How Did I Miss This One?

Jack May wrote:
> "Greg Sutherland" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Jack May wrote:
>>For a self titled "engineer" your contributions are light on for
>>dispassionate, verifable analysis and high on emotional rhetoric! For
>>example "Luddite fantasies", "rat holes of failed technology".
>
>
> You seem not to understand engineering. There are multiple types. I am
> not a detailed analysis engineer. I am one of the most creative engineers
> in our company.
>
> That creative characteristic requires jumping out of mental ruts quickly to
> come up with new approaches. Engineers that do detail analysis seldom have
> the capability to jump out of mental ruts and be creative.
>
> Creative engineers do use high level visualizations and broad sweeping
> conclusions. It is an extremely effective way of developing break through
> technologies that most engineers can not do.
>
>
Excuse me, I am a professional engineer. I understand the correct title
in your country is PE. Perhaps you might care to inform us as to your
professional engineering qualifications and experience which you can
then claim gives you the background to justify your sweeping
generalisations and unsubstantiated comments.

Greg

RJ wrote:
> Ned Carlson <see-www-tubezone-net> wrote:
>
>
>>On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 10:45:00 +1100, Greg Sutherland wrote:
>>
>>>For a self titled "engineer" your contributions are light on for
>>>dispassionate, verifable analysis and high on emotional rhetoric! For
>>>example "Luddite fantasies", "rat holes of failed technology".
>>>
>>>Greg
>>
>>Real engineers get their knickers in a twist over stuff like someone
>>using a comma where one should use a semicolon. Unless "Jack" got a
>>disability pass on exams as a dyslexic, he would've failed 8th grade
>>industrial arts classes for his spelling & syntax.
>
>
> Dear Ned,
>
> Just how anal retentive are you?

That wasn't worth getting out from under your bridge for.

--
You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause - Chico Marx

www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955

Jack May wrote:
> "Martin Edwards" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Jack May wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>I view through glasses of an engineer wanting thing to work instead of
>>>pouring money down the rat holes of failed technology
>>
>>Another masterpiece of English composition for the Little Red Book.
>
>
> I would never make it as a secretary which you seem to think is a very high
> position;
>
> I make a lot more money doing what I do than spending lots of time on the
> Internet trying to make every thing perfect in my writing.
>
> Are you new to the Internet? You seem not to have any of the concept of
> rapid writing that is done in discussions.
>
>
Not at all: I can dash off correct English quickly. As a matter of fact
I just passed 30 wpm in my fifties, which I am sure interests you not
one jot.

--
You can't fool me: there ain't no Sanity Clause - Chico Marx

www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955

In article >, SD Dave wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 23:06:47 -0600,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>The companies aren't going to care if it costs employees an extra $2.00
>>to show up at 8am vs 8:15am.
>
> Get a better contract.

Not everyone drives for living.

In article >, Greg Sutherland wrote:

> Excuse me, I am a professional engineer. I understand the correct title
> in your country is PE.

The PE is just an exam in the USA. Taking and passing the exam is really
only needed if you are going to be doing government work. It's for those who
are civil engineers, bridges, roads, etc. More or less a formality to do
that kind of work. It really doesn't prove one to be a competent engineer
or anything like that. Especially in my area, product design &
development.

I worked with a guy who couldn't design his way out of a wet paper bag.
In fact I got to take all his f'ed up designs and throw them away and
design something that worked and cost less. Anyway... he had his PE
certificate framed and hanging in his cube.

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 18:08:37 -0600,
(Brent P) wrote:

>In article >, SD Dave wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 23:06:47 -0600,
>> (Brent P) wrote:
>>
>>>The companies aren't going to care if it costs employees an extra $2.00
>>>to show up at 8am vs 8:15am.
>>
>> Get a better contract.
>
>Not everyone drives for living.

My point with that line was more along the lines that if $2 will drive
you broke, you're getting screwed on your pay. At least, for the job
you have implied you do.

