Computers on TV

[Douglas Miller]

Was watching episodes of "UFO" today, and it was remarkable how UN-futuristic their computer equipment was. Filmed in 1970, set in 1980, they completely missed the microprocessor revolution. It was basically current technology for 1970. Of course, especially back then, the people who designed the sets and props were not computer savey. At least they got the fashions and automobiles correct! :-}

Suspension of disbelief, and all, so not really criticizing. But, it is remarkable how different things really were by 1980, especially for multi-national military organizations with deep pockets.

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On Sun, 25 Oct 2020 16:47:49 -0700 (PDT)

Post by Douglas Miller
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.

[maus]

Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Sun, 25 Oct 2020 16:47:49 -0700 (PDT)

Post by Douglas Miller
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?

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On 26 Oct 2020 10:10:12 GMT

Post by maus

Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Sun, 25 Oct 2020 16:47:49 -0700 (PDT)

Post by Douglas Miller
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?

Waiting for the general population to become pilots qualified for
operations in extremely crowded airspace. Then again the next Tesla
Roadster is supposed to have an option for a cold gas thruster pack capable
of delivering 3g acceleration in any direction including upwards (but not
for very long) which could bring new meaning to over-taking.

[Quadibloc]

Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On 26 Oct 2020 10:10:12 GMT

Post by maus
Where are our flying cars?

Waiting for the general population to become pilots qualified for
operations in extremely crowded airspace.

Me, I would have written "waiting for the development of
antigravity".

After all, the flying car of science fiction was never just a
small airplane, requiring the usual qualifications of a pilot to
fly it. Instead, while it would fly, it would fly showly - and be capable
of hovering in place - so as not to require special skills beyond those
needed to drive a car.

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.

And have the blades spinning at such a speed that they can all
be shrouded.

John Savard

[J. Clarke]

On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 09:19:27 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On 26 Oct 2020 10:10:12 GMT

Post by maus
Where are our flying cars?

Waiting for the general population to become pilots qualified for
operations in extremely crowded airspace.

"Ahem" seems to be stuck in the ancient past. None of the current
propsals will require anyone to become a pilot. They are all designed
for autonomous operation, which is far easier for aircraft than for
ground vehicles. You get in, say "Take me home" and start your nap.

Post by Quadibloc
Me, I would have written "waiting for the development of
antigravity".
After all, the flying car of science fiction was never just a
small airplane, requiring the usual qualifications of a pilot to
fly it. Instead, while it would fly, it would fly showly - and be capable
of hovering in place - so as not to require special skills beyond those
needed to drive a car.

And all of the current proposals have that capability. However
Harriers can fly slowly and hover in place, but they nonetheless need
a great deal of skill to fly. Helicopters also have that
capability--I'm not going to argue whether hovering a helicopter or a
Harrier requires more skill but both require quite a lot.

Post by Quadibloc
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.

Sikorsky? What Sikorsky model is that? A better model would be
Kamov, which pioneered the coaxial design in the late 1940s and has
been using it for the majority of their designes ever since.

Post by Quadibloc
And have the blades spinning at such a speed that they can all
be shrouded.
John Savard

[Charlie Gibbs]

Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 09:19:27 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc

Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On 26 Oct 2020 10:10:12 GMT

Post by maus
Where are our flying cars?

Waiting for the general population to become pilots qualified for
operations in extremely crowded airspace.

"Ahem" seems to be stuck in the ancient past. None of the current
propsals will require anyone to become a pilot. They are all designed
for autonomous operation, which is far easier for aircraft than for
ground vehicles. You get in, say "Take me home" and start your nap.

Someone tried that recently in a Tesla. Fortunately the police
pulled him over before any damage was done.

[maus]

Post by Charlie Gibbs

Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 09:19:27 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc

Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On 26 Oct 2020 10:10:12 GMT

Post by maus
Where are our flying cars?

Waiting for the general population to become pilots qualified for
operations in extremely crowded airspace.

"Ahem" seems to be stuck in the ancient past. None of the current
propsals will require anyone to become a pilot. They are all designed
for autonomous operation, which is far easier for aircraft than for
ground vehicles. You get in, say "Take me home" and start your nap.

Someone tried that recently in a Tesla. Fortunately the police
pulled him over before any damage was done.

I have heard of that. Another thing that might happen is that you are
sitting with friends, your phone rings, and it is your car. It says,
"Its damn cold out here, if you don't come out, I am going to my
garage to uppower and you can walk."

[Dallas]

... Another thing that might happen is that you are
sitting with friends, your phone rings, and it is your car. It says,
"Its damn cold out here, if you don't come out, I am going to my
garage to uppower and you can walk."

I am surprised that I have not noticed many TV shows that feature self-driving cars in their plots.

There was one episode of Silicon Valley where the car drove itself with a person inside to a dock,
and then quickly got loaded onto a cargo ship to the surprise of the passenger.

The commercials show the self-parking cars and the trucks that can back themselves with the boat
trailer attached down the boat ramp.

[J. Clarke]

Post by Dallas

... Another thing that might happen is that you are
sitting with friends, your phone rings, and it is your car. It says,
"Its damn cold out here, if you don't come out, I am going to my
garage to uppower and you can walk."

I am surprised that I have not noticed many TV shows that feature self-driving cars in their plots.
There was one episode of Silicon Valley where the car drove itself with a person inside to a dock,
and then quickly got loaded onto a cargo ship to the surprise of the passenger.
The commercials show the self-parking cars and the trucks that can back themselves with the boat
trailer attached down the boat ramp.

My current car can parallel park itself. It makes me put a little
pressure on the gas pedal so that I get sued instead of Ford if it
screws up.

[J. Clarke]

Post by Charlie Gibbs

Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 09:19:27 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc

Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On 26 Oct 2020 10:10:12 GMT

Post by maus
Where are our flying cars?

Waiting for the general population to become pilots qualified for
operations in extremely crowded airspace.

"Ahem" seems to be stuck in the ancient past. None of the current
propsals will require anyone to become a pilot. They are all designed
for autonomous operation, which is far easier for aircraft than for
ground vehicles. You get in, say "Take me home" and start your nap.

