Below, W. C. Fields in has chapter of the movie "If I had a Million":
In it, he delivers the great line: "How did you like that, you great snorting roadhog!"
And now, the master:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd0JFb3aJFc
Ed
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Convicted One 7j43k My definition was from a dictionary. You didn't sincerely believe that the laws of physics were in jeapordy, did you?
7j43k My definition was from a dictionary.
You didn't sincerely believe that the laws of physics were in jeapordy, did you?
"There's alway somethin'", to quote a famous someone.
I just read another article about particle physics. THERE'S a lawless land. Sort of.
7j43kMy definition was from a dictionary.
You didn't sincerely believe that the laws of physics were in jeopardy, did you?
7j43kAnother way is to leave this world
I'll bet the commute time suxxors majorly
Back at ya.
My definition was from a dictionary. Those definitions are supposed to reflect common usage. So don't blame me. Blame either everyone else who speaks English, or the folks who wrote the definition.
Actually, one CAN cheat physics. One way is through imagination. Another way is to leave this world. The latter can happen, conveniently, if you place your vehicle in front of an approaching train.
zardozWho will save us from our "saviors"?
Just blink your highbeams at them, and they will know you are a safe driver and pull over.
7j43kWhat's your answer to MY question?
Actually, that WAS my answer to your question, think about it. (Your stated definition of "rationalize" was a bit narrow). One cannot "cheat" physics.
For the record, I enjoy your posts, don't let the fact that we don't always agree make you suspect otherwise.
Convicted Onea militant occupation of the left lane as a goodwill gesture ambitioned towards preserving the health of would-be speeders who might otherwise do themselves harm
CMStPnPGerman Autobahn is still of superior construction compared to our interstate system. Our interstate system has a 20 year rated life span between renewals. Autobahn is 40 years. I suspect that is because the Autobahn really was built to support national defense needs vs it just being a slogan.
Convicted One 7j43k Where, in what I said in the quote, could you possibly find something you know is not true or not appropriate? Should I then justify a militant occupation of the left lane as a goodwill gesture ambitioned towards preserving the health of would-be speeders who might otherwise do themselves harm?
7j43k Where, in what I said in the quote, could you possibly find something you know is not true or not appropriate?
Should I then justify a militant occupation of the left lane as a goodwill gesture ambitioned towards preserving the health of would-be speeders who might otherwise do themselves harm?
That is not the first time I've heard that sentiment stated.
I think the CHP guy suggested strongly that that was not a good idea. Probably in response to that sentiment.
So. The answer is "No".
What's your answer to MY question?
7j43kWhere, in what I said in the quote, could you possibly find something you know is not true or not appropriate?
CMStPnP ATLANTIC CENTRAL OK, having carefully considered the idea that HSR would increase productivity, I still have the following questions, concerns: How do we know it will increase productivity? Or, will it just improve the quality of life for the users with no increase in their productivity? How can we assume they will use their time on the train for work on their lap tops rather than just play games, sleep, talk to their friends or cruise facebook? Or that the improved commute will measurably increase their produtivity at work? I think this assumption is based on beliefs about human nature/behavior that are not really "facts in evidence". And if it does increase their productivity will that growth cover the cost of the project? Even if it was a net zero gain I could be in favor of it from a quality of life standpoint, not just for the riders but for those on the highways that would benefit from reduced traffic. Several school of economics have done studies on this. I believe this issue came up before and I quoted or linked to a London School of Economics study. The poster reaction was quite humorous.....very few read what I linked to but most discounted the results right away and it was clear among those that actually read the study they only skimmed or did not read it cover to cover. I think one of the comments was Europe is different than America which is roughly analogous to saying a European rat in maze would behave differently than an American rat in a maze and the type of cheese used makes all the difference in the world. So it was one of those posts that made me give up on using any kind of economic rationale in Trains forum to defend HSR. However, it is not just ANY HSR project (as the study noted) that you see a change or preference for the HSR option. The HSR option in a humans mind must be faster and more convienient than other transportation choices available. So it could very well be that a newly designed airport and airline travel beats the HSR option if the airline travel choice is faster and more convienent or even better priced for example. Convienience with trains