Hell, just this weekend alone I spent about $35 on a sales tax that
goes into transportation improvements (SANDAG's TransNet). Living
costs money.

And I don't drive for a living, I solve technical problems for a
living. While this does require driving to get on site, I still drive
less than many of my daily-commuter friends. I chose a stratigic
place to live that allows me to avoid significant congestion usually,
and I also have levereged myself a position that will pay me back for
many travel-related expenses. It's part of interviewing and
negotiating.

I guess really my point was though, if the $2 matters so much don't
take the interview, don't get the job, and don't make the $2 back.

Dave

In article >, SD Dave wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 18:08:37 -0600,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>In article >, SD Dave wrote:
>>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 23:06:47 -0600,
>>> (Brent P) wrote:
>>>
>>>>The companies aren't going to care if it costs employees an extra $2.00
>>>>to show up at 8am vs 8:15am.
>>>
>>> Get a better contract.
>>
>>Not everyone drives for living.
>
> My point with that line was more along the lines that if $2 will drive
> you broke, you're getting screwed on your pay. At least, for the job
> you have implied you do.

Then you missed the point entirely or have a reading comprehension
problem.

Scott thinks that congestion taxing will encourage companies to start
work at different times to spread out the traffic through the day. I
countered saying that companies won't give a **** about the extra taxes
imposed on their employees and retain whatever start times they wish. I
then gave an example of such lack of care regarding traffic congestion on
the part of a company that is recent in my life.

Wether or not I would find the $2 expensive or not isn't part of the
arguement. What is the arguement is wether congestion taxing would have a
benefit to driving. I believe it won't change a thing because current
congestion levels already encourage those who can start earlier or later
do so. What remains clogging the roads are people who don't have a choice
and taxing them for their employer's start time isn't going to get the
employer to change it.

In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 23:06:47 -0600,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>>> On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 20:31:53 -0600,
>>> (Brent P) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The testing and administrative costs alone are staggering. We'll need
>>>>> an order of magnitude more cops for enforcement, since the people who
>>>>> lose their licenses will continue to drive anyway. And we'll need tons
>>>>> more jail space to house the ones who continue to flout the law.
>>>>
>>>>I don't think you grasp how expensive the controller technology will be
>>>
>>> How much did 1 MIP of computing power cost in 1970? 1980? 1990? Today?
>>
>>Like I said, you don't grasp the total cost. (hint, it's not just
>>computing power)
>
> The sensors and actuators already exist - they are installed in a
> bunch of Buicks that drive up and down the auxiliary lanes of I-15 in
> San Diego county; their costs can only come down. Computers are also
> small enough and powerful enough - once again proven by the SD test
> Buicks. The only really expensive part left to develop is the
> software.

A few lane miles and a few buicks. Now expand that to a nation.

>>>>and who will be in control of that technology.
>>
>>> Yeah, you're afraid the Joan Clarbrooks of the world will set the
>>> speed limits at 55 MPH. And yet somehow the Metrolink train I ride
>>> manages to hit 90 MPH without any objection from the "speed kills"
>>> crowd.

>>And metra trains seem to barely average 25mph.

> I'm told that the ex-BNSF (now Metrolink) lines here in The OC are
> something of an anomaly, in that they are maintained to standards that
> allow a 90 MPH speed limit. Chicagoland, by contrast, has some
> seriously aging rail infrastructure that is over 150 years old in some
> places. For example, until it was replaced a few weeks ago, the
> 1910-era "L" viaduct over Main Street in Evanston was crumbling so
> badly that trains were forced to slow to a crawl when passing over it.
> That bridge has since been replaced, but there are at least a dozen
> more such bridges, like this one http://i1.tinypic.com/mx2gic.jpg over
> Grove Street, that are in equally bad shape that are not even on the
> replacement schedule yet due to lack of funds.

19th century stone work viaducts are still found in a number of places in
the chicago area.

