Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes.

From	jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Newsgroups	rec.arts.sf.science, sci.astro, sci.physics, sci.space.policy
Subject	Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes.
Date	2016-08-26 19:28 +0000
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<irh69d-63c.ln1@mail.specsol.com> (permalink)
References	(4 earlier) <npkhp6$sj9$1@dont-email.me> <851srb52tso4rc40le0fhfimg3pmb5m2mk@4ax.com> <npn6sg$7u6$1@dont-email.me> <d8l39d-b52.ln1@mail.specsol.com> <npq1ua$60o$1@dont-email.me>

Cross-posted to 4 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
> For your reference, records indicate that 
> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
>> In sci.physics Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> wrote:
>> > 
>> > Depends on the problem youre looking to solve.  If it is to keep a 
>> > vehicle in constant service, Id say youd fly it right back out to its 
>> > next destination.
>> 
>> That is called an airline.
> 
> Only because thats the known business model that works with the old 
> technology.  Likewise, Ive made the point that a self-driving car” 
> has existed for centuries; it is called a train.

A train is not a car. Consult any dictionary.

>  Again, all Im 
> asking for is for the SF world to be fleshed out where it makes sense 
> to have *your* kind of flying car.

The definition of flying car is universal and not mine alone.

> 
>> >  Same way it doesnt make much sense to leave a 
>> > self-driving car sitting in a parking lot doing nothing.
>> 
>> Assuming the self-driving car is owned by Uber and not an individual.
> 
> Assuming nothing but a realistic universe.  Yes, I would agree that 
> self-driving cars prompt a whole *slew* of changes that might lead to 
> changing norms of car ownership.  Same goes for the mythical flying 
> car, too, so Im just looking for the proponents to do the leg work 
> that shows they make sense in any sort of realistic universe.  
> Because, from where Im sitting, theyre just another dumb idea that
> nobody really bothers to think through.

Since I didn't say anything about self-driving cars I don't know what
you are agreeing with.

Flying cars are not mythical as many have been built.

What has not happened is they have never been a commercial success.

There is a big difference between not existing and not being a commercial
success.

The reason they have never been a commercial success is economics; too
few people have been historically willing to buy one for anyone to go
into production.

Whether or not YOU see any use for them is irrelevant.

 

-- 
Jim Pennino

Thread

Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-08-20 14:37 -0400
  Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hpe.com> - 2016-08-22 16:03 +0000
    Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-08-24 11:23 -0400
      Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 09:00 -0700
  Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-22 17:19 +0000
    Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-08-23 06:15 -0400
      Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-23 16:03 +0000
        Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Doc O'Leary  <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-08-24 16:25 +0000
          Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-24 16:45 +0000
            Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Doc O'Leary  <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-08-25 16:38 +0000
              Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-25 17:04 +0000
                Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Doc O'Leary  <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-08-26 19:02 +0000
                Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-26 19:38 +0000
                Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-08-26 13:59 -0700
                Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Doc O'Leary  <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-08-27 18:53 +0000
                Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-08-27 12:58 -0700
                Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-27 19:55 +0000
              Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 17:32 -0700
                Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Doc O'Leary  <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-08-26 18:54 +0000
                Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-26 19:20 +0000
                Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-08-26 13:56 -0700
                Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Doc O'Leary  <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-08-27 18:31 +0000
                Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-27 19:59 +0000
                Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2016-08-28 17:32 +0000
              Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> - 2016-08-25 21:53 -0300
          Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 13:35 -0700
            Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-24 21:44 +0000
            Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 07:41 -0700
            Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Doc O'Leary  <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-08-25 16:37 +0000
              Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-25 17:07 +0000
                Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Doc O'Leary  <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-08-26 18:31 +0000
                Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-26 19:28 +0000
                Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Doc O'Leary  <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-08-27 16:26 +0000
                Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-27 16:48 +0000
              Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 17:27 -0700
                Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Doc O'Leary  <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-08-26 18:44 +0000
                Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-08-26 13:39 -0700
                Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Doc O'Leary  <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-08-27 18:06 +0000
                Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-27 20:14 +0000
                Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-26 21:29 +0000
                Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Doc O'Leary  <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com> - 2016-08-27 18:20 +0000
                Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-27 20:24 +0000
      Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-08-24 11:27 -0400
    Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-08-24 11:25 -0400
      Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-24 16:08 +0000
  Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-08-22 13:38 -0500
  Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2016-08-27 08:41 +0000

csiph-web