Someone tried that recently in a Tesla. Fortunately the police
pulled him over before any damage was done.

That's a car, not an aircraft. Autopilots for aircraft are very
mature technology.

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 18:05:57 -0400

Post by J. Clarke
That's a car, not an aircraft. Autopilots for aircraft are very
mature technology.

Yes but they take off, fly and land under tightly controlled
conditions that ensure they have clear air space, flying cars won't.

[Quadibloc]

Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 09:19:27 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc
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.

Sikorsky? What Sikorsky model is that? A better model would be
Kamov, which pioneered the coaxial design in the late 1940s and has
been using it for the majority of their designes ever since.

I was thinking of a transport helicopter, like the Boeing CH-47 Chinook.

But even more specifically, of the kind of craft in the first page of the
comic reproduced here:

https://atocom.blogspot.com/2016/07/reading-room-captain-johner-and-aliens_18.html

John Savard

[Dallas]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 09:19:27 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc
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.

Sikorsky? What Sikorsky model is that? A better model would be
Kamov, which pioneered the coaxial design in the late 1940s and has
been using it for the majority of their designes ever since.

I was thinking of a transport helicopter, like the Boeing CH-47 Chinook.
But even more specifically, of the kind of craft in the first page of the
https://atocom.blogspot.com/2016/07/reading-room-captain-johner-and-aliens_18.html
John Savard

and there was an actual prototype of an "Avrocar" in the 1950's
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_VZ-9_Avrocar

[J. Clarke]

Post by Dallas

Post by Quadibloc

Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 09:19:27 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc
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.

Sikorsky? What Sikorsky model is that? A better model would be
Kamov, which pioneered the coaxial design in the late 1940s and has
been using it for the majority of their designes ever since.

I was thinking of a transport helicopter, like the Boeing CH-47 Chinook.
But even more specifically, of the kind of craft in the first page of the
https://atocom.blogspot.com/2016/07/reading-room-captain-johner-and-aliens_18.html
John Savard

and there was an actual prototype of an "Avrocar" in the 1950's
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_VZ-9_Avrocar
http://youtu.be/8YEZXF5cEzw

Which didn't even get high enough to crash. There was also the Taylor
Aerocar, which achieved sufficient success that there was one featured
occasionally in a network sitcom (note that licensing was a pain--it
was legally considered to be a tractor-trailer on the ground so you
needed a commercial driver's license and had to register the two
pieces separately and get a license tag for each, plus the
registration as an aircraft and the pilot's license). The Terrafugia
is a similar concept that is in the flying-prototype stage.

But here's something closer to the direction the mainstream seems to
be taking:

This one
may actually be close to market--it looks like they're making them in
quantity.

[J. Clarke]

On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 15:40:06 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc

Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 09:19:27 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc
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.

Sikorsky? What Sikorsky model is that? A better model would be
Kamov, which pioneered the coaxial design in the late 1940s and has
been using it for the majority of their designes ever since.

I was thinking of a transport helicopter, like the Boeing CH-47 Chinook.
But even more specifically, of the kind of craft in the first page of the
https://atocom.blogspot.com/2016/07/reading-room-captain-johner-and-aliens_18.html

That's a quadcopter. Basic hobbyist drone layout and being used in
one variant or another by just about everybody who has a project in
the works.

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 09:19:27 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc
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.

Sikorsky? What Sikorsky model is that? A better model would be
Kamov, which pioneered the coaxial design in the late 1940s and has
been using it for the majority of their designes ever since.

I was thinking of a transport helicopter, like the Boeing CH-47 Chinook.

This is a better example, perhaps:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky%E2%80%93Boeing_SB-1_Defiant

[Niklas Karlsson]

Post by J. Clarke
Sikorsky? What Sikorsky model is that? A better model would be
Kamov, which pioneered the coaxial design in the late 1940s and has
been using it for the majority of their designes ever since.

I'd always wondered how coaxial Kamovs yaw. Apparently, assuming they're
hovering or moving too slowly for the tail rudder to have adequate
effect, they increase the pitch of one rotor but not the other, so you
get more drag going one way than the other. The amount of pitch needed
is slight, so there won't be much of an effect on height control.

Niklas

[Niklas Karlsson]

Post by Niklas Karlsson

Post by J. Clarke
Sikorsky? What Sikorsky model is that? A better model would be
Kamov, which pioneered the coaxial design in the late 1940s and has
been using it for the majority of their designes ever since.

I'd always wondered how coaxial Kamovs yaw. Apparently, assuming they're
hovering or moving too slowly for the tail rudder to have adequate
effect, they increase the pitch of one rotor but not the other, so you
get more drag going one way than the other. The amount of pitch needed
is slight, so there won't be much of an effect on height control.

Also, it's easier to make them have a small footprint compared to
tail-rotor designs, which is why the Russians like to operate coaxial
Kamovs off of ships.

Niklas

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 09:19:27 -0700 (PDT)

Post by Quadibloc
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).

[Quadibloc]

Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 09:19:27 -0700 (PDT)

Post by Quadibloc
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

[Quadibloc]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 09:19:27 -0700 (PDT)

Post by Quadibloc
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

[Kerr-Mudd,John]

On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 17:11:34 GMT, Ahem A Rivet's Shot

Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 09:19:27 -0700 (PDT)

Post by Quadibloc
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.

[Dennis Boone]

... 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

[J. Clarke]

Post by maus

Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Sun, 25 Oct 2020 16:47:49 -0700 (PDT)

Post by Douglas Miller
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.

[Dallas]

Post by J. Clarke
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.

[maus]

Post by Dallas

Post by J. Clarke
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.

[Dallas]

Post by maus

Post by Dallas

Post by J. Clarke
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".

[maus]

Post by Dallas

Post by maus

Post by Dallas

Post by J. Clarke
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.

[J. Clarke]

Post by Dallas

Post by maus

Post by Dallas

Post by J. Clarke
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.

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

Some just play engine noise through the speakers.

[Charlie Gibbs]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Dallas
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?)

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Dallas
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.