>>> I suspect similar reasoning will be able to overcome the Claybrookian
>>> objections once cars can drive themselves.
>>
>>You think wrong.

> We shall see.

I fail to see how they would feel that speed would kill less with the
machine in charge.

>>And even if briefly 90mph speeds are in use, the first
>>failure of the system will have it at 50mph or less in no time at all.

> Once again I disagree. The Metrolinik trains have "failures" seemingly
> all the time, including a train-car collision earlier this month that
> almost made me late for work (the two trains before mine were
> cancelled, and mine had a few extra cars tacked on to handle the extra
> load from the cancelled trains), and yet the speed limiit for those
> trains has not fallen below 90 MPH.

Automated roads are not trains. Take a close look at some of the cars
your fellow citizens are driving when in a parking lot some day. Tell me
if they are fit for 90mph machine controlled or not. The first time
judy's homemade retreads explode while under computer control at 90mph
will have the computer controlled roads set to the lowest common
demonator speed.

>>Why? Since when does an empolyer give a **** about how difficult it is or
>>how much it costs for employees to get to work.
>
> It happens every time there is a big earthquake in SoCal - freeways
> always suffer damage, and businesses stagger work hours to avoid
> complete gridlock on the remaining roads. The precedent has already
> been set; if enough employees demand it, we'll see staggered work
> hours even without a major disaster.

In chicago nobody gives a ****. You show up when work starts. Snow isn't
even an acceptable excuse once a year for some employers. You know that.

But even there in CA, you are talking about special cases, not a way of
life.

>>The companies aren't going to care if it costs employees an extra $2.00
>>to show up at 8am vs 8:15am.

> Why not? Companies already offer things like on-site day care,
> flex-time, employer-subsidized transit passes, special up-close
> parking spaces for car pools, employer-paid commuter vans, etc. etc.

And crushing congestion hasn't caused start time changes... I doubt
taxing commuters will.

> Not every employer is an asshole like yours.

Don't have one at present.

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 02:21:57 -0500, RJ wrote:
> Dear Ned,
>
> Just how anal retentive are you?

Not very, but my wife takes up the slack ;-)
I'm not an engineer, either ;-) I just talk to a few
of them in the course of business.

I bet "Jack" lives in Davis, CA, and used to post on
alt.guitar.amps.

--
Ned Carlson www.tubezone.net
South Side of Chicago,IL USA
1/31/2006 11:25:29 PM

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 20:57:32 -0800, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> Chicagoland, by contrast, has some
> seriously aging rail infrastructure that is over 150 years old in some
> places.

That would be amazing, considering that the first train in Chicago ran
about 150 years ago! What exists of that first train (Chicago & Galena
Union/CNW) would be under the roadbed of the current UP West Metra line.

> For example, until it was replaced a few weeks ago, the
> 1910-era "L" viaduct over Main Street in Evanston was crumbling so
> badly that trains were forced to slow to a crawl when passing over it.
> That bridge has since been replaced, but there are at least a dozen
> more such bridges, like this one http://i1.tinypic.com/mx2gic.jpg over
> Grove Street, that are in equally bad shape that are not even on the
> replacement schedule yet due to lack of funds.

Both examples are in Evanston and are part of the CTA L, not a Class I
mainline railroad. There's certainly plenty of CTA line that needs
upgrading, for starters they could finally get rid of ground level
running and grade crossings. Some of the CTA L structure is about
100 years old, but in decent condition.

Most of the mainline RR track in Chicago is fairly well maintained
simply because of the volume of traffic, there's no option
for deferred maintenence. Most of the critical improvements will be
addressed in the CREATE joint freight/passenger Chicago rail
improvement project.

The Metra speed limit is 79 MPH, CTA rail speed limit (except for Skokie)
is 55 MPH.



--
Ned Carlson www.tubezone.net
South Side of Chicago,IL USA
1/31/2006 11:38:59 PM