ExiledInIllinois
-
Posts
48,257 -
Joined
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by ExiledInIllinois
-
-
5 hours ago, Ridgewaycynic2013 said:
1. Quite aware of this. Do a little more searching next time. 🤨
2. Seaway Max were increased from the original 730' X 75' specifications to 740' X 78' dimensions when some design engineer realized that they had 80' of width available in locks. This has occasionally resulted in ships being operated in late season to be stuck in the ice in locks. You only have one foot available on each side of the beam. As some lakers received new forebodies in the 90s, these design engineers were trying to maximize cargo loads. Ask those who actually sailed late season what they think of it.
This why we have CRREL now, but established in 1961 AFTER things we built here. /wallbash
https://www.erdc.usace.army.mil/Locations/CRREL/
Yeah. Our lock on Calumet is 1000' x 110' even know rest on Illinois is 600' x 110'.
I frequently lock two 54' wide tankers breasted up as a multi-tow. One lockage. That's 108' in 110' of space, but would never do it in the winter, I would just turnback the lock and do two lockages 54' wide by whatever long. Can't exactly rip a ship on a table saw. LoL... Just gotta wait til April... But say up in The Soo (which is wider), I bet there's floating chunks of ice till late May/early June some seasons! That two feet free on the beam doesn't give much room for the floating ice! They designed our sector gates with no such room with the concrete wall for ice when gates are open. BUT, in their defense, the river was so hot and polluted it never froze years ago!
-
The Housemartins!
New Wave... Split Enz & Squeeze
-
1
-
-
On 3/3/2024 at 5:25 AM, Ridgewaycynic2013 said:
Yes, but it's a lot of work digging them up and schlepping them around. Everything is portable if you have enough bucks. 😁
Seawaymax is 740x78.
@ 1,000 feet long x 75' wide, the Laker Stewart J. Cort was built in Mississippi... 1972. How did it get into the Great Lakes?😉
Answer:
"Stewart J. Cort was the first 1000-footer to be put into service on the lakes and also the only one built in the traditional wheelhouse-forward Great Lakes style (although all accommodations are forward, and the stern deckhouse is occupied by self unloading equipment and the engines). Stewart J. Cort started life in Mississippi as Hull 1173, consisting of only the bow and stern sections (and appropriately nicknamed "Stubby"). From there, she was sailed to Erie, Pennsylvania, where she was cut in half and an additional 800+ feet of hull were added."
-
26 minutes ago, Gregg said:
For any Bills fan who was around back in the 80's then this was certainly a very special day.
*I wanna say it was still the 1970s. Makes the build up less painful. We ain't going a full decade without beating a team at least once seeing that they played 2 times every year. LoL...
Technically decades don't begin till the 1s. Like 1/1/1981. 😉😜
https://www.almanac.com/when-does-new-decade-start
"Our conclusion? It simply depends on the context of what you’re saying. If you’re referring to ’80s music, we get it. If you’re the US Naval Observatory—in charge of the master clock—the new millennium began on January 1, 2001.
At the end of the day, astronomy rules the day, and calendars are imperfect. An almanac, by definition, is a “calendar of the heavens.” The Earth will continue to revolve around the Sun, cycling through the seasons."
*NOT trying to start anything, check out Sabres thread.😆
-
1
-
-
52 minutes ago, Ridgewaycynic2013 said:
#42, Pyrex dishes. If anything like aged Corelle, a dropped piece that breaks immediately turns into 10,000 razor sharp shards. The Federal Trade Commission needs to investigate them, and do a search of all thrift stores for old pieces. 🤨
Talk to @Mike in Horseheads ...Growing up his family was a Corning "test family." I wonder what his thoughts are?
Honestly... I never broke Pyrex and Corelle... And we have pieces that are from the 1970s. Still use it daily.
-
5 minutes ago, SinceThe70s said:
All good, but then how do you define having a winning record? Usually it's more wins than losses and there's a tacit assumption - at least on my part - that there will be as many teams with winning records as there are with losing records. Not the case with the NHL. It devalues the notion of having a winning record IMO.
Winning record is above .500.
.500 is neither winning or losing.
5 minutes ago, Doc said:That's how it goes in every pro sport (except for the NFL, where teams can end a non-playoff game in a tie).
They can't be regulation losses.
The only reason they move the winner point to the win column because it doesn't matter, it's neat and tidy and there's no 4th column.
-
3 minutes ago, Dr. Who said:
I understand. It's an atavistic remnant from the days when you got 2 points for a win, and if it was tied, each team split the point.
So folks that hearken back to the purity and simplicity of the math in those days often don't think of the OT winner as getting the "winner's point," because OT wins used to be reserved for the post-season, where the loser would get nothing. Hence, the extra point for a team that actually loses is a "loser's point."
It is perhaps a semantic nicety. Given the convention of the 3 point rules, all that you indicate is correct. Nonetheless, somehow it introduces an element that seems to me sophistical, and a sign of decadence.
Yeah...
But they aren't playing real hockey in OT. It's 3 on 3. ShootOut isn't real hockey either. That's why loser gets a point.
AND you most certainly can't justify or validate moving those losses into to regulation loss column. The game is played radically different in OT. The points even don't line-up doin that! Like I suggested above... Better to just split the points between wins/losses if you want two neat columns only.
Anyway, winner in OT is just getting the extra winner point. It's 2 points anyway and can be added to the win column.
This all started because they said Sabres still had a losing record.
How is: 29-28-4 losing? That's .508
They are .500 now @ 29-29-4. Still not a losing record.