and airlines is usually measured by access to and frequency of trips between point A and point B. Then price also plays a role. the HSR option also has to be competitively priced with other options while offering the time and convience advantage. As for the human activity on the train, for the purposes of the study it really does not matter. If you reach point A from point B on a faster mode of travel your going to have more time in a day to do other things many of which trigger economic activity. liesure activitives trigger economic activity just as well as working on a laptop on a train. If I can expand my liesure time from work 1-2 hours a day via HSR........I am still more productive even though I am not working because I have that additional 1-2 hours available for working if I need it. If I used it for liesure I still can trigger economic activity that might not otherwise take place like..........going out for a movie, going out to eat in a restaurant, watching a movie on Pay Per View, etc. I don't have to actually work to generate more spending per day. Though more spending per day will at some point generate a move to a higher paying job to pay for it or another downstream economic choice that will feed the cycle. What they found with the LSOE study was people moved to live closer to HSR stations that provided a competitive edge over other transportation modes. These people paid more in rent or property value to live close to the HSR station (higher taxes on each) and these people chose the HSR option over others due to convienence, price and train frequency. Also noted in the study was that people that moved closer to HSR stations also enjoyed a higher level of income than those that did not. However, and again, key was the specific HSR system being studied was priced competitively with other options of travel, had high train frequency and offered ease of access to the trains.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL OK, having carefully considered the idea that HSR would increase productivity, I still have the following questions, concerns: How do we know it will increase productivity? Or, will it just improve the quality of life for the users with no increase in their productivity? How can we assume they will use their time on the train for work on their lap tops rather than just play games, sleep, talk to their friends or cruise facebook? Or that the improved commute will measurably increase their produtivity at work? I think this assumption is based on beliefs about human nature/behavior that are not really "facts in evidence". And if it does increase their productivity will that growth cover the cost of the project? Even if it was a net zero gain I could be in favor of it from a quality of life standpoint, not just for the riders but for those on the highways that would benefit from reduced traffic.
Several school of economics have done studies on this. I believe this issue came up before and I quoted or linked to a London School of Economics study. The poster reaction was quite humorous.....very few read what I linked to but most discounted the results right away and it was clear among those that actually read the study they only skimmed or did not read it cover to cover. I think one of the comments was Europe is different than America which is roughly analogous to saying a European rat in maze would behave differently than an American rat in a maze and the type of cheese used makes all the difference in the world. So it was one of those posts that made me give up on using any kind of economic rationale in Trains forum to defend HSR.
However, it is not just ANY HSR project (as the study noted) that you see a change or preference for the HSR option. The HSR option in a humans mind must be faster and more convienient than other transportation choices available. So it could very well be that a newly designed airport and airline travel beats the HSR option if the airline travel choice is faster and more convienent or even better priced for example.
Convienience with trains and airlines is usually measured by access to and frequency of trips between point A and point B. Then price also plays a role. the HSR option also has to be competitively priced with other options while offering the time and convience advantage.
As for the human activity on the train, for the purposes of the study it really does not matter. If you reach point A from point B on a faster mode of travel your going to have more time in a day to do other things many of which trigger economic activity. liesure activitives trigger economic activity just as well as working on a laptop on a train. If I can expand my liesure time from work 1-2 hours a day via HSR........I am still more productive even though I am not working because I have that additional 1-2 hours available for working if I need it. If I used it for liesure I still can trigger economic activity that might not otherwise take place like..........going out for a movie, going out to eat in a restaurant, watching a movie on Pay Per View, etc. I don't have to actually work to generate more spending per day. Though more spending per day will at some point generate a move to a higher paying job to pay for it or another downstream economic choice that will feed the cycle.
