Making Baby Jesus Cry

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
One of my partners (math geek) proved that getting on an airplane the morning of 9/11/01 was still safer % than our drives into work that morning.

Ah, but check out the jump in your relative risk of dying in a fiery explosion the minute you step on the plane. Stats are so misused. I read some shit this morning where some asshole stated that children who eat french fries between ages 3 and 5 have a 27% greater risk of developing breast cancer as an adult. Of course, no specifics regarding the study (controls, number of people examined, other potential carcinogens the study subjects ate) were described. The jackass on NPR just spit out the blood curdling warning cry - “French Fries = Cancer Risk!” I want to do s study to determine whether the internet has made people more stupid than they were before. There’s an obvious inverse relationship between the quality and quantity of knowledge the Average American has in his head. Pack of fucking water cooler dilletantes.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Ah, but check out the jump in your relative risk of dying in a fiery explosion the minute you step on the plane. Stats are so misused. I read some shit this morning where some asshole stated that children who eat french fries between ages 3 and 5 have a 27% greater risk of developing breast cancer as an adult. Of course, no specifics regarding the study (controls, number of people examined, other potential carcinogens the study subjects ate) were described. The jackass on NPR just spit out the blood curdling warning cry - “French Fries = Cancer Risk!” I want to do s study to determine whether the internet has made people more stupid than they were before. There’s an obvious inverse relationship between the quality and quantity of knowledge the Average American has in his head. Pack of fucking water cooler dilletantes.

I think i posted this before but anyways.....

Scary plane story

I'm sitting back about row 20 and with the 2 inside seats open. Right before the doors close a blind couple come on the plane and are in the seats next to me. But they don't just sit down, they have this whole routine. the guy has to count rows to the exit row and he's moving around doing other crap to get ready.

And i was impressed by how focused he was getting ready to be a blind guy in flight. We talked a little as we taxied. Then scary moment- as we sped up to take off he sez:

What's that sound? that's not right. Something isn't right!

He turns to me

Hit the Stewardess call button we have to stop the take off

Now I know that when you lose a sense your others increase to compensate. So I figure there's a really good chance he's right and that something is really fucked up.

And I thought of hitting the button but then i realized that they'd ignore it until we got up so if he was right we were dead anyway.

I turned to him

Don't worry that sound is normal for this model plane

That was back when they still served hot breakfast and we had home fries, probably while we passed over Philly going into National.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by dtb
The Freakonomics author (presumably a math geek as well) points out that when you factor in "hours spent in [method of transportation,]" flying is no safer than driving.

I KNEW it!

I just finished Chuck Klosterman’s “Killing Yourself to Live.” Chuck explains perfectly why the argument that driving is more dangerous than flying is so hollow. In a car crash, you usually have maybe a moment of sheer horror before the lights go out. Its sudden and you’re dead. In a plane crash, you have anywhere from 30 seconds to several minutes of sheer horror, and when a plane crashes, you’re about 5000X more likely to die than you are in the average car accident. Chuck Klosterman is no scientist, and his book is not much more than a rambling pot-soaked lark. But he explains perfectly why, when I hear people use that “your car is much more dangerous than a plane” bit, I want to scatter their teeth about the room. Its like when people say “Possession is 9/10 of the law.” No, no its not. Not at all. What you’re really saying is “whoever is holding the item has an advantage because the person seeking to get it must use a lengthy legal process to take it away from the possessor.” But the question of who rightly possesses the thing by law has nothing at all to do with possession.*
*Unless you’re debating adverse possession, in which case, get a fucking life.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I just finished Chuck Klosterman’s “Killing Yourself to Live.” Chuck explains perfectly why the argument that driving is more dangerous than flying is so hollow. In a car crash, you usually have maybe a moment of sheer horror before the lights go out. Its sudden and you’re dead. In a plane crash, you have anywhere from 30 seconds to several minutes of sheer horror, and when a plane crashes, you’re about 5000X more likely to die than you are in the average car accident. Chuck Klosterman is no scientist, and his book is not much more than a rambling pot-soaked lark. But he explains perfectly why, when I hear people use that “your car is much more dangerous than a plane” bit, I want to scatter their teeth about the room. Its like when people say “Possession is 9/10 of the law.” No, no its not. Not at all. What you’re really saying is “whoever is holding the item has an advantage because the person seeking to get it must use a lengthy legal process to take it away from the possessor.” But the question of who rightly possesses the thing by law has nothing at all to do with possession.*
*Unless you’re debating adverse possession, in which case, get a fucking life.

A friend and I were at a bar after a final in our last year of law school, and a guy we worked with who was just finishing his first year sat down. My friend was talking about how he was buying this house and 1L goes, "are you getting a fee simple?"

He actually believed all that shit meant something. When was the last sale of a proerty that would revert "when the big oak tree falls?"

how can that crap still be on the bar exam and preventing people from being lawyers?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
A friend and I were at a bar after a final in our last year of law school, and a guy we worked with who was just finishing his first year sat down. My friend was talking about how he was buying this house and 1L goes, "are you getting a fee simple?"

He actually believed all that shit meant something. When was the last sale of a proerty that would revert "when the big oak tree falls?"

how can that crap still be on the bar exam and preventing people from being lawyers?

