In article <116fjon$273di$1@dont-email.me>, BCFD 36 <bcfd36@cruzio.com> wrote:
Years ago, I responded on a wreck with the FD at about 3 in the morning.
When we got there, there was a car in two large pieces (and lots of
smaller pieces) separated by several yards. There was a teen girl
standing on the shoulder looking scared. We were expecting the worst.
The car had been torn in 1/2 at the firewall when it went sideways into
a redwood. The redwood lost some bark and probably didn't even notice.
No one is in the car. The only victim was the aforementioned teen girl
who had just a sprained ankle. We are amazed.
Did the car turn out to be a splice job? Or did it just break that way randomly on impact?
--scott
On 8/24/26 08:03, Scott Dorsey wrote:I would mostly agree with the above, but I believe that the body may
In article <116fjon$273di$1@dont-email.me>, BCFD 36-a-a-a-aNo it was not random but not pre-planned.
<bcfd36@cruzio.com> wrote:
Years ago, I responded on a wreck with the FD at about 3 in the morning. >>> When we got there, there was a car in two large pieces (and lots of
smaller pieces) separated by several yards. There was a teen girl
standing on the shoulder looking scared. We were expecting the worst.
The car had been torn in 1/2 at the firewall when it went sideways into
a redwood. The redwood lost some bark and probably didn't even notice.
No one is in the car. The only victim was the aforementioned teen girl
who had just a sprained ankle. We are amazed.
Did the car turn out to be a splice job?-a Or did it just break that way
randomly on impact?
--scott
-a-a-a-aThe frame broke at that point. The interior floor and roof tore when the frame broke.
-a-a-a-abliss
At some point, we're going to have to call this classic fannish
lament fulfilled.
On Sat, 22 Aug 2026 09:46:50 -0400, CryptoengineerAll this stuff on flying cars has been interesting, but it ignores the
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
At some point, we're going to have to call this classic fannish
lament fulfilled.
But _real_ flying cars don't rely on propellers or even jets! They
work by means of antigravity! So we're a long time from _real_ flying
cars becoming real, even if second-rate flying cars are real now.
And, of course, thanks to 9/11, the oil crisis, and global warming, it
seems as though it will be very unlikely for the kind of flying car
we're capable of making to become the dominant means of personal >transportation, relegating the earthbound automobile to the history
books.
If only antigravity were as simple as mining crystals on Mars so that
we could fill buoyancy tanks with the Jasoomian eighth ray. If I
remember correctly, we're going to have to go all the way to Alpha
Centauri before we can find any dilithium to mine.
Which reminds me... if an object is moving faster than any spaceship
you can build, it's only impossible to intercept it if you're behind
it, not if you're in front of it.
We missed 'Oumuamua. We missed 3I/Atlas. And we also missed, without
my even hearing about it, 2I/Borisov. Surely it's time to place a
fleet of automated interceptor vehicles in our Solar System! Well,
maybe not. As we apparently don't live in a comic-book universe, it's >actually extremely unlikely that an interstellar object would contain >materials unknown to science with useful fantastic properties, like
powering a shrinking ray and its corresponding enlarging ray, for
example.
Finding materials unknown to science with properties that could be
useful, if we find a way to produce them in bulk, on the other hand,
is quite possible: but a vastly cheaper way to do that is to simulate
their properties on large computers instead of catching interstellar
objects. So we'll just have to be content with super-strong and
super-light structural materials, while doing without new elements
that can supply antigravity, power FTL drives, or power shrinking
rays.
On Sat, 05 Sep 2026 14:13:39 GMT, quadibloc@invalid.com (John Savard)
wrote:
On Sat, 22 Aug 2026 09:46:50 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
At some point, we're going to have to call this classic fannish
lament fulfilled.
But _real_ flying cars don't rely on propellers or even jets! They
work by means of antigravity! So we're a long time from _real_ flying
cars becoming real, even if second-rate flying cars are real now.
And, of course, thanks to 9/11, the oil crisis, and global warming, it
seems as though it will be very unlikely for the kind of flying car
we're capable of making to become the dominant means of personal
transportation, relegating the earthbound automobile to the history
books.
If only antigravity were as simple as mining crystals on Mars so that
we could fill buoyancy tanks with the Jasoomian eighth ray. If I
remember correctly, we're going to have to go all the way to Alpha
Centauri before we can find any dilithium to mine.
Which reminds me... if an object is moving faster than any spaceship
you can build, it's only impossible to intercept it if you're behind
it, not if you're in front of it.
