You're abusing statistics because you're arguing that a twin-engined plane has a higher chance of one engine failing (which is quite reasonable and probably true), then concluding that twin-engined planes are less safe based on the untested assumption that one engine failing in a twin-engined plane has the same consequences as one engine failing in a single-engined plane.
While the probability of a twin-engined plane suffering a single engine failure is higher, the probability of a twin-engined plane finding itself in unpowered flight is lower.
Let's compare it to a similar computing construct: A system with a RAID1 array is twice as likely to have a drive failure than a system with a single drive. But the system with a single drive is more likely to suffer data loss because when it has a drive failure, data loss is inevitable.
You're missing the part where by flying a twin-engine plane, you're increasing your chances of having an engine failure. So you're more likely to be in that twin-engined plane with one failed engine than you are to be in a single-engined plane with one failed engine.
Why would any given engine be more likely to fail in a twin engine configuration than a single-engine configuration ?
For example, instinctively people think that two-engine airplanes are safer than single-engine ones, because the plane can still fly after one engine failure. Any pilot will tell you the opposite is true, however. All else being equal, a plane with two engines is twice as likely to have an engine failure, and a two-engine plane flying with one engine is less safe than a single-engine plane with its one engine working.
That's hardly an equitable comparison.
Would the average pilot rather be in a twin-engined plane with one failed engine or a single-engined plane with one failed engine ?
OK, I read it again. My point is still the same. You are making voluntary slavery the norm for everyone, because the alternative is crappy.
No, I'm acknowledging that for some people - in my opinion a large and growing cohort due largely to the anti-employee laws that have taken shape over the last few decades - "wage slavery" is reality. Not because the alternative is crappy - moving back in with your parents is "crappy" - but because the alternative is impossible (no work means a week or two later no food and no rent payments).
It is all about the way you view employment. Do they own you, or are you controlling your own life, while working to support yourself and plan for the future?
They don't own me because I was raised in a solidly middle-class household, have a relatively high income, a good education, ~12 months worth of living expenses in liquid savings and through multiple nationalities the ability to move countries in search of work. Many, many people are not as fortunate as I am. I recognise that. You don't.
His argument is that the power balance between an individual employee and their employer is equal, and suggestions to the contrary are just a matter of attitude.
My point is that this is rubbish. Most workers cannot survive for long without employment. Nearly all employers can survive a long time (if not forever) without a specific employee. In any given area, the number of employers offering jobs for workers with particularly skill sets is relatively small. In the same area, the number of employees with those skill sets is relatively large.
In the vast majority of cases, the individual employee has a significant power deficit compared to his employer. The only ways the typical worker can counteract this inherent imbalance is through either a) organisation with other workers such that they can bargain as a group, or b) legislation.
This is why as both these things have been hollowed out over the last few decades, benefits and pay for average workers have not increased in line with productivity increases and wealth generation across most of the western world, and in some countries like America, have remained almost entirely stagnant (if not regressing).
most people I know are living "better" (bigger house, more expensive car, more travel, more disposable income) than their parents were at the same age - and frequently with lower debt.
How many of these people are in the same socio-economic class as their parents ?
I struggle to believe someone who is, say, a secretary today is better off than someone in the same secretarial job would have been 30-50 years ago.
OTOH, if your parents were secretaries and/or labourers and you're a degree-qualified professional, then you'd bloody well want to be better off than they were.
You'll have Americans who are poor as dirt voting repeatedly against their own self interest because they have been conditioned to think if they work hard enough their ship will come in one day, and when that ship comes in they don't want parts of it chopped off to help OTHER people out, Never mind the staggering odds against that ship ever arriving.
Also notwithstanding the miniscule proportion of it that will be "chopped off" in one of the lowest taxing developed countries in the world.
Libertarians are driven by fear of their fellow man, which is why they rail against democratically elected Government. Fundamentally, this is merely a reflection of their own greed and selfishness - they know they'd be happy to screw over their neighbour at the drop of a hat, so they assume their neighbour feels the same way.
And some liberal would point out that they shouldn't be saying such things, then the conservatives would scream freedom of speech.
This in fact highlights the difference between how the left and right perceive freedom of speech. To the left, the most important aspect of freedom of speech is being able to constructively criticise without fear of censure. To the right, the most important aspect of freedom of speech is being able to verbally abuse others.
This is why from the left we get laws against inciting racial hatred, but from the right we get "free speech zones".
That is a common response. Unfortunately, it doesn't pass the sniff test. By that standard, the mafia in your neighborhood is voluntary too, since you can move to a different neighborhood.
Uh, no. By that standard if you don't like the homeowners association in your neighbourhood you can move.
More fundamentally, what defines a voluntary association is not that you can leave, but that it is formed with consent.
