 +0000
                Re: Computers on TV Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2020-10-27 09:19 +0000
            Re: Computers on TV Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-10-26 17:11 +0000
              Re: Computers on TV Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-10-26 15:42 -0700
                Re: Computers on TV Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-10-26 15:53 -0700
              Re: Computers on TV "Kerr-Mudd,John" <notsaying@127.0.0.1> - 2020-11-04 13:49 +0000
            Re: Computers on TV drb@ihatespam.msu.edu (Dennis Boone) - 2020-10-26 16:05 -0500
        Re: Computers on TV J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-10-26 08:27 -0400
          Re: Computers on TV Dallas <dallas@texas.usa> - 2020-10-26 07:55 -0500
            Re: Computers on TV maus <maus@dmaus.org> - 2020-10-26 13:03 +0000
              Re: Computers on TV Dallas <dallas@texas.usa> - 2020-10-26 08:18 -0500
                Re: Computers on TV maus <maus@dmaus.org> - 2020-10-26 14:25 +0000
                Re: Computers on TV J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-10-26 11:57 -0400
                  Re: Computers on TV Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-10-26 18:05 +0000
                    Re: Computers on TV J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-10-26 18:07 -0400
                      Re: Computers on TV Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-10-27 19:36 +0000
                  Re: Computers on TV Douglas Miller <durgadas311@gmail.com> - 2020-10-26 17:26 -0700
                Re: Computers on TV Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2020-11-07 17:48 +0000
            Re: Computers on TV J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-10-26 11:54 -0400
            Re: Computers on TV Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> - 2020-10-26 22:51 -0400
          Re: Computers on TV Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-10-26 12:54 +0000
            Re: Computers on TV Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2020-10-26 13:24 +0000
            Re: Computers on TV Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-10-26 14:52 -0700
              Re: Computers on TV J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-10-26 18:06 -0400
              Re: Computers on TV Dallas <dallas@texas.usa> - 2020-10-26 17:23 -0500
                Re: Computers on TV Dallas <dallas@texas.usa> - 2020-10-26 17:36 -0500
                  Re: Computers on TV J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-10-27 00:08 -0400
                Re: Computers on TV J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-10-27 00:06 -0400
              Re: Computers on TV Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-10-26 22:34 +0000
              Re: Computers on TV JimP <chucktheouch@gmail.com> - 2020-10-27 09:52 -0500
                Re: Computers on TV Dallas <dallas@texas.usa> - 2020-10-27 10:07 -0500
                  Re: Computers on TV Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-10-27 15:36 +0000
                  Re: Computers on TV Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2020-10-27 11:41 -0500
                  Re: Computers on TV JimP <chucktheouch@gmail.com> - 2020-10-28 08:32 -0500
                Re: Computers on TV Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-10-27 15:22 +0000
              Re: Computers on TV Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-10-27 17:35 +0000
                Re: Computers on TV Gerard Schildberger <gerard46@rrt.net> - 2020-10-27 11:08 -0700
                  Re: Computers on TV scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-10-27 18:32 +0000
                  Re: Computers on TV J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-10-27 18:00 -0400
                Re: Computers on TV Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2020-10-27 18:27 +0000
                  Re: Computers on TV J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-10-27 18:01 -0400
                    Re: Computers on TV Niklas Karlsson <anksil@yahoo.se> - 2020-10-28 08:22 +0000
                      Re: Computers on TV J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-10-28 11:40 -0400
                  Re: Computers on TV Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-10-27 15:56 -0700
                    Re: Computers on TV J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-10-27 19:56 -0400
                Re: Computers on TV Dallas <dallas@texas.usa> - 2020-10-27 13:39 -0500
                  Re: Computers on TV David Lesher <wb8foz@panix.com> - 2020-11-07 22:38 +0000
            Re: Computers on TV Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2020-10-26 19:13 -0300
              Re: Computers on TV Dallas <dallas@texas.usa> - 2020-10-26 17:33 -0500
