Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes.

From	Doc O'Leary <droleary@2015usenet1.subsume.com>
Newsgroups	sci.space.policy, sci.physics, sci.astro, rec.arts.sf.science
Subject	Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes.
Date	2016-08-27 18:06 +0000
Organization	Subsume Technologies, Inc.
Message-ID	<npskrv$m85$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(5 earlier) <851srb52tso4rc40le0fhfimg3pmb5m2mk@4ax.com> <npn6sg$7u6$1@dont-email.me> <s43vrbtlf87a1jkf463q3pl2tnoou6vu2s@4ax.com> <npq2m0$8iq$1@dont-email.me> <b3a1sbhsbc2irq1g87nkfqq4mbclclaphn@4ax.com>

Cross-posted to 4 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

For your reference, records indicate that 
Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:

> Same as the case for GA aircraft.  You need a car at both ends of the
> flight.  

Really?  If that’s the *only* advantage you can think of, you’re 
really supporting my point.  Cars are easy to rent, or skip all that 
these days and just use an app to get a ride.  You’re going to need 
to make a *much* better case for it to make sense to put an 
expensive flying vehicle in the middle of dangerous road traffic.

> So why not a single device?  

Because the gulf between that idea and the reality is too great.  
Different duties have different engineering requirements.  Same 
reason a vehicle meant to travel the vacuum of space has different 
functional needs from one that is intended to launch from a planet 
or one that is intended to re-enter an atmosphere.

> You probably resisted the idea
> of putting PDA functionality on cell phones, too.

Wrong again.  I was in the camp that *knew* putting a computer in 
your pocket meant that “phones” would stop being about phone calls.  
Just like a “flying car” in any sane universe would quickly make 
driving pointless, so it’d really just be about a newer kind of 
aircraft.

And that’s why I bring up self-driving cars in the context of 
trains.  Because if flying cars made sense, they’d *first* make 
sense in the context of a plane or a car.  Even if you never took 
it driving, it seems like there should be an obvious advantage of 
having a plane you can park at the airport in a facility no 
different from a regular parking spot.  Yet somehow nobody can 
find a market?

> >A lot of people own a lot of things that make very little sense.  Im 
> >not asking about that segment of the population.  Im asking about 
> >the people who are more thoughtful about their behaviors.  Can you 
> >make the case to *them* that flying cars are actually a good idea?
> >
> 
> Why do I need to?  Make the case for a car, period, to someone who
> lives in the Amazon jungle.  The fact that there is no such case
> doesn't mean cars are useless.

They *are* uselesss in the middle of the Amazon jungle.  But that’s 
a straw man; stick to the issue at hand.  No, you don’t *have* to 
make the case for flying cars, but you *did* decide to chime in to 
do that.  You haven’t been successful as of yet, so you can try 
harder, bail out of the conversation, or just admit that, yeah, 
flying cars really are just one of science fiction’s dumber ideas.

-- 
"Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
River Tam, Trash, Firefly

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. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-08-20 23:21 -0700
    Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 09:38 -0700
  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. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 10:33 -0700
        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. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-08-27 16:34 -0700
              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. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 17:50 -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. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 21:00 -0700
              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. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 22:52 -0700
          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. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 20:10 -0700
            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. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-08-26 16:21 -0700
      Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 10:23 -0700
      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. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-08-24 21:46 -0700
          Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 09:57 -0700
  Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2016-08-27 08:41 +0000
    Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 19:56 -0700
      Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-09-18 09:48 -0400
        Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-09-20 16:50 -0700
          Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-09-21 06:15 -0400
            Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-09-21 18:44 -0700
              Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-09-21 23:05 -0400
                Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-09-21 23:17 -0400
                Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-09-21 23:06 -0700
                Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-09-21 22:56 -0700
                Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-09-22 07:03 -0400
                Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 03:13 -0700
                Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-09-21 22:58 -0700
                Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-09-22 07:07 -0400
                Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 03:20 -0700
          Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-09-21 11:11 -0700
            Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-09-21 23:08 -0700
              Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-09-22 07:13 -0400
                Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 03:42 -0700
              Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 21:52 -0700
                Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 03:47 -0700
                Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 09:15 -0700
  Re: Paper published on producing arbitrarily long nanotubes. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 20:16 -0700

csiph-web