Post by J. Clarke
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

[J. Clarke]

Post by Charlie Gibbs

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Dallas
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?)

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Dallas
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.

Post by J. Clarke
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.
https://cheezburger.com/2376827136/funny-picture-hat-fail

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

[Charlie Gibbs]

Post by J. Clarke
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...

[Douglas Miller]

...
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.

Post by Dallas
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".

[Jorgen Grahn]

...

Post by Dallas

Post by maus
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

[J. Clarke]

Post by Dallas

Post by J. Clarke
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.

[Joy Beeson]

Post by Dallas
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*.

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 08:27:16 -0400

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Sun, 25 Oct 2020 16:47:49 -0700 (PDT)

Post by Douglas Miller
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.

Post by J. Clarke
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.

Post by J. Clarke
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.

[Niklas Karlsson]

Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 08:27:16 -0400

Post by J. Clarke
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

[Peter Flass]

Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 08:27:16 -0400

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Sun, 25 Oct 2020 16:47:49 -0700 (PDT)

Post by Douglas Miller
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.

Post by J. Clarke
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.

Post by J. Clarke
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.

[J. Clarke]

On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 14:52:20 -0700, Peter Flass

Post by Peter Flass

Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 08:27:16 -0400

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Sun, 25 Oct 2020 16:47:49 -0700 (PDT)

Post by Douglas Miller
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.

Post by J. Clarke
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.

Post by J. Clarke
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.

Fewer unexpected things and no need to stay in a narrow lane.

[Dallas]

Post by Peter Flass
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.

But no room for error.

[Dallas]

Post by Dallas

Post by Peter Flass
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.

But no room for error.

and there are birds sharing the air with you

and probably more and more drones carrying stuff

[J. Clarke]

Post by Dallas

Post by Dallas

Post by Peter Flass
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.

But no room for error.

and there are birds sharing the air with you
and probably more and more drones carrying stuff

When bird meets cuisinart, bird loses. As for drones, it's not the
autonomous stuff you have to worry about, its the stuff piloted by
humans who do unpredictable things for incomprehensible reasons. The
drones can just be programmed to avoid each other. That technology
has been in commercial use for decades.

[J. Clarke]

Post by Dallas

Post by Peter Flass
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.

But no room for error.

There's plenty of room for error. A fraction of a second inattention
in a car can get you dead. In an airplane unless you're landing,
taking off, or flying in tight formation (or in combat) it just means
that you need to make a correction.

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 14:52:20 -0700

Post by Peter Flass
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.

As with all flying the hard parts are take off and landing where
there are unexpected things like power lines, nasty wind effects and moving
land vehicles to worry about. As with self-driving cars the easy bits are
easy and the hard bits get people killed if you get them wrong.

[JimP]

On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 14:52:20 -0700, Peter Flass

Post by Peter Flass

Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 08:27:16 -0400

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Sun, 25 Oct 2020 16:47:49 -0700 (PDT)

Post by Douglas Miller
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.

Post by J. Clarke
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.

Post by J. Clarke
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.

Well, there will be lots of flying cars...

[Dallas]

Post by JimP
Well, there will be lots of flying cars...

And flying trucks?

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 10:07:46 -0500

Post by Dallas

Post by JimP
Well, there will be lots of flying cars...

And flying trucks?

<points to mangled mess>What happened to it ?
<shrugs>It fell off the back of a lorry.

[Dave Garland]

Post by Dallas

Post by JimP
Well, there will be lots of flying cars...

And flying trucks?

And motorcycles (such as the jetpack guy that aircrews have reported
near LA).

The crash impact standards necessary (the equivalent of crush space,
side impact protection, etc., for automobiles) will be interesting.
Right now, it's all at (or below) the safety level of a Model T.

[JimP]

Post by Dallas

Post by JimP
Well, there will be lots of flying cars...

And flying trucks?

Probably, but transporting goods trucks will take longer to build.
Pickup trucks, sooner.

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 09:52:16 -0500

Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 14:52:20 -0700, Peter Flass

Post by Peter Flass
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.

Well, there will be lots of flying cars...

Yep, assuming that flying cars will get better mileage on road than
in the air (which seems very likely) then contemplate what happens as you
approach a traffic jam. Everyone with a flying car will be wanting to take
off at this point, airborne chaos ensues and those autopilots need to be
*really* good.

[Thomas Koenig]

Post by Peter Flass
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.

But no safe mode to fall back to. A car that stops due to some
failure is relatively safe, unless it's in the middle of a busy lane
on a motorway. An air car that stops due to some failure does what?

[Gerard Schildberger]

Post by Peter Flass
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.

- But no safe mode to fall back to. A car that stops due to some
- failure is relatively safe, unless it's in the middle of a busy lane
- on a motorway. An air car that stops due to some failure does what?


It flies like a brick. ___________________________ Gerard Schildberger

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by Gerard Schildberger

Post by Peter Flass
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.

- But no safe mode to fall back to. A car that stops due to some
- failure is relatively safe, unless it's in the middle of a busy lane
- on a motorway. An air car that stops due to some failure does what?

Autorotates to the ground (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autorotation)

Deploys a parachute (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cirrus_Airframe_Parachute_System)

One of the reasons that they have multiple rotors on the current designs
for self-flying cars is redundancy.

[J. Clarke]

On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 11:08:04 -0700 (PDT), Gerard Schildberger

Post by Gerard Schildberger

Post by Peter Flass
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.

- But no safe mode to fall back to. A car that stops due to some
- failure is relatively safe, unless it's in the middle of a busy lane
- on a motorway. An air car that stops due to some failure does what?

That depends on the failure. If the failure in a car is the brakes
and it "just stops" by running into a bridge abutment that's not
"relatively safe". You seem focused on drivetrain failures. Until
recently a car had a single drivetrain (many now have two, some have
three or four) so an engine or transmission failure made it stop. Most
of the self-flying car designs have as many engines as or more than a
B-52, which can shut down four engines in flight without any
noticeable consequence other than that the performance takes a hit. So
multiple failures would be required to make one stop flying--either
that or running the battery flat, and they should land themselves
before that happens.