We missed 'Oumuamua. We missed 3I/Atlas. And we also missed, without
my even hearing about it, 2I/Borisov. Surely it's time to place a
fleet of automated interceptor vehicles in our Solar System! Well,
maybe not. As we apparently don't live in a comic-book universe, it's
actually extremely unlikely that an interstellar object would contain
materials unknown to science with useful fantastic properties, like
powering a shrinking ray and its corresponding enlarging ray, for
example.
Finding materials unknown to science with properties that could be
useful, if we find a way to produce them in bulk, on the other hand,
is quite possible: but a vastly cheaper way to do that is to simulate
their properties on large computers instead of catching interstellar
objects. So we'll just have to be content with super-strong and
super-light structural materials, while doing without new elements
that can supply antigravity, power FTL drives, or power shrinking
rays.
All this stuff on flying cars has been interesting, but it ignores the
basic problem:
most drivers can't manage doing it without accidents in two
dimensions. Why should we expect them to do any better in three?
On 9/5/2026 12:10 PM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Sat, 05 Sep 2026 14:13:39 GMT, quadibloc@invalid.com (John Savard)
wrote:
On Sat, 22 Aug 2026 09:46:50 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
At some point, we're going to have to call this classic fannish
lament fulfilled.
But _real_ flying cars don't rely on propellers or even jets! They
work by means of antigravity! So we're a long time from _real_ flying
cars becoming real, even if second-rate flying cars are real now.
And, of course, thanks to 9/11, the oil crisis, and global warming, it
seems as though it will be very unlikely for the kind of flying car
we're capable of making to become the dominant means of personal
transportation, relegating the earthbound automobile to the history
books.
If only antigravity were as simple as mining crystals on Mars so that
we could fill buoyancy tanks with the Jasoomian eighth ray. If I
remember correctly, we're going to have to go all the way to Alpha
Centauri before we can find any dilithium to mine.
Which reminds me... if an object is moving faster than any spaceship
you can build, it's only impossible to intercept it if you're behind
it, not if you're in front of it.
We missed 'Oumuamua. We missed 3I/Atlas. And we also missed, without
my even hearing about it, 2I/Borisov. Surely it's time to place a
fleet of automated interceptor vehicles in our Solar System! Well,
maybe not. As we apparently don't live in a comic-book universe, it's
actually extremely unlikely that an interstellar object would contain
materials unknown to science with useful fantastic properties, like
powering a shrinking ray and its corresponding enlarging ray, for
example.
Finding materials unknown to science with properties that could be
useful, if we find a way to produce them in bulk, on the other hand,
is quite possible: but a vastly cheaper way to do that is to simulate
their properties on large computers instead of catching interstellar
objects. So we'll just have to be content with super-strong and
super-light structural materials, while doing without new elements
that can supply antigravity, power FTL drives, or power shrinking
rays.
All this stuff on flying cars has been interesting, but it ignores the
basic problem:
most drivers can't manage doing it without accidents in two
dimensions. Why should we expect them to do any better in three?
I expect that control would have to be taken out of the hands of
the driver, for the most part.
On 9/5/2026 12:10 PM, Paul S Person wrote:This may work in police states, but the USA still resists that sort of
On Sat, 05 Sep 2026 14:13:39 GMT, quadibloc@invalid.com (John Savard)
wrote:
On Sat, 22 Aug 2026 09:46:50 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
At some point, we're going to have to call this classic fannish
lament fulfilled.
But _real_ flying cars don't rely on propellers or even jets! They
work by means of antigravity! So we're a long time from _real_ flying
cars becoming real, even if second-rate flying cars are real now.
And, of course, thanks to 9/11, the oil crisis, and global warming, it
seems as though it will be very unlikely for the kind of flying car
we're capable of making to become the dominant means of personal
transportation, relegating the earthbound automobile to the history
books.
If only antigravity were as simple as mining crystals on Mars so that
we could fill buoyancy tanks with the Jasoomian eighth ray. If I
remember correctly, we're going to have to go all the way to Alpha
Centauri before we can find any dilithium to mine.
Which reminds me... if an object is moving faster than any spaceship
you can build, it's only impossible to intercept it if you're behind
it, not if you're in front of it.
We missed 'Oumuamua. We missed 3I/Atlas. And we also missed, without
my even hearing about it, 2I/Borisov. Surely it's time to place a
fleet of automated interceptor vehicles in our Solar System! Well,
maybe not. As we apparently don't live in a comic-book universe, it's
actually extremely unlikely that an interstellar object would contain
materials unknown to science with useful fantastic properties, like
powering a shrinking ray and its corresponding enlarging ray, for
example.
