🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 09 Jul 1998 08:29:40 -0500, Hackman <@jump.nospam.net> wrote:
>E. Faubion wrote:
>> 
>> eta@my-dejanews.com (Eric Anderson) wrote:
>> 
>> >>The ratio of the actual recorded rate (as in a test)
>> 
>> >The rate of what?
>> 
>> Never mind.  It's obviously beyond you.
>> 
>> >No, but you're dealing with someone with a solid grounding in basic (and even
>> >some quantum) physics, and I recognize that this is something you're missing.
>> >Pretty odd considering your claim to "expertise" in this area.
>> 
>> In 1992 I wrote a computer program for accident investigators and the
>> last update was last year.  Seems odd I could write something like
>> that and have it reviewed in a national police magazine if I didn't
>> have at least some understanding of the subject.  Perhaps I should
>> have consulted you first?  We could have marketed it as a game. :=]
>> 
>
>well, outside of your programing ability (yeah right), his math and
>physics was correct, your was not...plain and simple....your just not
>hoinest enough to say that you made a mistake.  Pity.  I figured one day
>you would grow up and become a man and admit when your wrong Earl, but I
>guess not....

Wish I could remember the specfics, but weren't there inherent rounding
errors in GWBASIC?  I know I found some in Basic+ in 1980, 'cause I had
to justify $50,000 when I wrote a program that avoided the error, and think I
later found some in GWBASIC, but it was too long ago to remember such details.

Of course, with C, anything can happen, eh?  I shudder to think what an
unaudited physics program written by an amateur with no proper QA or
"correct" (in the Orr sense) design in a language designed for writing 
operating systems rather than applications could have wrong.  And that
user guide sure didn't make me feel warm and fuzzy about it, either.

>
>
>> >I've visited their excellent site.  I'd vastly prefer to be driving with the
>> >clientele of their site than the clientele of yours.
>> 
>> Naturally.
>> 
>> > From what I've seen their
>> >data is from external sources and any interpretations are no more biased than
>> >those on your site.
>> 
>> Naturally.
>> 
>> >You'll not find me arguing that seatbelts are a bad thing or that it doesn't
>> >make sense that death rates would go down from wearing them.  But they'll have
>> >no impact whatsoever on accident rates,
>> 
>> Naturally.  I don't recall anyone saying they did.  All they do is
>> improve the odds of survival in a crash.
>> 
>> >and I think that's what we need to
>> >focus on in the speed debate.  Nobody here is arguing that going faster will
>> >not result in more damage in the event of an accident, or that seatbelts will
>> >not prevent some injuries.  We're arguing whether or not speed in and of itself
>> >is primarily *responsible* for a significant number of accidents (as opposed to
>> >fatalities).
>> 
>> Speeding does cause crashes.  That the speeding crowd doesn't
>> acknowledge that is not surprising however thankfully the courts of
>> this land aren't blinded by that kind of bias and routinely render
>> fair verdicts in these cases.
>> 
>> >>>No, I want to drive at a fast, safe, and reasonable speed (which is entirely
>> >>>possible) without being unreasonably penalized for doing so.
>> 
>> >>Same thing.
>> 
>> >Not at all.
>> 
>> Sure it is.  Maybe you soothed your conscience with the semantics but
>> it is still very much the same thing.
>> 
>> Someone says hi:
>> 
>> http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Prairie/6123/victim.jpg


-- 
These opinions are my own and not necessarily those of Information Quest or 
Pebble In The Sky http://www.informationquest.com mailto:jgarry@nospameiq.com
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/joel_garry   Remove nospam to reply.  
mailto:joel_garry@compuserve.nospam.com  "See your DBA?"  I AM the @#%*& DBA!