[Niklas Karlsson]

Post by Thomas Koenig

Post by Peter Flass
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.

But no safe mode to fall back to. A car that stops due to some
failure is relatively safe, unless it's in the middle of a busy lane
on a motorway. An air car that stops due to some failure does what?

Perhaps one could include the ability to autorotate (if rotor based) or
glide (if fixed-wing). Not easy to implement safely, though (you still
need a safe spot to land!), and would require variable-pitch
rotors/propellers in the rotor case.

Niklas

[J. Clarke]

Post by Niklas Karlsson

Post by Thomas Koenig

Post by Peter Flass
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.

But no safe mode to fall back to. A car that stops due to some
failure is relatively safe, unless it's in the middle of a busy lane
on a motorway. An air car that stops due to some failure does what?

Perhaps one could include the ability to autorotate (if rotor based) or
glide (if fixed-wing). Not easy to implement safely, though (you still
need a safe spot to land!), and would require variable-pitch
rotors/propellers in the rotor case.

Nope. 8 engines, fly on four.

Post by Niklas Karlsson
Niklas

[Niklas Karlsson]

[self-flying car failure modes]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Niklas Karlsson
Perhaps one could include the ability to autorotate (if rotor based) or
glide (if fixed-wing). Not easy to implement safely, though (you still
need a safe spot to land!), and would require variable-pitch
rotors/propellers in the rotor case.

Nope. 8 engines, fly on four.

Just have to make sure not to include any single points of failure for
the power supply to or control system for the engines.

Niklas

[J. Clarke]

Post by Niklas Karlsson
[self-flying car failure modes]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Niklas Karlsson
Perhaps one could include the ability to autorotate (if rotor based) or
glide (if fixed-wing). Not easy to implement safely, though (you still
need a safe spot to land!), and would require variable-pitch
rotors/propellers in the rotor case.

Nope. 8 engines, fly on four.

Just have to make sure not to include any single points of failure for
the power supply to or control system for the engines.

Multiple power supplies and redundant control systems.

Post by Niklas Karlsson
Niklas

[Peter Flass]

Post by Niklas Karlsson

Post by Thomas Koenig

Post by Peter Flass
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.

But no safe mode to fall back to. A car that stops due to some
failure is relatively safe, unless it's in the middle of a busy lane
on a motorway. An air car that stops due to some failure does what?

Perhaps one could include the ability to autorotate (if rotor based) or
glide (if fixed-wing). Not easy to implement safely, though (you still
need a safe spot to land!), and would require variable-pitch
rotors/propellers in the rotor case.

Helicopter design is particularly dangerous, since the thing does drop like
a brick if the engine fails. At least with a fixed-wing plane you have
_some_ chance of gliding to a landing. I wonder if a quad-copter can
tolerate s single engine failure. Maybe some programming to compensate for
the loss of balance, at least to allow the thing to land.

[J. Clarke]

On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 15:56:57 -0700, Peter Flass

Post by Peter Flass

Post by Niklas Karlsson

Post by Thomas Koenig

Post by Peter Flass
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.

But no safe mode to fall back to. A car that stops due to some
failure is relatively safe, unless it's in the middle of a busy lane
on a motorway. An air car that stops due to some failure does what?

Perhaps one could include the ability to autorotate (if rotor based) or
glide (if fixed-wing). Not easy to implement safely, though (you still
need a safe spot to land!), and would require variable-pitch
rotors/propellers in the rotor case.

Helicopter design is particularly dangerous, since the thing does drop like
a brick if the engine fails.

It drops, but it it also stores up a shitload of kinetic energy in the
rotor.

Post by Peter Flass
At least with a fixed-wing plane you have
_some_ chance of gliding to a landing.

And with a helicopter you fly it like an autogyro until you find a
landing spot then expend the kinetic energy in the rotor stopping the
rate of descent.

Post by Peter Flass
I wonder if a quad-copter can
tolerate s single engine failure. Maybe some programming to compensate for
the loss of balance, at least to allow the thing to land.

The ones that are being developed as manned vehicles are not
quad-copters. They have far more engines and propellers than that and
yes, they can tolerate an engine out. Or two or three depending on
the design.

[Dallas]

Post by Thomas Koenig

Post by Peter Flass
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.

But no safe mode to fall back to. A car that stops due to some
failure is relatively safe, unless it's in the middle of a busy lane
on a motorway. An air car that stops due to some failure does what?

Ejection seats?

[David Lesher]

Post by Dallas

Post by Thomas Koenig
But no safe mode to fall back to. A car that stops due to some
failure is relatively safe, unless it's in the middle of a busy lane
on a motorway. An air car that stops due to some failure does what?

Ejection seats?

And the folks underneath them?

[Mike Spencer]

Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 08:27:16 -0400

Post by J. Clarke
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.

Maps. Greater London, Appalachian trail, galaxy far, far away, all
same. Zoom in/zoom out on small screen dosn't make it.

[Dallas]

Post by Mike Spencer

Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 08:27:16 -0400

Post by J. Clarke
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.

Maps. Greater London, Appalachian trail, galaxy far, far away, all
same. Zoom in/zoom out on small screen dosn't make it.

I did something once that gave me a feel of what a transparent screen might look like.

We were moving offices and they took down my large whiteboard.
The door to my office was transparent.
So, I started writing with the marker pens on that glass door.
I liked it!

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On 26 Oct 2020 19:13:40 -0300

Post by Mike Spencer

Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 08:27:16 -0400

Post by J. Clarke
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.

Maps. Greater London, Appalachian trail, galaxy far, far away, all
same. Zoom in/zoom out on small screen dosn't make it.

Sure size is good for many things, but why on earth would you want
the display to be transparent ? What use is the reversed display visible
from the back and why would you want to see whatever is behind the display
through what is being displayed.

[Carlos E.R.]

Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On 26 Oct 2020 19:13:40 -0300

Post by Mike Spencer

Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 08:27:16 -0400

Post by J. Clarke
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.

Maps. Greater London, Appalachian trail, galaxy far, far away, all
same. Zoom in/zoom out on small screen dosn't make it.