Thats why there are so many douchebags fumbling around in this profession. There’s a whole slew of imbeciles who view law as some sort of intellectual game. They’re the idiots who spend 8 million hours researching non-issues and cause you to get those calls from clients screaming about bills. Ever try to explain to an irate client why a guy only two years behind you took a half a fucking day to prep for a motion to compel discovery responses? I called the guy who did it and said “Dude, you can’t whack up the bill that nakedly. You gotta hide that shit. Move it around. Break it down.” The dude told me it was legitimate time. Idiot lost the motion anyway. Thats how you wind up with 65% realization from a client.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by dtb
The Freakonomics author (presumably a math geek as well) points out that when you factor in "hours spent in [method of transportation,]" flying is no safer than driving.

I KNEW it!

That was one of the parts of the book that peeved me. I don't see how that measurement in particularly relevant to a decision making process.

I need to get to Point B from Point A, and with the relative dangers of the different methods of transport between the two. I'm not trying to figure out whether its safer to kill 3 hours in a plane or a car.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I can't believe you went there. More Americans were killed that month in Detroit than in all of Iraq where this terrible insurgency that is completely out of hand is supposed to exist.

That would be nice if it were true, but that's not what your numbers said. You compared "combat-related" deaths in that month to murders in Detroit.

Are gang related killings considered combat?

You can be sure that no one in Iraq is in a position to try to count gang-related killings, so it's a pretty moot point. The police there are too busy not being killed.

For that matter, I have a hard time believing that anyone is getting an accurate count of the insurgent death toll.

In the first four hours of D-Day there were three thousand deaths.

Look, if that's the context you want to put this in, we can all agree that the fighting in Iraq is less bloody than any major war the U.S. has been involved in. Our tactics, our armor, and our field medicine are all vastly improved.

If you put the numbers in perspective you realize that Iraq is far from being an out of control or being a quagmire.

Well, you're playing games with the numbers for the reasons I've said above. But the key thing is, the numbers are not the reason the situation is so fucked up. There's an active and effective insurgency that we can't put down. (And it can't beat us in military terms.) The insurgents have been very effective at preventing life from getting back to normal. Journalists cannot travel freely, electricity is limited, etc. This impairs the legitimacy and presence of the Iraqi government.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by dtb
The Freakonomics author (presumably a math geek as well) points out that when you factor in "hours spent in [method of transportation,]" flying is no safer than driving.

I KNEW it!

Why would you compare the hours traveled instead of the distance traveled? The speed of flight is one of its advantages.

eta: stp/balt

[dtb]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Why would you compare the hours traveled instead of the distance traveled? The speed of flight is one of its advantages.

eta: stp/balt

I don't remember, but it made sense when I read it.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by baltassoc
That was one of the parts of the book that peeved me. I don't see how that measurement in particularly relevent to a decision making process.

I need to get to Point B from Point A, and with the relative dangers of the different methods of transport between the two. I'm not trying to figure out whether its safer to kill 3 hours in a plane or a car.

What you consider safer and which you choose isn't the point. He's merely stating that empirically, the data shows that flying isn't safer than driving. I don't think Leavitt was addressing the issue of how statistics impact people's decisions in the book.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by dtb
I don't remember, but it made sense when I read it.

Presumably because the point is a fair one that you're right to be just as worried in an airplane that your next breath could be your last as when you're driving.* Combined with the lack of control over your safety in an airplane (relatively--you're not driving, checking the oil, controlling the throttle), having a fear of flying isn't irrational. So, while Ty and Balt will determine that flying beats driving for their next lark/booty call, their heart should be racing regardless of which way they decide to travel.

In other words, there's no one "right" way to calculate the risk--rather, you have to assess the risk in light of the question you're asking. Which are two different things here.




*Of course, airplanes don't usually fall out of the sky--it's the landings and takeoffs that get you.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
What you consider safer and which you choose isn't the point. He's merely stating that empirically, the data shows that flying isn't safer than driving. I don't think Leavitt was addressing the issue of how statistics impact people's decisions in the book.

An hour in the air might be equally as safe as an hour in the car, but even if that's true, it would be safer to fly from Philadelphia to Miami than to drive because the trip would be so much faster.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Combined with the lack of control over your safety in an airplane (relatively--you're not driving, checking the oil, controlling the throttle), having a fear of flying isn't irrational.

People are more scared about new and different risks than they are about familiar risks. E.g., people are more worried about being killed by a stranger even though they're statistically much more threatened by people they know. West Nile Virus gets the press, but there are other diseases much more likely to get you. Presumably this was point that professor was trying to make about 9/11.

Whether this is rational or not is an interesting question.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
An hour in the air might be equally as safe as an hour in the car, but even if that's true, it would be safer to fly from Philadelphia to Miami than to drive because the trip would be so much faster.

Plus, you wouldn't encounter old jewish drivers flying.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Presumably because the point is a fair one that you're right to be just as worried in an airplane that your next breath could be your last as when you're driving.* Combined with the lack of control over your safety in an airplane (relatively--you're not driving, checking the oil, controlling the throttle), having a fear of flying isn't irrational. So, while Ty and Balt will determine that flying beats driving for their next lark/booty call, their heart should be racing regardless of which way they decide to travel.

In other words, there's no one "right" way to calculate the risk--rather, you have to assess the risk in light of the question you're asking. Which are two different things here.




*Of course, airplanes don't usually fall out of the sky--it's the landings and takeoffs that get you.

About a month after 9/11 we went into the city of Detroit to see David Sedaris read at a concert hall. That month i was looking at every plane flying overhead as about to drop out of the sky or spray me with anthrax. Nameless fear of unknown attack.

We parked several blocks away and were walking along a poorly lit street when we passed a group of tough looking young men. It was sort of refreshing to get back to a fear of something I couold actually understand and anticipate.