What they found with the LSOE study was people moved to live closer to HSR stations that provided a competitive edge over other transportation modes. These people paid more in rent or property value to live close to the HSR station (higher taxes on each) and these people chose the HSR option over others due to convienence, price and train frequency. Also noted in the study was that people that moved closer to HSR stations also enjoyed a higher level of income than those that did not. However, and again, key was the specific HSR system being studied was priced competitively with other options of travel, had high train frequency and offered ease of access to the trains.
OK.
Clearly I am not the average rat in the maze....
My business ventures have either been just me, or had less than 6 employees.
Currently I have only two employees, and when we do big projects, I have some subcontractors, who are long time business accociates and friends.
Still pretty comfortable in my paid for house, driving my paid for cars, playing with my paid for model trains.
I will leave the "race" to the other rats.......
Sheldon
Deleted duplicate post
YoHo1975On employment. Its nice and all that people are self employed and get to fully chose where they live and work, but stop right now and realize that you are by far the exception not the rule. You can be incredulous that people put up with that lack of freedom, but they do and you best think about passenger rail and commuting in terms of that reality, not in terms of your narrow view. For example, being in home restoration is likely broadly considered a construction job yes? in 2012, that was 4.2% of the US population. https://www.npr.org/news/graphics/2012/03/pm-jobs-whatwedo/gr-pm-whatwedo2012b-462.jpg Not to be overtly political, but look at the percentage of logging and mining...makes you wonder why anyone cares what coal miners think. (Trick question, we care, because they are concentrated in a small number of low population states and so have power....if they all lived and worked n California or New York nobody would ever care about coal miner. Sad but true) My point being that your anecdotes about your employment are just that, anecdotes and only have value if you compare them to what is typical. You aren't doing that. What is Typical is what is most important if we want to spend money where it will be most impactful.
We all make choices....
ATLANTIC CENTRALOK, having carefully considered the idea that HSR would increase productivity, I still have the following questions, concerns: How do we know it will increase productivity? Or, will it just improve the quality of life for the users with no increase in their productivity? How can we assume they will use their time on the train for work on their lap tops rather than just play games, sleep, talk to their friends or cruise facebook? Or that the improved commute will measurably increase their produtivity at work? I think this assumption is based on beliefs about human nature/behavior that are not really "facts in evidence". And if it does increase their productivity will that growth cover the cost of the project? Even if it was a net zero gain I could be in favor of it from a quality of life standpoint, not just for the riders but for those on the highways that would benefit from reduced traffic.
OK, having carefully considered the idea that HSR would increase productivity, I still have the following questions, concerns:
How do we know it will increase productivity? Or, will it just improve the quality of life for the users with no increase in their productivity? How can we assume they will use their time on the train for work on their lap tops rather than just play games, sleep, talk to their friends or cruise facebook? Or that the improved commute will measurably increase their produtivity at work?
I think this assumption is based on beliefs about human nature/behavior that are not really "facts in evidence".
And if it does increase their productivity will that growth cover the cost of the project? Even if it was a net zero gain I could be in favor of it from a quality of life standpoint, not just for the riders but for those on the highways that would benefit from reduced traffic.
One view would be we are going to spend this money somewhere, so this is a good project for the given reasons.
My view would be if we don't spend it here for good reasons, and it cannot "pay" its own way, it should remain in the hands of the tax payers, raising their standard of living, improving their quality of life, and "possibly" increasing their productivity, or not.
As for the proposed highway improvements and speed changes, I am generally in favor of higher speeds on limited access highways, which I think could be done nationwide on a case by case basis with minimal cost. And it would have measurable benefits. Just my view. No multi million dollar study was conducted to reach these findings - just common sense and 46 years of driving experiance, with a nearly spotless driving record, a fair percentage of which, 8 years, was driving a commercial vehicle every day.
I am also in favor of reasonably strict speed/traffic inforcement on secondary roads where most accidents and injuries actually happen.......put down your phones people......stay out of the bars.........
