🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mon, 06 Jul 1998 04:45:22 GMT, in@the.sig (E. Faubion) wrote:

>>>The ratio of the actual recorded rate (as in a test)
>
>>The rate of what?  
>
>Never mind.  It's obviously beyond you.

Oh come now, can you not explain your points in a lucid manner with English or
mathematics?  You've not done so yet, and you're name calling and innuendo is
simply the mark of someone who either doesn't know what he's talking about, is
terminally insecure in the face of criticism and debate, or both.  This is not
the way a competent professional behaves, and I don't know about the rest of
the readers of these groups, but I'm rapidly losing confidence that you are
what you claim to be, and beginning to think you're a complete fraud.  If so,
you've perpetrated a fine hoax against us all.  

Now straighten up, support your ideas and assertions like a professional and
like the expert that you claim to be.  We'll all appreciate that.

>In 1992 I wrote a computer program for accident investigators and the
>last update was last year.

Gee whiz, I've been writing computer programs for profit for 15 years.  Few
will be impressed that you've written "a program."

>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.

Lots of programs get written and reviewed  - with mixed results -- point us to
printed or on-line reviews of your stuff!  Better yet, if the program is
non-commercial and public domain, point us to the source code.  I'm sure that
the physics/math whizzes on this group will be very interested in seeing your
calculations.  The proof is in the pudding - put your code where your mouth is.

>Perhaps I should have consulted you first?  We could have marketed it as a game. :=]

Perhaps you should have.  I do this for a living.  A game?  Hey, that might
have been fun, but I don't do games.  Somehow I think accident investigation
software would be hard to make exciting enough.  But hmm....COPS, the *game* --
now there could be potential there judging by the success of the TV series.

>Speeding does cause crashes. 

*Driving* causes crashes!  The speed at which one drives affects the overall
risk rate to some extent -- that and a whole host of other factors.  To focus
in so narrowly and agonize so greatly on one relatively minor factor in all
crashes makes little sense.

>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.

And legislators and policy-makers have of late been rendering fair verdicts on
the speed issue as well.  I cite the Washington DOT site,
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/communications/speed/faq.htm  :

"Q: Why did WSDOT raise legal speed limits on the interstates? 
A: When the federal speed limits were lifted last year, each state became
responsible for setting their own speed limits. In Washington, state law grants
the authority for establishing highway speeds to the Secretary of
Transportation, with some guidelines and restrictions. The department has
raised speed limits on some sections of interstate highway because the federal
speed limits were artificially low on most of the interstate system. "

Ya got that?  ARTIFICIALLY LOW.  And they still *are* artificially low in most
places.

>Sure it is.  Maybe you soothed your conscience with the semantics but
>it is still very much the same thing. 

My "conscience" is not at all in need of soothing.  Is yours keeping you up
nights?  Were I in the wrong it would be a different story, but I am not.


Cheers,
Eric