Sure size is good for many things, but why on earth would you want
the display to be transparent ? What use is the reversed display visible
from the back and why would you want to see whatever is behind the display
through what is being displayed.

It gives an appearance to the room of been bigger or less packed.

There was a transparent map (so not an active display) used on a movie
of a submarine or surface vessel - I don't know if that was film fantasy
creation or if the military actually use them. Seems to me they can
shatter to pieces on impact during battle.

[Dallas]

There was a transparent map (so not an active display) used on a movie of a submarine or surface
vessel - I don't know if that was film fantasy creation or if the military actually use them. Seems
to me they can shatter to pieces on impact during battle.

The movie Avatar features transparent screens

https://listverse.com/2018/11/29/10-futuristic-technologies-of-avatar-that-we-already-have/

[J. Clarke]

Post by Dallas

There was a transparent map (so not an active display) used on a movie of a submarine or surface
vessel - I don't know if that was film fantasy creation or if the military actually use them. Seems
to me they can shatter to pieces on impact during battle.

The movie Avatar features transparent screens
https://listverse.com/2018/11/29/10-futuristic-technologies-of-avatar-that-we-already-have/

It features many things that are not real.

However at one time some warships had transparent situation boards on
which one drew with a grease pencil.

[Dallas]

Post by J. Clarke
However at one time some warships had transparent situation boards on
which one drew with a grease pencil.

I would imagine that in confined spaces I would enjoy not having my view of my surroundings blocked
by always opaque screens. I would probably have to try it to see what real difference it makes,
At least I have lived long enough to enjoy thin opaque screens. I am sharing a room with ten of
them at the moment. They are wrapped around me in a horseshoe pattern.

My son stacks his vertically. Mine are all sitting on the same plane.

[Dan Espen]

Post by Dallas

Post by J. Clarke
However at one time some warships had transparent situation boards on
which one drew with a grease pencil.

I would imagine that in confined spaces I would enjoy not having my
view of my surroundings blocked by always opaque screens. I would
probably have to try it to see what real difference it makes, At least
I have lived long enough to enjoy thin opaque screens. I am sharing a
room with ten of them at the moment. They are wrapped around me in a
horseshoe pattern.
My son stacks his vertically. Mine are all sitting on the same plane.

So, you change your chair position for each monitor you use?

I have one 27" 3840x2160 display.
I have another 1600x1200 21" in storage.
Every once in a while I think of making it a second display.
But I'm hard put to put my current display space to full use.

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 18:30:03 -0400

Post by Dan Espen
I have one 27" 3840x2160 display.
I have another 1600x1200 21" in storage.
Every once in a while I think of making it a second display.
But I'm hard put to put my current display space to full use.

Hmm my work environment consists of a 15" 4k laptop with two
27" 4k monitors - it's all in use under normal working conditions with
about half the screen area devoted to communications tools of one sort or
another, a third to reference (ie. web browser) and the real work takes
place in a terminal window talking to a tmux session occupying about a
third of one monitor.

[Peter Flass]

Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 18:30:03 -0400

Post by Dan Espen
I have one 27" 3840x2160 display.
I have another 1600x1200 21" in storage.
Every once in a while I think of making it a second display.
But I'm hard put to put my current display space to full use.

Hmm my work environment consists of a 15" 4k laptop with two
27" 4k monitors - it's all in use under normal working conditions with
about half the screen area devoted to communications tools of one sort or
another, a third to reference (ie. web browser) and the real work takes
place in a terminal window talking to a tmux session occupying about a
third of one monitor.

Similar here. I tend to load the screen up with windows until I can’t find
anything any more and minimize a bunch. I think I probably have 15 or so
open now: a bunch of edit windows and usually three or four terminal
windows, plus occasionally a browser and various LO stuff. I should get
used to using multiple screens- sometimes I run VirtualBox or an emulator
in its own screen.

[Dallas]

Post by Peter Flass

Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 18:30:03 -0400

Post by Dan Espen
I have one 27" 3840x2160 display.
I have another 1600x1200 21" in storage.
Every once in a while I think of making it a second display.
But I'm hard put to put my current display space to full use.

Hmm my work environment consists of a 15" 4k laptop with two
27" 4k monitors - it's all in use under normal working conditions with
about half the screen area devoted to communications tools of one sort or
another, a third to reference (ie. web browser) and the real work takes
place in a terminal window talking to a tmux session occupying about a
third of one monitor.

Similar here. I tend to load the screen up with windows until I can’t find
anything any more and minimize a bunch. I think I probably have 15 or so
open now: a bunch of edit windows and usually three or four terminal
windows, plus occasionally a browser and various LO stuff. I should get
used to using multiple screens- sometimes I run VirtualBox or an emulator
in its own screen.

Multiple screens are really great when they are the same size.

Right now I am using a large screen and a laptop's screen.
A bit awkward to stretch a window across the two screens of different sizes and resolutions.

At work the IT person tries hard to match us up with two identical models of monitors.
I really appreciate that! That way they sit on identical stands and the screens fit together so
nicely.
I even put a strip of painters tape across the back connecting the monitors so I do not see any
light between them.

[J. Clarke]

Post by Dallas

Post by Peter Flass

Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 18:30:03 -0400

Post by Dan Espen
I have one 27" 3840x2160 display.
I have another 1600x1200 21" in storage.
Every once in a while I think of making it a second display.
But I'm hard put to put my current display space to full use.

Hmm my work environment consists of a 15" 4k laptop with two
27" 4k monitors - it's all in use under normal working conditions with
about half the screen area devoted to communications tools of one sort or
another, a third to reference (ie. web browser) and the real work takes
place in a terminal window talking to a tmux session occupying about a
third of one monitor.

Similar here. I tend to load the screen up with windows until I can’t find
anything any more and minimize a bunch. I think I probably have 15 or so
open now: a bunch of edit windows and usually three or four terminal
windows, plus occasionally a browser and various LO stuff. I should get
used to using multiple screens- sometimes I run VirtualBox or an emulator
in its own screen.