              Re: Computers on TV Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-10-27 06:19 +0000
                Re: Computers on TV "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2020-10-27 20:40 +0100
                  Re: Computers on TV Dallas <dallas@texas.usa> - 2020-10-27 16:31 -0500
                    Re: Computers on TV J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-10-27 18:02 -0400
                      Re: Computers on TV Dallas <dallas@texas.usa> - 2020-10-27 17:15 -0500
                        Re: Computers on TV Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-10-27 18:30 -0400
                          Re: Computers on TV Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-10-28 08:56 +0000
                            Re: Computers on TV Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2020-10-28 10:36 -0700
                              Re: Computers on TV Dallas <dallas@texas.usa> - 2020-10-28 14:53 -0500
                                Re: Computers on TV J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-10-28 16:13 -0400
                                  Re: Computers on TV Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> - 2020-10-28 19:22 -0400
                                    Re: Computers on TV J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-10-28 22:22 -0400
                                    Re: Computers on TV JimP <chucktheouch@gmail.com> - 2020-11-02 15:42 -0600
                            Re: Computers on TV Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2020-10-30 20:12 +0000
                          Re: Computers on TV Dallas <dallas@texas.usa> - 2020-10-28 08:44 -0500
                      Re: Computers on TV JimP <chucktheouch@gmail.com> - 2020-10-28 08:40 -0500
                Re: Computers on TV Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2020-10-28 19:34 -0300
          Re: Computers on TV scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-10-26 14:38 +0000
        Re: Computers on TV Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-10-26 18:05 +0000
          Re: Computers on TV J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2020-10-26 18:08 -0400
            Re: Computers on TV Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-10-27 06:25 +0000
        Re: Computers on TV usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2020-10-29 20:05 +0000
      Re: Computers on TV Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-10-26 19:46 +0000
        Re: Computers on TV Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-10-26 20:57 +0000
      Re: Computers on TV Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2020-10-27 06:26 +0000
      Re: Computers on TV ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2020-10-27 16:07 +0000
    Re: Computers on TV Dallas <dallas@texas.usa> - 2020-10-26 07:31 -0500
    Re: Computers on TV Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2020-12-21 12:16 -0500
      Re: Computers on TV Dallas <dallas@texas.usa> - 2020-12-21 11:35 -0600
        Re: Computers on TV Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2020-12-21 17:54 +0000
        Re: Computers on TV jtmpreno <none@znet.com> - 2020-12-21 09:57 -0800
          Re: Computers on TV Radey Shouman <shouman@comcast.net> - 2020-12-21 17:05 -0500
            Re: Computers on TV Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> - 2020-12-22 00:05 -0500
        Re: Computers on TV maus <maus@dmaus.org> - 2020-12-21 18:41 +0000
          Re: Computers on TV Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2020-12-21 20:11 +0000
        Re: Computers on TV Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2020-12-21 19:28 +0000
          Re: Computers on TV Rink <rink.hof.haalditmaarweg@planet.nl> - 2021-01-14 22:04 +0100
        Re: driving on the right side (as opposed to the wrong side), not Computers on TV John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-12-21 23:05 +0000
          Re: driving on the right side (as opposed to the wrong side), not Computers on TV Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-12-22 08:05 -0800
            Re: driving on the right side (as opposed to the wrong side), not Computers on TV JimP <chucktheouch@gmail.com> - 2020-12-22 12:14 -0600
              Re: driving on the right side (as opposed to the wrong side), not Computers on TV Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2020-12-22 19:23 +0000
            Re: driving on the right side (as opposed to the wrong side), not Computers on TV John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2020-12-22 19:21 +0000
        Re: Computers on TV Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2020-12-22 08:00 -0800
          Re: Computers on TV Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2020-12-25 20:05 +0000
        Re: Computers on TV Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2021-01-14 22:15 +0000

Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6  Next page →

#214953

On Monday, October 26, 2020 at 11:30:03 AM UTC-6, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 09:19:27 -0700 (PDT)
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: 
> 
> > So for the closest approach to a flying car _without_ antigravity, 
> > think of a helicopter. And not one of those "eggbeater" helicopters 
> > either. Instead, think of a Sikorsky, where there is no intrinsic tendency 
> > to spin because of counter-rotating blades.

> This is why current designs are built like oversized quadcopter 
> drone (usually with rather more rotors).

Sounds like what I'm thinking of.

John Savard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#214954

On Monday, October 26, 2020 at 4:42:07 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Monday, October 26, 2020 at 11:30:03 AM UTC-6, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: 
> > On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 09:19:27 -0700 (PDT) 
> > Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: 

> > > So for the closest approach to a flying car _without_ antigravity, 
> > > think of a helicopter. And not one of those "eggbeater" helicopters 
> > > either. Instead, think of a Sikorsky, where there is no intrinsic tendency 
> > > to spin because of counter-rotating blades. 

> > This is why current designs are built like oversized quadcopter 
> > drone (usually with rather more rotors).

> Sounds like what I'm thinking of. 

And now that I've heard they exist, I've looked around and found some examples:

https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/08/06/238750/a-japanese-flying-car-has-successfully-flown-its-first-test-flight/

https://www.departures.com/travel/japanese-aviation-firm-flyng-cars-2030

John Savard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#215163

On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 17:11:34 GMT, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
<steveo@eircom.net> wrote: 

> On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 09:19:27 -0700 (PDT)
> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> 
>> So for the closest approach to a flying car _without_ antigravity,
>> think of a helicopter. And not one of those "eggbeater" helicopters
>> either. Instead, think of a Sikorsky, where there is no intrinsic
>> tendency to spin because of counter-rotating blades.
> 
>      This is why current designs are built like oversized quadcopter
> drone (usually with rather more rotors).
> 

That Da Vinci bloke never got it off the ground.

-- 
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#214934

 > ... so as not to require special skills beyond those needed to drive
 > a car.

Last time I was out on the roads, the skills required to drive a
car were apparently _extremely_ special.  :)

De

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#214903

On 26 Oct 2020 10:10:12 GMT, maus <maus@dmaus.org> wrote:

>On 2020-10-26, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2020 16:47:49 -0700 (PDT)
>> Douglas Miller <durgadas311@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Was watching episodes of "UFO" today, and it was remarkable how
>>> UN-futuristic their computer equipment was. Filmed in 1970, set in 1980,
>>
>> 	Much the same can be said for Star Trek (the original) - the tech in
>> that is a mixture of clunky (bridge controls) and magical (medical).
>>
>> 	Then again I suspect the recent fad for depicting transparent
>> screens and hand waving interfaces will look equally silly in a decade or
>> two for never having happened at all.
>>
>>
>Where are our flying cars?

Transparent screens do exist--google "head up display"--but they are
generally achieved by projection onto an angled surface rather than
anything fancy technologically.  Hand waving interfaces also
exist--one does a lot of hand waving using VR, and the latest Galaxy
Note responds to stylus gestures when the stylus is not in contact
with the screen, so there is at least some practical interest in that
sort of thing.

As for flying cars, at this point there are at least 20 in development
with a number of prototypes flying, and the professional hand-wringers
are already on about how they're going to destroy the fabric of
society.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#214909

On 10/26/2020 7:27 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> As for flying cars, at this point there are at least 20 in development
> with a number of prototypes flying, and the professional hand-wringers
> are already on about how they're going to destroy the fabric of society.
> 

Or possible the "hearing" of society?
I mean, those things have got to be loud.

But then again, I probably would have said the same about automobiles when they first appeared on 
the streets.
It seems that the only automobile sound I find annoying lately is when someone intentionally soups 
up their ride to be noticed.   I love it that my hybrid's motor is absolutely silent when I am 
stopped at a red-light.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#214911

On 2020-10-26, Dallas <dallas@texas.usa> wrote:
> On 10/26/2020 7:27 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> As for flying cars, at this point there are at least 20 in development
>> with a number of prototypes flying, and the professional hand-wringers
>> are already on about how they're going to destroy the fabric of society.
>> 
>
> Or possible the "hearing" of society?
> I mean, those things have got to be loud.
>
> But then again, I probably would have said the same about automobiles when they first appeared on 
> the streets.
> It seems that the only automobile sound I find annoying lately is when someone intentionally soups 
> up their ride to be noticed.   I love it that my hybrid's motor is absolutely silent when I am 
> stopped at a red-light.
>

 Being slightly vision-impaired, they (silent electric cars) are a PITA.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#214912

On 10/26/2020 8:03 AM, maus wrote:
> On 2020-10-26, Dallas <dallas@texas.usa> wrote:
>> On 10/26/2020 7:27 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> As for flying cars, at this point there are at least 20 in development
>>> with a number of prototypes flying, and the professional hand-wringers
>>> are already on about how they're going to destroy the fabric of society.
>>>
>>
>> Or possible the "hearing" of society?
>> I mean, those things have got to be loud.
>>
>> But then again, I probably would have said the same about automobiles when they first appeared on
>> the streets.
>> It seems that the only automobile sound I find annoying lately is when someone intentionally soups
>> up their ride to be noticed.   I love it that my hybrid's motor is absolutely silent when I am
>> stopped at a red-light.
>>
> 
>   Being slightly vision-impaired, they (silent electric cars) are a PITA.
> 

When I was a kid we used to attach playing cards to the spokes on the tires to add some noise to 
our ride.