-
2 minutes ago, Dr. Who said:
I think he just doesn't like the loser point idea. I don't like it, either.
I really liked it when a game that ended in a tie was a tie, but I guess that just means I'm old.
Fair enough.
But why is it a loser point? Why not a Winner point? After ties were abolished, they went from 2 point games to 3 point games if the game reached OT.
They should all be 3 points now.
3 Reg
2 OT/SOW
1 OT/SOL
-
1
-
-
Just now, Dr. Who said:
I think he's counting the Overtime losses as losses, which they are, even if you get a loser point.
I know. But the second column is for regulation losses only
In other words, he's making shi... up! 😏
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:
29 wins
32 losses
Not a winning record anywhere.
The NHL standings are about points, not wins and losses. Some games count for 2 points toward the league standings........but some count for 3 because of OT Losses. Other sports have a set amount of wins and or ties that can be had during a season. You don't get loser points in the MLB/NFL/NBA. That allows for a true winning %. That's not the case in the NHL.
Dude. After tonight's game, they are 29-29-4. They just lost to the Jets. Where are you getting 32 regulation losses from?😆🤣
-
3 minutes ago, Doc said:
Sorry, I thought that was directed to me.
Back to .500 hockey!
Happy now! 😉😜
😆
-
1 hour ago, BADOLBILZ said:
No, Doc is correct, 29-32 is a losing record. There aren't any actual tie's in hockey. Loser points aren't half a win they are just a token point to make losing fans feel better about losing late.
But they ain't 29-32.😆
They are 29-28-4 with 62 points and and winning % of .508.
That's a winning record anywhere!
-
3 hours ago, Donuts and Doritos said:
Wow! What's this cost us in dead cap?
What a flop of a trade.
He did win the Patriots game for us 2 seasons ago!
There's that.
1 hour ago, Gugny said:Pretty sure Hines is happier than everyone here.
And you know this how?
Cite your sources. 😏
1 hour ago, Donuts and Doritos said:He wasn't that great before he got hurt. Didn't contribute much to the offense.
But he singlehandedly won Bills a game against the Patriots. Doesn't that count?
-
2
-
-
7 minutes ago, Doc said:
Again, because the "4" refers to overtime losses. Which are separate from the 28 regulation losses.
Here has always been my suggestion.
All games = 3pts.
RegWin=3
RegLoss=Boopkiss
OT/SOW=2
OT/SOL=1
2 minutes ago, Mike in Horseheads said:I wish the NHL had a 3*2*1 pts per game, 3 regulation win/ 2ot wins/ 1 ot losses. BUT, under current rules they are over .500
+1. I was typing when you posted!
-
21 minutes ago, Doc said:
So in the NFL, if you go to OT against a team and lose...it's a win? Is that what you're saying?
Sabres are playing @ .508.
SOURCE: @Mike in Horseheads
😆
3 minutes ago, Mike in Horseheads said:They have 62 points out of a possible 122= .508
You da man!
-
14 minutes ago, Doc said:
No, it doesn't. But the Sabres also don't have 31 wins, do they?
But they have 62 points, not 58.
You said their record is: 29-32.
They don't have 32 losses. They have 28. OT/SOL are not regulation losses. YET, OT/SO WINS go in win column. Like our benevolent Canadian lover noted. Nice Canadian math. 3 point games, not 2. So, when determining a pure win/loss record, one would think the 4 points would be split. Which... Keep the equation balanced with 62 points.
The fair thing to do is call it 31-30. A winning record.
And anyway... 29-28-4 IS a winning record! 😆🤣
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Doc said:
Do you believe 2+2=5?
Do you believe 29x2=62?
Two can play the old "3 Sailors on Liberty" get a hotel mathematical conundrum game!
😉😜😘
-
11 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:
Your Canadian style math assumes games are worth two points but that’s not true. Wins are worth two points but many games carry a three point value.
-
7 minutes ago, Doc said:
Yes, they have 62 points. But they also have a losing record.
How is 31-30 losing?
They don't have a 29-32 record because that's only 58 points. They now have 62 points.
4OT/SOL is equal to 4 points. Or two wins. 2 losses when reducing the overall record down to just wins/losses.
-
25 minutes ago, Doc said:
No they don't. Again the OTL's are there to give them a point for going to OT...and losing. They're still 29-32.
They are 31-30 = 62 points.
29-32 = 58 points.
As of today, Sabres have 62 points.
-
What's my line?
I'm happy cleanin' windows
Take my time
I'll see you when my love grows
Baby, don't let it slide
I'm a working man in my prime
Cleanin' windows -
3 hours ago, Doc said:
No. The "4" is OT losses which count for a point but are still losses. So they're 29-32.
I was wondering about that 4OTL/SOL
Okay. But you're wrong.
They have 62 points.
29-28-4
29×2= 58 + 4 = 62
OR: 31-30
+4 points instead counted as 1/2 wins 1/2 losses. Why can't that reduce down to:
31-30 = 62 points.
The Sabres now have a winning record!
-
28 minutes ago, jayg said:
Great game but not a winning record yet. Someone mentioned earlier if they had the scoring from last year with the goaltending from this year we'd be in a real good place.
They are one game above .500 now.
29-28-4
-
1
-
-
On 3/1/2024 at 5:04 PM, TBBills Fan said:
He said Sean Combs has the money to pay off victims, sign NDAs and spokesman to spin his image back to normal
Thank you Barbara Billingsley! You saved the day!
-
5
-
1
-
Tre White Gone
in The Stadium Wall
Posted
Just think. We got Tre and KC got Mahomes.
😏