CMStPnP YoHo1975 On employment. Its nice and all that people are self employed and get to fully chose where they live and work, but stop right now and realize that you are by far the exception not the rule. You can be incredulous that people put up with that lack of freedom, but they do and you best think about passenger rail and commuting in terms of that reality, not in terms of your narrow view. For example, being in home restoration is likely broadly considered a construction job yes? in 2012, that was 4.2% of the US population. https://www.npr.org/news/graphics/2012/03/pm-jobs-whatwedo/gr-pm-whatwedo2012b-462.jpg Not to be overtly political, but look at the percentage of logging and mining...makes you wonder why anyone cares what coal miners think. (Trick question, we care, because they are concentrated in a small number of low population states and so have power....if they all lived and worked n California or New York nobody would ever care about coal miner. Sad but true) My point being that your anecdotes about your employment are just that, anecdotes and only have value if you compare them to what is typical. You aren't doing that. What is Typical is what is most important if we want to spend money where it will be most impactful. A coal miner directly benefits from upward mobility as well as transportation mobility of another class of worker regardless of restrictions on their specific occupation.......which was the point you missed. Because if even a sliver of the population can be more productive via travel it will increase GDP for all. Increased GDP for the coal miner means a more solvent SS system, lower national debt, etc. It impacts the coal miners finances directly. We may not share occupations but we all share the economy and benefit when it expands faster.
YoHo1975 On employment. Its nice and all that people are self employed and get to fully chose where they live and work, but stop right now and realize that you are by far the exception not the rule. You can be incredulous that people put up with that lack of freedom, but they do and you best think about passenger rail and commuting in terms of that reality, not in terms of your narrow view. For example, being in home restoration is likely broadly considered a construction job yes? in 2012, that was 4.2% of the US population. https://www.npr.org/news/graphics/2012/03/pm-jobs-whatwedo/gr-pm-whatwedo2012b-462.jpg Not to be overtly political, but look at the percentage of logging and mining...makes you wonder why anyone cares what coal miners think. (Trick question, we care, because they are concentrated in a small number of low population states and so have power....if they all lived and worked n California or New York nobody would ever care about coal miner. Sad but true) My point being that your anecdotes about your employment are just that, anecdotes and only have value if you compare them to what is typical. You aren't doing that. What is Typical is what is most important if we want to spend money where it will be most impactful.
A coal miner directly benefits from upward mobility as well as transportation mobility of another class of worker regardless of restrictions on their specific occupation.......which was the point you missed. Because if even a sliver of the population can be more productive via travel it will increase GDP for all. Increased GDP for the coal miner means a more solvent SS system, lower national debt, etc. It impacts the coal miners finances directly.
We may not share occupations but we all share the economy and benefit when it expands faster.
I don't believe I missed any of that, in fact it reinforces my point. My point being that judging the value of a piece of transportation infrastructure based on only ones own circumstance is rather useless, especially if ones own circumstances are atypical.
My comment on coal miners was merely a throw away aside based on the graph which put mine workers at such a low percentage of the work force that they rounded down to 0%. That they benefit from improvements that target others for the reasons you state is of course true and I see nothing to disagree about there.
Convicted One 7j43k ot because they were violating the laws of man, but because they were attempting to violate the laws of physics. You're rationalizing there, IMO.
7j43k ot because they were violating the laws of man, but because they were attempting to violate the laws of physics.
You're rationalizing there, IMO.
rationalize: attempt to explain or justify with logical, plausible reasons, even if these are not true or appropriate.
Where, in what I said in the quote, could you possibly find something you know is not true or not appropriate?
You DID say: "IMO". Which then implies your opinion is based on nothing. Not a good look.
I think that it's human nature, partly, to believe laws exist to regulate "everyone else"...or at least for us to be more aware that a law has been violated when the perp is someone other than ourselves. I could give examples, but it would be boring, suffice it to say I am certain that a dual stardard exists.