I wonder now if we should add some noticeable "purr" to the electric cars.

Some sports cars like the Mazda Miata tune their emissions system to sound "sporty".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#214914

On 2020-10-26, Dallas <dallas@texas.usa> wrote:
> On 10/26/2020 8:03 AM, maus wrote:
>> On 2020-10-26, Dallas <dallas@texas.usa> wrote:
>>> On 10/26/2020 7:27 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> As for flying cars, at this point there are at least 20 in development
>>>> with a number of prototypes flying, and the professional hand-wringers
>>>> are already on about how they're going to destroy the fabric of society.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Or possible the "hearing" of society?
>>> I mean, those things have got to be loud.
>>>
>>> But then again, I probably would have said the same about automobiles when they first appeared on
>>> the streets.
>>> It seems that the only automobile sound I find annoying lately is when someone intentionally soups
>>> up their ride to be noticed.   I love it that my hybrid's motor is absolutely silent when I am
>>> stopped at a red-light.
>>>
>> 
>>   Being slightly vision-impaired, they (silent electric cars) are a PITA.
>> 
>
> When I was a kid we used to attach playing cards to the spokes on the tires to add some noise to 
> our ride.
>
> I wonder now if we should add some noticeable "purr" to the electric cars.
>
> Some sports cars like the Mazda Miata tune their emissions system to sound "sporty".
>

Several electric cars do that, amd even mimic acceleration. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#214918

On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 08:18:17 -0500, Dallas <dallas@texas.usa> wrote:

>On 10/26/2020 8:03 AM, maus wrote:
>> On 2020-10-26, Dallas <dallas@texas.usa> wrote:
>>> On 10/26/2020 7:27 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> As for flying cars, at this point there are at least 20 in development
>>>> with a number of prototypes flying, and the professional hand-wringers
>>>> are already on about how they're going to destroy the fabric of society.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Or possible the "hearing" of society?
>>> I mean, those things have got to be loud.
>>>
>>> But then again, I probably would have said the same about automobiles when they first appeared on
>>> the streets.
>>> It seems that the only automobile sound I find annoying lately is when someone intentionally soups
>>> up their ride to be noticed.   I love it that my hybrid's motor is absolutely silent when I am
>>> stopped at a red-light.
>>>
>> 
>>   Being slightly vision-impaired, they (silent electric cars) are a PITA.
>> 
>
>When I was a kid we used to attach playing cards to the spokes on the tires to add some noise to 
>our ride.
>
>I wonder now if we should add some noticeable "purr" to the electric cars.

Being done.  Required in the US as of last month.  Porsche is already
figuring out a new ripoff angle--500 bucks for "sporty sound",
presumably they default to something that the owner can be expected to
be willing to pay 500 bucks to get rid of.

And of course the cops want an exemption.

>Some sports cars like the Mazda Miata tune their emissions system to sound "sporty".

Some just play engine noise through the speakers.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#214926

On 2020-10-26, J  Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 08:18:17 -0500, Dallas <dallas@texas.usa> wrote:
>
>> When I was a kid we used to attach playing cards to the spokes
>> on the tires to add some noise to our ride.

We did that too, but we used our parents' empty cigarette packages.
(Remember when smoking was almost mandatory?)

>> I wonder now if we should add some noticeable "purr" to the electric cars.
>
> Being done.  Required in the US as of last month.

I remember hearing some mention of that here.  I suspect it was so that
people could sense whether a car was coming without having to look up
from their cell phones.

> Porsche is already figuring out a new ripoff angle--500 bucks for
> "sporty sound", presumably they default to something that the owner
> can be expected to be willing to pay 500 bucks to get rid of.