I gather from your language you're American. To the best of my knowledge, you get an opportunity every four years to consent to your Government. Further, there are extensive mechanisms in place to allow modification to every aspect of how your country is governed.
No, what I was pointing out is that the details of decentralized production in the market are unpredictable (what kinds of shoes, how many, what materials, what price, what method of production, who does it), unlike centrally planned and coercive production.
That's not what you wrote.
They are unpredictable because they emerge from complex human structures, not from small committees, and because they evolve fluidly to adapt to changing and local circumstances.
Most products and services are decided by "small committees". Ostensibly boards of executives and the like, though usually they are just a rubber stamp for the recommendations of product managers.
Similarly, the organization, solutions, costs, features, amount, etc of security services are unknown once your remove them government monopoly.
Indeed. History suggests, however, they'll be pretty dismal for all but the wealthy.
All the rules I listed involve the individual joining the association voluntarily, so they are self-imposed. By coming into my house, you agree to abide by the house rules. If you don't know what voluntarily means, you are beyond helping.
Can you explain the legal restriction that prevents you from leaving whatever country you might be in, thus "voluntarily" removing yourself from whatever constraints living there might entail ?
Well done, sir. Your smarts overwhelm me.
When you're asserting that a group of people couldn't figure out how to make shoes or pick cotton absent some relatively recent and short-lived, completely independent phenomenon, that's not particularly difficult to do. Unless you're arguing that before communism, the Russians didn't have shoes, and that before slavery, no-one picked cotton ?
You correctly point out that agreement is core to having rules. There are plenty of such rules. For example, no smoking in my house, workplace rules, home owners association rules, club rules, rules of sports,... But government rules are different. They are not voluntary, but imposed by a group ranging from one to a minority or even a majority, on the rest.
I am struggling to see the difference in your examples. They all describe rules being "imposed" by one group on another.
The answer is that nobody knows exactly, just like the soviets did not know how shoes would be produced in absence of government monopoly on shoe production. Another example, how will be pick cotton and make clothes if we repeal slavery (the answer is that people figure it out, invent machines, etc)?
It wasn't until the global financial meltdown that the AUD shot up in value to where it surpassed parity with the USD (Australia's economy wasn't hurt as much because they didn't have a housing bubble at the time, though they have one now).
Uh, what ? Australian house prices have been elevated since the late '80s, and well and truly into bubble territory since the early '00s. This is particularly true of Sydney, but the trend is country-wide.
The last time Australian housing was cheap (median multiplier 3 or less) was back in the early '80s.
Indeed. They've come out with 4TB drives, but the prices for them are way up there -> I think it's more cost effective to buy 2 3TB drives than 1 4TB drive. And that's bad.
By simple maths one would expect two 3TB drives to cost more - you're getting 50% more space.
Even that aside, it's completely normal for the newest, biggest drive to cost more per GB than the previously biggest drive.
Self-driving cars will be an unbelievable resource saver in the transportation space as well. Not only will families that currently have two cars need at most one because commuting won't be required, but they won't even need one. They'll just call an automated taxi whenever they need to go somewhere. Hit a button on your phone and a car shows up in 30 seconds, drives you where you need to go and drops you off for substantially less cost than what you pay per mile owning your own vehicle today. Consider a world in which we need only 1/10th of the number of automobiles -- even assuming the same level of local travel -- because the cars that exist are nearly always in motion rather than being parked most of the time. Eliminate nearly all of the parking lots and driveways and garages and suburban sprawl becomes considerably more compact and efficient, even without shifting to high-density housing, which means even less need of automobile travel, because walking and cycling are more feasible.
It's a struggle to see a huge difference between these "driverless cars" and taxis. I notice taxis haven't produced the outcome you describe.
Slashdot Mirror
You're abusing statistics because you're arguing that a twin-engined plane has a higher chance of one engine failing (which is quite reasonable and probably true), then concluding that twin-engined planes are less safe based on the untested assumption that one engine failing in a twin-engined plane has the same consequences as one engine failing in a single-engined plane.
While the probability of a twin-engined plane suffering a single engine failure is higher, the probability of a twin-engined plane finding itself in unpowered flight is lower.
Let's compare it to a similar computing construct:
A system with a RAID1 array is twice as likely to have a drive failure than a system with a single drive. But the system with a single drive is more likely to suffer data loss because when it has a drive failure, data loss is inevitable.
Your argument is a non-sequitur.
You're missing the part where by flying a twin-engine plane, you're increasing your chances of having an engine failure. So you're more likely to be in that twin-engined plane with one failed engine than you are to be in a single-engined plane with one failed engine.
Why would any given engine be more likely to fail in a twin engine configuration than a single-engine configuration ?
You're abusing statistics.
Yes, yes I would.
That's hardly an equitable comparison.