Well, no. You'd have to be pretty thick to "believe laws exist to regulate 'everyone else'...". Because if that were true, the laws would all include the line: "Except for Bob". They don't. And everyone knows they don't.
The laws are clearly for everyone. But THEN the philosophical discussion begins......
I agree that using the word "philosophical" may be way too generous for many.
7j43kot because they were violating the laws of man, but because they were attempting to violate the laws of physics.
Convicted One Many might be inclined to interpret the comment Ed cited as made by the head of CHP as some kind of endorsement for their "right" to speed. That is, IMO, self indulgent thinking. He never said anything of the sort.
Many might be inclined to interpret the comment Ed cited as made by the head of CHP as some kind of endorsement for their "right" to speed. That is, IMO, self indulgent thinking. He never said anything of the sort.
Quite true. He did not. But he DID say what I said he said.
I've never seen nor even heard of anyone getting a "slow poke" ticket either, but as they say: ~absence of proof is not proof of absence~
I have.
It's casually amusing to read here the same members you can always depend upon to post demeaning comments about lawless RR crossing cheaters, or RR ROW tresspassers... suddenly defending their right to live on the wild side. I guess repect for the law can be arbitrary and capricious, depending upon who is being measured?
It's casually amusing to read here the same members you can always depend upon to post demeaning comments about lawless RR crossing cheaters, or RR ROW tresspassers... suddenly defending their right to live on the wild side.
I guess repect for the law can be arbitrary and capricious, depending upon who is being measured?
Are they demeaning them for being lawless, or demeaning them for something else? I tend to demean people hit at RR crossings not because they were violating the laws of man, but because they were attempting to violate the laws of physics.
+1 No question about that.
charlie hebdoNews flash! There are many stretches on the German Autobahnen that have speed limits. And the congestion in many areas makes the "unlimited speed" notion a thing of the past. I saw some evidence of this 20 years ago and it's worse now.
Even if the speeds were as low as they are in the United States, German Autobahn is still of superior construction compared to our interstate system. Our interstate system has a 20 year rated life span between renewals. Autobahn is 40 years. I suspect that is because the Autobahn really was built to support national defense needs vs it just being a slogan.
In regards to restricted speeds typically in congested areas the fastest left lane is reduced to 75 to 80 mph. Sorry but I don't have a posted speed that high through downtown Dallas. In comparison, even with restricted speeds as a general rule the autobahn has a faster limit. Now we can argue about rush hours, spectacular accidents, and traffic congestion which might bring speeds lower but normal operation...........I vote the autobahn better.
Convicted One I've never seen nor even heard of anyone getting a "slow poke" ticket either, but as they say: ~absence of proof is not proof of absence~
https://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2018/06/18/state-trooper-tickets-driver-slowpoke-left-lane-law-interstate/709386002/
An "expensive model collector"
Don't get me wrong, the last time I drove across AZ on I-40, the mileposts were 26 seconds apart for a good long way....I'm no slouch behind the wheel.
But these control freaks who believe their priorities are something I need to subordinate myself to, fail to intimidate me....so sorry.
YoHo1975The next time I see CHP ticketing a Speeder on I5 will be the first time.
charlie hebdoI saw some evidence of this 20 years ago and it's worse now.
Our german language textbooks in high school wrote about that. And they still had maps of both germanies in them.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
zugmann zardoz While you're busy looking in the mirror, trying to count how many vehicles are behind you, what are you missing in front of you? Doesn't take but a quick glance to see if someone is behind you. And thus is why we will never have autobahn-type roads in this country.
zardoz While you're busy looking in the mirror, trying to count how many vehicles are behind you, what are you missing in front of you?
Doesn't take but a quick glance to see if someone is behind you.
And thus is why we will never have autobahn-type roads in this country.
News flash! There are many stretches on the German Autobahnen that have speed limits. And the congestion in many areas makes the "unlimited speed" notion a thing of the past. I saw some evidence of this 20 years ago and it's worse now.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.