Many cars driven by young people here have a huge muffler sticking
out below the bumper.  Unlike normal mufflers, its purpose is to
make the car louder.  It's a kind of uniform, which kids graduate
into when they get their driver's licence and set aside their
previous uniform: baggy cargo pants.

They still wear their hats backwards, though:

https://cheezburger.com/2376827136/funny-picture-hat-fail

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  "Some of you may die,
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  but it's sacrifice
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  I'm willing to make."
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |    -- Lord Farquaad (Shrek)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#214943

On 26 Oct 2020 18:05:42 GMT, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
wrote:

>On 2020-10-26, J  Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 08:18:17 -0500, Dallas <dallas@texas.usa> wrote:
>>
>>> When I was a kid we used to attach playing cards to the spokes
>>> on the tires to add some noise to our ride.
>
>We did that too, but we used our parents' empty cigarette packages.
>(Remember when smoking was almost mandatory?)
>
>>> I wonder now if we should add some noticeable "purr" to the electric cars.
>>
>> Being done.  Required in the US as of last month.
>
>I remember hearing some mention of that here.  I suspect it was so that
>people could sense whether a car was coming without having to look up
>from their cell phones.
>
>> Porsche is already figuring out a new ripoff angle--500 bucks for
>> "sporty sound", presumably they default to something that the owner
>> can be expected to be willing to pay 500 bucks to get rid of.
>
>Many cars driven by young people here have a huge muffler sticking
>out below the bumper.  Unlike normal mufflers, its purpose is to
>make the car louder.  It's a kind of uniform, which kids graduate
>into when they get their driver's licence and set aside their
>previous uniform: baggy cargo pants.
>
>They still wear their hats backwards, though:
>
>https://cheezburger.com/2376827136/funny-picture-hat-fail

This is a bit different though, it's a sound option on an _electric_
Porsche.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#214999

On 2020-10-26, J  Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

> This is a bit different though, it's a sound option on an _electric_
> Porsche.

Finally, a practical use for those 1200-watt sound systems
in your typical boom car...

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  "Some of you may die,
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  but it's sacrifice
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  I'm willing to make."
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |    -- Lord Farquaad (Shrek)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#214960

On Monday, October 26, 2020 at 10:57:56 AM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
>...
> Being done. Required in the US as of last month. Porsche is already 
> figuring out a new ripoff angle--500 bucks for "sporty sound", 
> presumably they default to something that the owner can be expected to 
> be willing to pay 500 bucks to get rid of. 
> 
> And of course the cops want an exemption.
> >Some sports cars like the Mazda Miata tune their emissions system to sound "sporty".
> Some just play engine noise through the speakers.

Custom "ring tones" for your car... I want the one from the "Jetsons"... probably comes with "Fred Flintstone".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#215187

On Mon, 2020-10-26, Dallas wrote:
> On 10/26/2020 8:03 AM, maus wrote:
...
>>   Being slightly vision-impaired, they (silent electric cars) are a PITA.
>> 
>
> When I was a kid we used to attach playing cards to the spokes on
> the tires to add some noise to our ride.

Around here, we attached the piece of thick paper to the frame, and
lead a piece of string to the handlebar.  That way you could "open the
throttle" to get more sound.  Wroom!

I'm pretty sure a clothespin was involved, too.

/Jorgen

-- 
  // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@  Oo  o.   .     .
\X/     snipabacken.se>   O  o   .

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#214917

On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 07:55:42 -0500, Dallas <dallas@texas.usa> wrote:

>On 10/26/2020 7:27 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> As for flying cars, at this point there are at least 20 in development
>> with a number of prototypes flying, and the professional hand-wringers
>> are already on about how they're going to destroy the fabric of society.
>> 
>
>Or possible the "hearing" of society?
>I mean, those things have got to be loud.
>
>But then again, I probably would have said the same about automobiles when they first appeared on 
>the streets.
>It seems that the only automobile sound I find annoying lately is when someone intentionally soups 
>up their ride to be noticed.   I love it that my hybrid's motor is absolutely silent when I am 
>stopped at a red-light.

Most of the flying-car variants currently in the pipe are electrically
powered quad (or hex, or dec or dodec, or whatever) copters.  No
engine noise, may be a good bit of propeller noise.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#214962

On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 07:55:42 -0500, Dallas <dallas@texas.usa> wrote:

> Or possible the "hearing" of society?
> I mean, those things have got to be loud.
> 
> But then again, I probably would have said the same about automobiles when they first appeared on 
> the streets.