Multiple screens are really great when they are the same size.
Right now I am using a large screen and a laptop's screen.
A bit awkward to stretch a window across the two screens of different sizes and resolutions.
At work the IT person tries hard to match us up with two identical models of monitors.
I really appreciate that! That way they sit on identical stands and the screens fit together so
nicely.
I even put a strip of painters tape across the back connecting the monitors so I do not see any
light between them.

At work I have two identical 2K 21 inch monitors. At home I have one
49" 4K. Only real downside I've found to the 4K is that I can't
maximize a video to a quarter of the screen, it's all or nothing with
any video player that I've been able to find.

[Dan Espen]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Dallas

Post by Peter Flass

Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 18:30:03 -0400

Post by Dan Espen
I have one 27" 3840x2160 display.
I have another 1600x1200 21" in storage.
Every once in a while I think of making it a second display.
But I'm hard put to put my current display space to full use.

Hmm my work environment consists of a 15" 4k laptop with two
27" 4k monitors - it's all in use under normal working conditions with
about half the screen area devoted to communications tools of one sort or
another, a third to reference (ie. web browser) and the real work takes
place in a terminal window talking to a tmux session occupying about a
third of one monitor.

Similar here. I tend to load the screen up with windows until I can’t find
anything any more and minimize a bunch. I think I probably have 15 or so
open now: a bunch of edit windows and usually three or four terminal
windows, plus occasionally a browser and various LO stuff. I should get
used to using multiple screens- sometimes I run VirtualBox or an emulator
in its own screen.

Multiple screens are really great when they are the same size.
Right now I am using a large screen and a laptop's screen.
A bit awkward to stretch a window across the two screens of different sizes and resolutions.
At work the IT person tries hard to match us up with two identical models of monitors.
I really appreciate that! That way they sit on identical stands and the screens fit together so
nicely.
I even put a strip of painters tape across the back connecting the monitors so I do not see any
light between them.

At work I have two identical 2K 21 inch monitors. At home I have one
49" 4K. Only real downside I've found to the 4K is that I can't
maximize a video to a quarter of the screen, it's all or nothing with
any video player that I've been able to find.

Pretty sure you can do something like that with xrandr.
With Fvwm2, I'd try playing the video in a window but
tell Fvwm2 to remove the title bar and frame.
Then arrange the windows side by side.

Yeah, I know. Windows? No clue.

I think monitors can be too big, I'm at 27" and not seeing any reason to
go larger.

[J. Clarke]

Post by Dan Espen

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Dallas

Post by Peter Flass

Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 18:30:03 -0400

Post by Dan Espen
I have one 27" 3840x2160 display.
I have another 1600x1200 21" in storage.
Every once in a while I think of making it a second display.
But I'm hard put to put my current display space to full use.

Hmm my work environment consists of a 15" 4k laptop with two
27" 4k monitors - it's all in use under normal working conditions with
about half the screen area devoted to communications tools of one sort or
another, a third to reference (ie. web browser) and the real work takes
place in a terminal window talking to a tmux session occupying about a
third of one monitor.

Similar here. I tend to load the screen up with windows until I can’t find
anything any more and minimize a bunch. I think I probably have 15 or so
open now: a bunch of edit windows and usually three or four terminal
windows, plus occasionally a browser and various LO stuff. I should get
used to using multiple screens- sometimes I run VirtualBox or an emulator
in its own screen.

Multiple screens are really great when they are the same size.
Right now I am using a large screen and a laptop's screen.
A bit awkward to stretch a window across the two screens of different sizes and resolutions.
At work the IT person tries hard to match us up with two identical models of monitors.
I really appreciate that! That way they sit on identical stands and the screens fit together so
nicely.
I even put a strip of painters tape across the back connecting the monitors so I do not see any
light between them.

At work I have two identical 2K 21 inch monitors. At home I have one
49" 4K. Only real downside I've found to the 4K is that I can't
maximize a video to a quarter of the screen, it's all or nothing with
any video player that I've been able to find.

Pretty sure you can do something like that with xrandr.
With Fvwm2, I'd try playing the video in a window but
tell Fvwm2 to remove the title bar and frame.
Then arrange the windows side by side.
Yeah, I know. Windows? No clue.
I think monitors can be too big, I'm at 27" and not seeing any reason to
go larger.

You will. I learned about the joys of really big monitors helping a
friend who was slowly losing his eyesight. He ended up with a 55"
just before he kicked it--at about 500% magnification he could get
text big enough to read, with enough on screen at one time to not be
totally useless.

[JimP]

Post by Dan Espen

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Dallas

Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 18:30:03 -0400

Post by Dan Espen
I have one 27" 3840x2160 display.
I have another 1600x1200 21" in storage.
Every once in a while I think of making it a second display.
But I'm hard put to put my current display space to full use.

Hmm my work environment consists of a 15" 4k laptop with two
27" 4k monitors - it's all in use under normal working conditions with
about half the screen area devoted to communications tools of one sort or
another, a third to reference (ie. web browser) and the real work takes
place in a terminal window talking to a tmux session occupying about a
third of one monitor.

Similar here. I tend to load the screen up with windows until I can’t find
anything any more and minimize a bunch. I think I probably have 15 or so
open now: a bunch of edit windows and usually three or four terminal
windows, plus occasionally a browser and various LO stuff. I should get
used to using multiple screens- sometimes I run VirtualBox or an emulator
in its own screen.

Multiple screens are really great when they are the same size.
Right now I am using a large screen and a laptop's screen.
A bit awkward to stretch a window across the two screens of different sizes and resolutions.
At work the IT person tries hard to match us up with two identical models of monitors.
I really appreciate that! That way they sit on identical stands and the screens fit together so
nicely.
I even put a strip of painters tape across the back connecting the monitors so I do not see any
light between them.

At work I have two identical 2K 21 inch monitors. At home I have one
49" 4K. Only real downside I've found to the 4K is that I can't
maximize a video to a quarter of the screen, it's all or nothing with
any video player that I've been able to find.

Pretty sure you can do something like that with xrandr.
With Fvwm2, I'd try playing the video in a window but
tell Fvwm2 to remove the title bar and frame.
Then arrange the windows side by side.
Yeah, I know. Windows? No clue.
I think monitors can be too big, I'm at 27" and not seeing any reason to
go larger.