Finding materials unknown to science with properties that could be
useful, if we find a way to produce them in bulk, on the other hand,
is quite possible: but a vastly cheaper way to do that is to simulate
their properties on large computers instead of catching interstellar
objects. So we'll just have to be content with super-strong and
super-light structural materials, while doing without new elements
that can supply antigravity, power FTL drives, or power shrinking
rays.
All this stuff on flying cars has been interesting, but it ignores the
basic problem:
most drivers can't manage doing it without accidents in two
dimensions. Why should we expect them to do any better in three?
I expect that control would have to be taken out of the hands of
the driver, for the most part.
We already have separate flight levels for different directions.To put what I said in these terms, current drivers have trouble with
I expect t that with some V2V (vehicle to vehicle) communication,
some basic 'rules of the road', and enough smarts in the vehicles,
the amount of human ATC needed would be minimal.
On Sat, 5 Sep 2026 14:22:50 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/5/2026 12:10 PM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Sat, 05 Sep 2026 14:13:39 GMT, quadibloc@invalid.com (John Savard)
wrote:
On Sat, 22 Aug 2026 09:46:50 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
At some point, we're going to have to call this classic fannish
lament fulfilled.
But _real_ flying cars don't rely on propellers or even jets! They
work by means of antigravity! So we're a long time from _real_ flying
cars becoming real, even if second-rate flying cars are real now.
And, of course, thanks to 9/11, the oil crisis, and global warming, it >>>> seems as though it will be very unlikely for the kind of flying car
we're capable of making to become the dominant means of personal
transportation, relegating the earthbound automobile to the history
books.
If only antigravity were as simple as mining crystals on Mars so that
we could fill buoyancy tanks with the Jasoomian eighth ray. If I
remember correctly, we're going to have to go all the way to Alpha
Centauri before we can find any dilithium to mine.
Which reminds me... if an object is moving faster than any spaceship
you can build, it's only impossible to intercept it if you're behind
it, not if you're in front of it.
We missed 'Oumuamua. We missed 3I/Atlas. And we also missed, without
my even hearing about it, 2I/Borisov. Surely it's time to place a
fleet of automated interceptor vehicles in our Solar System! Well,
maybe not. As we apparently don't live in a comic-book universe, it's
actually extremely unlikely that an interstellar object would contain
materials unknown to science with useful fantastic properties, like
powering a shrinking ray and its corresponding enlarging ray, for
example.
Finding materials unknown to science with properties that could be
useful, if we find a way to produce them in bulk, on the other hand,
is quite possible: but a vastly cheaper way to do that is to simulate
their properties on large computers instead of catching interstellar
objects. So we'll just have to be content with super-strong and
super-light structural materials, while doing without new elements
that can supply antigravity, power FTL drives, or power shrinking
rays.
All this stuff on flying cars has been interesting, but it ignores the
basic problem:
most drivers can't manage doing it without accidents in two
dimensions. Why should we expect them to do any better in three?
I expect that control would have to be taken out of the hands of
the driver, for the most part.
This may work in police states, but the USA still resists that sort of
thing. This is the Wild West effect.
On 9/6/2026 12:39 PM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Sat, 5 Sep 2026 14:22:50 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/5/2026 12:10 PM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Sat, 05 Sep 2026 14:13:39 GMT, quadibloc@invalid.com (John Savard)
wrote:
On Sat, 22 Aug 2026 09:46:50 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
At some point, we're going to have to call this classic fannish
lament fulfilled.
But _real_ flying cars don't rely on propellers or even jets! They
work by means of antigravity! So we're a long time from _real_ flying >>>>> cars becoming real, even if second-rate flying cars are real now.
And, of course, thanks to 9/11, the oil crisis, and global warming, it >>>>> seems as though it will be very unlikely for the kind of flying car
we're capable of making to become the dominant means of personal
transportation, relegating the earthbound automobile to the history
books.
If only antigravity were as simple as mining crystals on Mars so that >>>>> we could fill buoyancy tanks with the Jasoomian eighth ray. If I
remember correctly, we're going to have to go all the way to Alpha
Centauri before we can find any dilithium to mine.
Which reminds me... if an object is moving faster than any spaceship >>>>> you can build, it's only impossible to intercept it if you're behind >>>>> it, not if you're in front of it.
We missed 'Oumuamua. We missed 3I/Atlas. And we also missed, without >>>>> my even hearing about it, 2I/Borisov. Surely it's time to place a
fleet of automated interceptor vehicles in our Solar System! Well,
maybe not. As we apparently don't live in a comic-book universe, it's >>>>> actually extremely unlikely that an interstellar object would contain >>>>> materials unknown to science with useful fantastic properties, like
powering a shrinking ray and its corresponding enlarging ray, for
example.