Would the average pilot rather be in a twin-engined plane with one failed engine or a single-engined plane with one failed engine ?
No, I'm acknowledging that for some people - in my opinion a large and growing cohort due largely to the anti-employee laws that have taken shape over the last few decades - "wage slavery" is reality. Not because the alternative is crappy - moving back in with your parents is "crappy" - but because the alternative is impossible (no work means a week or two later no food and no rent payments).
They don't own me because I was raised in a solidly middle-class household, have a relatively high income, a good education, ~12 months worth of living expenses in liquid savings and through multiple nationalities the ability to move countries in search of work.
Many, many people are not as fortunate as I am. I recognise that. You don't.
No, I'm not.
His argument is that the power balance between an individual employee and their employer is equal, and suggestions to the contrary are just a matter of attitude.
My point is that this is rubbish. Most workers cannot survive for long without employment. Nearly all employers can survive a long time (if not forever) without a specific employee. In any given area, the number of employers offering jobs for workers with particularly skill sets is relatively small. In the same area, the number of employees with those skill sets is relatively large.
In the vast majority of cases, the individual employee has a significant power deficit compared to his employer. The only ways the typical worker can counteract this inherent imbalance is through either a) organisation with other workers such that they can bargain as a group, or b) legislation.
This is why as both these things have been hollowed out over the last few decades, benefits and pay for average workers have not increased in line with productivity increases and wealth generation across most of the western world, and in some countries like America, have remained almost entirely stagnant (if not regressing).
Maybe you need to read what I wrote again.
most people I know are living "better" (bigger house, more expensive car, more travel, more disposable income) than their parents were at the same age - and frequently with lower debt.
How many of these people are in the same socio-economic class as their parents ?
I struggle to believe someone who is, say, a secretary today is better off than someone in the same secretarial job would have been 30-50 years ago.
OTOH, if your parents were secretaries and/or labourers and you're a degree-qualified professional, then you'd bloody well want to be better off than they were.
Thinking as hard as they can't won't magically mean someone living paycheque to paycheque can still afford food if they quit their job.
It's great you have the resources to afford voluntary unemployment. Many, many people do not.
Also notwithstanding the miniscule proportion of it that will be "chopped off" in one of the lowest taxing developed countries in the world.
Indeed. Damn those people who think we should be trying to make our lives easier rather than a handful of obscenely rich individuals even wealthier !
Libertarians are driven by fear of their fellow man, which is why they rail against democratically elected Government.
Fundamentally, this is merely a reflection of their own greed and selfishness - they know they'd be happy to screw over their neighbour at the drop of a hat, so they assume their neighbour feels the same way.
Your premises are broken.
That faint whistling sound is the point sailing way over your head.
This in fact highlights the difference between how the left and right perceive freedom of speech.
To the left, the most important aspect of freedom of speech is being able to constructively criticise without fear of censure.
To the right, the most important aspect of freedom of speech is being able to verbally abuse others.
This is why from the left we get laws against inciting racial hatred, but from the right we get "free speech zones".
Where does the "extreme Left" in the USA hide ?
Uh, no. By that standard if you don't like the homeowners association in your neighbourhood you can move.
I gather from your language you're American. To the best of my knowledge, you get an opportunity every four years to consent to your Government.
Further, there are extensive mechanisms in place to allow modification to every aspect of how your country is governed.
That's not what you wrote.
Most products and services are decided by "small committees". Ostensibly boards of executives and the like, though usually they are just a rubber stamp for the recommendations of product managers.
Indeed. History suggests, however, they'll be pretty dismal for all but the wealthy.
Can you explain the legal restriction that prevents you from leaving whatever country you might be in, thus "voluntarily" removing yourself from whatever constraints living there might entail ?
When you're asserting that a group of people couldn't figure out how to make shoes or pick cotton absent some relatively recent and short-lived, completely independent phenomenon, that's not particularly difficult to do.
Unless you're arguing that before communism, the Russians didn't have shoes, and that before slavery, no-one picked cotton ?
I am struggling to see the difference in your examples. They all describe rules being "imposed" by one group on another.
Your assertions are absurd.
Uh, what ? Australian house prices have been elevated since the late '80s, and well and truly into bubble territory since the early '00s. This is particularly true of Sydney, but the trend is country-wide.
The last time Australian housing was cheap (median multiplier 3 or less) was back in the early '80s.
Bought a lot of HP and Dell hardware, never seen this happen. What server models and what hardware ?
By simple maths one would expect two 3TB drives to cost more - you're getting 50% more space.
Even that aside, it's completely normal for the newest, biggest drive to cost more per GB than the previously biggest drive.
OSX has had TRIM support since 10.6.something.
Voters.
It's a struggle to see a huge difference between these "driverless cars" and taxis. I notice taxis haven't produced the outcome you describe.