Mine is 40", but I use it to play an MMO, Everquest II.

[Jorgen Grahn]

Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 18:30:03 -0400

Post by Dan Espen
I have one 27" 3840x2160 display.
I have another 1600x1200 21" in storage.
Every once in a while I think of making it a second display.
But I'm hard put to put my current display space to full use.

Not a bad choice, if you don't waste space on nonsense.

That was how I worked at my previous workplace. Everyone got two
monitors, I said I only needed one, my second eventually became
someone's third.

Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Hmm my work environment consists of a 15" 4k laptop with two
27" 4k monitors - it's all in use under normal working conditions with
about half the screen area devoted to communications tools of one sort or
another, a third to reference (ie. web browser) and the real work takes
place in a terminal window talking to a tmux session occupying about a
third of one monitor.

Kind of like mine now.

- laptop: always with the lid down
- 20-something-inch monitor: Windows desktop (not my choice)
with browser and communication
- 27" monitor with a VirtualBox VM in fullscreen
- an X11 display with (in ctwm) four virtual desktops
- #1: programming. An emacs and a screen(1) session
- around a dozen terminals in the screen session
- #2: test environment. a screen(1) session and sometimes a GUI
- a few terminals in the screen session
- #3: the lab environment. A screen(1) session with
- a dozen terminals, usually logged in on various servers in the lab
- #4: empty, to be used in emergencies

Most of the others at work use the laptop screen, too, and all have
the same external monitors. A few have one in portrait mode. Some use
tabbed window managers in X11, which gives the whole screen a
screen(1) or tmux(1) feel.

/Jorgen

[Dallas]

Post by Dan Espen

Post by Dallas

Post by J. Clarke
However at one time some warships had transparent situation boards on
which one drew with a grease pencil.

I would imagine that in confined spaces I would enjoy not having my
view of my surroundings blocked by always opaque screens. I would
probably have to try it to see what real difference it makes, At least
I have lived long enough to enjoy thin opaque screens. I am sharing a
room with ten of them at the moment. They are wrapped around me in a
horseshoe pattern.
My son stacks his vertically. Mine are all sitting on the same plane.

So, you change your chair position for each monitor you use?
I have one 27" 3840x2160 display.
I have another 1600x1200 21" in storage.
Every once in a while I think of making it a second display.
But I'm hard put to put my current display space to full use.

I do. It is a test bench with various PCs on it.

[JimP]

On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 18:02:45 -0400, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Dallas

There was a transparent map (so not an active display) used on a movie of a submarine or surface
vessel - I don't know if that was film fantasy creation or if the military actually use them. Seems
to me they can shatter to pieces on impact during battle.

The movie Avatar features transparent screens
https://listverse.com/2018/11/29/10-futuristic-technologies-of-avatar-that-we-already-have/

It features many things that are not real.
However at one time some warships had transparent situation boards on
which one drew with a grease pencil.

And backwards, so the people standing on the other side could read the
text.

[Mike Spencer]

Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On 26 Oct 2020 19:13:40 -0300

Post by Mike Spencer

Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Sure but nobody wants a transparent, blackboard sized computer
monitor like the ones depicted in films and TV.

Maps. Greater London, Appalachian trail, galaxy far, far away, all
same. Zoom in/zoom out on small screen dosn't make it.

Sure size is good for many things, but why on earth would you want
the display to be transparent ? What use is the reversed display visible
from the back and why would you want to see whatever is behind the display
through what is being displayed.

Agreed. I was addressing size, overlooking transparent. Wouldn't,
none, typically wouldn't, in that order.

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by maus

Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Sun, 25 Oct 2020 16:47:49 -0700 (PDT)

Post by Douglas Miller
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

https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/11/21363861/xiaomi-oled-tv-transparent-mi-lux-china-specs-price-release

[Charlie Gibbs]

Post by maus

Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Sun, 25 Oct 2020 16:47:49 -0700 (PDT)

Post by Douglas Miller
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.

That's not to say that some people won't go to a lot of effort
trying to make it so, whether it turns out to be practical or not.
"How William Shatner Changed the World" takes a tongue-in-cheek look
at how science fiction influences design once technology catches up.

Post by maus
Where are our flying cars?

"Goddamn cheap Japanese flying packs!"
-- Woody Allen: Sleeper

[J. Clarke]

Post by Charlie Gibbs

Post by maus

Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Sun, 25 Oct 2020 16:47:49 -0700 (PDT)

Post by Douglas Miller
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.

That's not to say that some people won't go to a lot of effort
trying to make it so, whether it turns out to be practical or not.
"How William Shatner Changed the World" takes a tongue-in-cheek look
at how science fiction influences design once technology catches up.

Post by maus
Where are our flying cars?

"Goddamn cheap Japanese flying packs!"
-- Woody Allen: Sleeper

Shows how times change. Japanese stuff was "cheap" and Volkswagens
were "good cars".

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 18:08:47 -0400

Post by J. Clarke
Shows how times change. Japanese stuff was "cheap" and Volkswagens
were "good cars".

Not that much of a change really, now it's China for "cheap" and
Japan for "good", sooner or later China will opt for "good" too (it's
already happening) and somewhere else will get a crack at being "cheap",
probably India or Africa. The real change will come when there's nowhere
left willing to be the world's cheap industrial base.

[Questor]

Post by maus

Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Sun, 25 Oct 2020 16:47:49 -0700 (PDT)

Post by Douglas Miller
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?

There. Will. Never. Be. Flying. Cars.

[Thomas Koenig]

Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Sun, 25 Oct 2020 16:47:49 -0700 (PDT)

Post by Douglas Miller
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).

My pet peeve is "holograms".

Neither Star Treck nor Star Wars nor Gibson's Neuromancer showed
anything remotely like an actual hologram.

You cannot project a hologram somewhere and expect that whatever
you project could bend or block light. Actual holograms have to
be line of sight, always.