Finding materials unknown to science with properties that could be
useful, if we find a way to produce them in bulk, on the other hand, >>>>> is quite possible: but a vastly cheaper way to do that is to simulate >>>>> their properties on large computers instead of catching interstellar >>>>> objects. So we'll just have to be content with super-strong and
super-light structural materials, while doing without new elements
that can supply antigravity, power FTL drives, or power shrinking
rays.
All this stuff on flying cars has been interesting, but it ignores the >>>> basic problem:
most drivers can't manage doing it without accidents in two
dimensions. Why should we expect them to do any better in three?
I expect that control would have to be taken out of the hands of
the driver, for the most part.
This may work in police states, but the USA still resists that sort of
thing. This is the Wild West effect.
As I type, Musk is introducing driverless robotaxis to US cities,
starting with Austin. They have no steering wheels or pedals, and
routing is completely out of the hands of the passengers.
Waymo is doing similar, and is ahead of Tesla on deployment.
If people find that acceptable in 2D, why would they not in 3D?
pt
On 9/6/2026 12:39 PM, Paul S Person wrote:What makes you think people find thm "acceptable"? The lack of mobs
On Sat, 5 Sep 2026 14:22:50 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/5/2026 12:10 PM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Sat, 05 Sep 2026 14:13:39 GMT, quadibloc@invalid.com (John Savard)
wrote:
On Sat, 22 Aug 2026 09:46:50 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
At some point, we're going to have to call this classic fannish
lament fulfilled.
But _real_ flying cars don't rely on propellers or even jets! They
work by means of antigravity! So we're a long time from _real_ flying >>>>> cars becoming real, even if second-rate flying cars are real now.
And, of course, thanks to 9/11, the oil crisis, and global warming, it >>>>> seems as though it will be very unlikely for the kind of flying car
we're capable of making to become the dominant means of personal
transportation, relegating the earthbound automobile to the history
books.
If only antigravity were as simple as mining crystals on Mars so that >>>>> we could fill buoyancy tanks with the Jasoomian eighth ray. If I
remember correctly, we're going to have to go all the way to Alpha
Centauri before we can find any dilithium to mine.
Which reminds me... if an object is moving faster than any spaceship >>>>> you can build, it's only impossible to intercept it if you're behind >>>>> it, not if you're in front of it.
We missed 'Oumuamua. We missed 3I/Atlas. And we also missed, without >>>>> my even hearing about it, 2I/Borisov. Surely it's time to place a
fleet of automated interceptor vehicles in our Solar System! Well,
maybe not. As we apparently don't live in a comic-book universe, it's >>>>> actually extremely unlikely that an interstellar object would contain >>>>> materials unknown to science with useful fantastic properties, like
powering a shrinking ray and its corresponding enlarging ray, for
example.
Finding materials unknown to science with properties that could be
useful, if we find a way to produce them in bulk, on the other hand, >>>>> is quite possible: but a vastly cheaper way to do that is to simulate >>>>> their properties on large computers instead of catching interstellar >>>>> objects. So we'll just have to be content with super-strong and
super-light structural materials, while doing without new elements
that can supply antigravity, power FTL drives, or power shrinking
rays.
All this stuff on flying cars has been interesting, but it ignores the >>>> basic problem:
most drivers can't manage doing it without accidents in two
dimensions. Why should we expect them to do any better in three?
I expect that control would have to be taken out of the hands of
the driver, for the most part.
This may work in police states, but the USA still resists that sort of
thing. This is the Wild West effect.
As I type, Musk is introducing driverless robotaxis to US cities,
starting with Austin. They have no steering wheels or pedals, and
routing is completely out of the hands of the passengers.
Waymo is doing similar, and is ahead of Tesla on deployment.
If people find that acceptable in 2D, why would they not in 3D?
On 9/6/2026 12:39 PM, Paul S Person wrote:snip
On Sat, 5 Sep 2026 14:22:50 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/5/2026 12:10 PM, Paul S Person wrote:
All this stuff on flying cars has been interesting, but it ignores the >>>> basic problem:
most drivers can't manage doing it without accidents in two
dimensions. Why should we expect them to do any better in three?
I expect that control would have to be taken out of the hands of
the driver, for the most part.
This may work in police states, but the USA still resists that sort of
thing. This is the Wild West effect.
As I type, Musk is introducing driverless robotaxis to US cities,
starting with Austin. They have no steering wheels or pedals, and
routing is completely out of the hands of the passengers.
Waymo is doing similar, and is ahead of Tesla on deployment.
If people find that acceptable in 2D, why would they not in 3D?
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 38:22:37 |
| Calls: | 1,196 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,354 |
| D/L today: |
17 files (19,632K bytes) |
| Messages: | 295,059 |