From: Gavin Thomas Nicol (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Aug 19 2000 - 08:59:20 PDT
> Yes. The discussion usually goes something like this...
> Your car makes for a lousy airplane.
> That's because it isn't supposed to be an airplane.
> Sure, sure, sure... but I want to fly to Hong Kong.
> Then build an airplane.
> But there are so many restrictions associated with airplanes...
> you need special landing rights... they expect a competent pilot...
> you can only land in a few places... and everything is so expensive.
> That's because flying isn't as easy and safe as driving. Why do
> you think they'll let flying cars get by with fewer restrictions?
> But we have so many cars just lying about unused, and everyone
> has a highway in their backyard, so obviously a car is the right way
> to travel.
> That's a byproduct of it being easy and (relatively) safe
> to drive,
> not a statement about the universal applicability of cars.
> But I'm pretty sure that if we add wings here, and a tail over there,
> and call the driver a pilot, that this is the only way to go.
> *sigh* ... Fine, then. When you get back from Hong Kong we'll
> talk about making it part of the standard.
Woof. How many times have I had that *same* conversation in the context of
I call it the "xxx as a hammer syndrome": people assume that blinding
success in one category automatically gurantess success in another.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Aug 19 2000 - 09:08:50 PDT