Back when I had to carry a regional map in case I wandered into a
county that I hadn't brought a map for, one of my navigating tricks
was listening to see where the highways were.

Automobiles are *loud*.

-- 
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at centurylink dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#214910

On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 08:27:16 -0400
J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 26 Oct 2020 10:10:12 GMT, maus <maus@dmaus.org> wrote:
> 
> >On 2020-10-26, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 25 Oct 2020 16:47:49 -0700 (PDT)
> >> Douglas Miller <durgadas311@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Was watching episodes of "UFO" today, and it was remarkable how
> >>> UN-futuristic their computer equipment was. Filmed in 1970, set in
> >>> 1980,
> >>
> >> 	Much the same can be said for Star Trek (the original) - the
> >> tech in that is a mixture of clunky (bridge controls) and magical
> >> (medical).
> >>
> >> 	Then again I suspect the recent fad for depicting transparent
> >> screens and hand waving interfaces will look equally silly in a decade
> >> or two for never having happened at all.

> Transparent screens do exist--google "head up display"--but they are

	Sure but nobody wants a transparent, blackboard sized computer
monitor like the ones depicted in films and TV.

> generally achieved by projection onto an angled surface rather than
> anything fancy technologically.  Hand waving interfaces also
> exist--one does a lot of hand waving using VR, and the latest Galaxy
> Note responds to stylus gestures when the stylus is not in contact
> with the screen, so there is at least some practical interest in that
> sort of thing.

	It's not that they can't be done or don't exist, it's just that,
like voice interfaces, they have limited usefulness.

> As for flying cars, at this point there are at least 20 in development
> with a number of prototypes flying, and the professional hand-wringers

	There have been prototypes since the 1950s, possibly earlier.
They've all needed a pilot's license to fly them.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#214913

On 2020-10-26, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 08:27:16 -0400
> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Transparent screens do exist--google "head up display"--but they are
>
> 	Sure but nobody wants a transparent, blackboard sized computer
> monitor like the ones depicted in films and TV.

The transparent smartphone-like things in The Expanse also don't seem
that great.

Niklas
-- 
I swear, if I'm ever Supreme Overlord of a country my first decree will be to
change the name of it to Theory. I've heard too many times that a certain fix
would work 'in Theory'.
                       -- Tony in asr

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#214939

Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 08:27:16 -0400
> J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 26 Oct 2020 10:10:12 GMT, maus <maus@dmaus.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2020-10-26, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2020 16:47:49 -0700 (PDT)
>>>> Douglas Miller <durgadas311@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Was watching episodes of "UFO" today, and it was remarkable how
>>>>> UN-futuristic their computer equipment was. Filmed in 1970, set in
>>>>> 1980,
>>>> 
>>>> Much the same can be said for Star Trek (the original) - the
>>>> tech in that is a mixture of clunky (bridge controls) and magical
>>>> (medical).
>>>> 
>>>> Then again I suspect the recent fad for depicting transparent
>>>> screens and hand waving interfaces will look equally silly in a decade
>>>> or two for never having happened at all.
> 
>> Transparent screens do exist--google "head up display"--but they are
> 
> 	Sure but nobody wants a transparent, blackboard sized computer
> monitor like the ones depicted in films and TV.
> 
>> generally achieved by projection onto an angled surface rather than
>> anything fancy technologically.  Hand waving interfaces also
>> exist--one does a lot of hand waving using VR, and the latest Galaxy
>> Note responds to stylus gestures when the stylus is not in contact
>> with the screen, so there is at least some practical interest in that
>> sort of thing.
> 
> 	It's not that they can't be done or don't exist, it's just that,
> like voice interfaces, they have limited usefulness.
> 
>> As for flying cars, at this point there are at least 20 in development
>> with a number of prototypes flying, and the professional hand-wringers
> 
> 	There have been prototypes since the 1950s, possibly earlier.
> They've all needed a pilot's license to fly them.
> 

But now a self-flying car should be easier to develop than a self-driving
car, seeing as there are fewer unexpected things up there.

-- 
Pete

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers

csiph-web