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 19:46:41 -0000 (UTC)

Post by Thomas Koenig
You cannot project a hologram somewhere and expect that whatever
you project could bend or block light. Actual holograms have to
be line of sight, always.

Very good points, but I suspect that if anyone ever does invent
something that behaves like those ones do it will be called a hologram no
matter how it works.

[Jorgen Grahn]

Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Sun, 25 Oct 2020 16:47:49 -0700 (PDT)

Post by Douglas Miller
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.

In a decade or two? They look silly /now/.

They are a useful way of showing a bunch of people looking at and
discussing information, though: you can see their faces and the map
(or whatever it is) at the same time.

/Jorgen

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

Post by Ahem A Rivet's Shot
On Sun, 25 Oct 2020 16:47:49 -0700 (PDT)

Post by Douglas Miller
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.

I am always minded of this:

http://www.basicinstructions.net/basic-instructions/2018/7/5/how-to-compose-a-tweet

[Dallas]

Post by Douglas Miller
Was watching episodes of "UFO" today, and it was remarkable how UN-futuristic their computer equipment was. Filmed in 1970, set in 1980, they completely missed the microprocessor revolution. It was basically current technology for 1970. Of course, especially back then, the people who designed the sets and props were not computer savey. At least they got the fashions and automobiles correct! :-}
Suspension of disbelief, and all, so not really criticizing. But, it is remarkable how different things really were by 1980, especially for multi-national military organizations with deep pockets.

It was really interesting to be there to watch the evolution of computer graphic interactive
displays and the variety of human input devices that had their place on the stage for brief periods
of time.

Huge track balls - cereal box sized pads of buttons - light pens - joysticks

[Andreas Kohlbach]

Post by Douglas Miller
Was watching episodes of "UFO" today, and it was remarkable how
UN-futuristic their computer equipment was. Filmed in 1970, set in
1980, they completely missed the microprocessor revolution. It was
basically current technology for 1970. Of course, especially back
then, the people who designed the sets and props were not computer
savey. At least they got the fashions and automobiles correct! :-}
Suspension of disbelief, and all, so not really criticizing. But, it
is remarkable how different things really were by 1980, especially for
multi-national military organizations with deep pockets.

They had cordless phones predicted.

Interestingly they assumed that also Britain would move to driving on the
right (correct ;-) side of the road by the 1980s, but never happened.

[Dallas]

Post by Andreas Kohlbach

Post by Douglas Miller
Was watching episodes of "UFO" today, and it was remarkable how
UN-futuristic their computer equipment was. Filmed in 1970, set in
1980, they completely missed the microprocessor revolution. It was
basically current technology for 1970. Of course, especially back
then, the people who designed the sets and props were not computer
savey. At least they got the fashions and automobiles correct! :-}
Suspension of disbelief, and all, so not really criticizing. But, it
is remarkable how different things really were by 1980, especially for
multi-national military organizations with deep pockets.

They had cordless phones predicted.
Interestingly they assumed that also Britain would move to driving on the
right (correct ;-) side of the road by the 1980s, but never happened.

I don't have the best understanding of why and when differences in defining the "right" side of the
road came about.

Were there countries that switched sides ?

[Andy Burns]

Post by Dallas
I don't have the best understanding of why and when differences in
defining the "right" side of the road came about.
Were there countries that switched sides ?

search "Högertrafikomläggningen"

[jtmpreno]

Post by Dallas

Post by Andreas Kohlbach

Post by Douglas Miller
Was watching episodes of "UFO" today, and it was remarkable how
UN-futuristic their computer equipment was. Filmed in 1970, set in
1980, they completely missed the microprocessor revolution. It was
basically current technology for 1970. Of course, especially back
then, the people who designed the sets and props were not computer
savey. At least they got the fashions and automobiles correct! :-}
Suspension of disbelief, and all, so not really criticizing. But, it
is remarkable how different things really were by 1980, especially for
multi-national military organizations with deep pockets.

They had cordless phones predicted.
Interestingly they assumed that also Britain would move to driving on the
right (correct ;-) side of the road by the 1980s, but never happened.

I don't have the best understanding of why and when differences in
defining the "right" side of the road came about.
Were there countries that switched sides ?

Sweden in September 1967: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagen_H

They called it "Högertrafikomläggningen" ("The right-hand traffic
diversion")

[maus]

Post by Dallas

Post by Andreas Kohlbach

Post by Douglas Miller
Was watching episodes of "UFO" today, and it was remarkable how
UN-futuristic their computer equipment was. Filmed in 1970, set in
1980, they completely missed the microprocessor revolution. It was
basically current technology for 1970. Of course, especially back
then, the people who designed the sets and props were not computer
savey. At least they got the fashions and automobiles correct! :-}
Suspension of disbelief, and all, so not really criticizing. But, it
is remarkable how different things really were by 1980, especially for
multi-national military organizations with deep pockets.

They had cordless phones predicted.
Interestingly they assumed that also Britain would move to driving on the
right (correct ;-) side of the road by the 1980s, but never happened.

I don't have the best understanding of why and when differences in defining the "right" side of the
road came about.
Were there countries that switched sides ?

Sweden, I think.. Many Irish country roads, the right side is the center
:)

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On 21 Dec 2020 18:41:25 GMT

Post by maus

Post by Dallas
Were there countries that switched sides ?

Sweden, I think..

Yep https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagen_H for details. I was
impressed when all our speed limit signs changed overnight but that has it
beaten hollow.

Post by maus
Many Irish country roads, the right side is the center
:)

Wherever the potholes and severe undulations aren't, whenever
possible that is, otherwise where the surface least distantly approximates
smooth. Do not drive into puddles unless you know the road and even then
you can be surprised. All of this may be modified by the need to avoid a
sleeping dog, but thankfully not (for some decades now) the need to stop
dead for a nun stepping into the road and expecting a lift in the opposite
direction.

[Thomas Koenig]

Post by Dallas
I don't have the best understanding of why and when differences in defining the "right" side of the
road came about.
Were there countries that switched sides ?

There is a legend that East Frisia did that, a long time ago.

To make the transition easier, they made the transition step by step.
For the first week, only trucks switched to the other side of the road.