Bush said "America is addicted to oil!"

Bob wrote:

Guns are not the problem. They are, after all, inanimate objects. The
problem is criminals and criminal behavior. Without knowing anything
more about the incidents you refer to I'll gladly offer you 2-1 odds
that most of the actors in the incidents you cite, the burglaries and
the shooting, were repeat offenders and could have been incarcerated on
other charges at the time of the incident(s) you mention.
BTW, if you are suggesting that even gun safes and vaults aren't
sufficient to stop *all* gun thefts you may want to read further
downthread where Peter C.and Frank K. are discussing the concept of
acceptable risk in a cost/benefit context.

I'm not going to get tangled with this tar baby by taking a position on
gun control except to say that I read the book "Freakonomics" recently,
which claims some unusual correlations that can be found in an analysis
of raw data. One of these is that owning a swimming pool is much more
dangerous than owning a gun from a child safety POV. He states that over
550 children under 10 die in pools each year, while only 175 or so from
guns, and given that households with guns are much more common, the
actual risks are even more disproportionate.

That's only one facet of the gun safety/ownership debate, but the point
the author tries to make is that the level of public concern over some
safety issues doesn't correlate well with the actual (absolute and/or
relative) risk levels. Oh, BTW, another related and controversial claim
the author makes is that the dramatic drop in violent crime in the 90's
(especially dramatic give the forecast for a significant increase) was
because of Roe v. Wade -- he argues that a disproportionate fraction of
terminated pregnancies would have produced violent criminals. Of course
correlation does not prove causality and induction is tricky business
and all that, but I don't see how most of these issues can't be
rationally discussed without numbers.

Peter Cole wrote:

Frank, I was attempting a discussion, but all you seem to want is a
platform to rant from. While your opinions, as always, are fascinating
(and colorful!), there's precious little actual information being
exchanged.

Really? I mentioned that cars have steadily improved in safety since
1900; that Nader was the major backer of airbags, claiming that
Americans would never use seatbelts; that airbags have barely reduced
fatalities compared to seatbelts; that Nader maligned car companies for
not having "reverse" in the same position on all cars, among other
information. I thought those were cogent, illustrative points.

I'm an engineer, familiar with the concept of trade-offs.
Experts in safety make these assessments as a matter of course.

One problem with "safety" experts (or public health experts, for that
matter) is this: If they admitted that they had totally succeeded -
that everything in their chosen area was acceptably safe - they'd have
to find other work! Consequently, in their professional life, each
success is followed by a focus on a _less_ important goal.

I think that in, say, the 1930s this was fine. As one example, in
typical 1930s industrial plants, there were hundreds of things that
needed serious correction. By the 1970s, a company could get cited for
a safety violation if the letters saying "Men" on the restroom door
were too small! (Check the original OSHA regs.)

Another problem is that the insurance industry has long since figured
out that scaring people into hyper-vigilance helps their bottom line.
Thus, we get the "Insurance Institute for Highway Safety." I'm _sure_
that Nationwide, Prudential, and all the rest fund that very willingly.

For these reasons (and others), I tend to take what the "safety
experts" say with many large grains of salt. I put it in about the
same class as the "margarine [or peanut butter, or broccoli] will kill
you!" articles that pop up in the newspaper every week, citing the
latest 20-person study.

I have
tried to annotate all of my examples with actual calculations/data, but
you respond with unsupported personal opinion.

Hmm. I didn't see that your annotation was that much different than
anyone else's. In particular, Bob's firsthand knowledge of repair
prices made much of your Pinto argument look weak.

This is not a productive use of my time.

Well, it's intended to be at least somewhat recreational, I think. But
if you're no longer enjoying the discussion (for whatever reason)
that's fine.

- Frank Krygowski

wrote:

Well, it's intended to be at least somewhat recreational, I think. But
if you're no longer enjoying the discussion (for whatever reason)
that's fine.

Thanks for your understanding, Frank. Over & out.

Peter Cole wrote:

I'm not going to get tangled with this tar baby by taking a position on
gun control except to say that I read the book "Freakonomics" recently,
which claims some unusual correlations that can be found in an analysis
of raw data. One of these is that owning a swimming pool is much more
dangerous than owning a gun from a child safety POV. He states that over
550 children under 10 die in pools each year, while only 175 or so from
guns, and given that households with guns are much more common, the
actual risks are even more disproportionate.

That's only one facet of the gun safety/ownership debate, but the point
the author tries to make is that the level of public concern over some
safety issues doesn't correlate well with the actual (absolute and/or
relative) risk levels. Oh, BTW, another related and controversial claim
the author makes is that the dramatic drop in violent crime in the 90's
(especially dramatic give the forecast for a significant increase) was
because of Roe v. Wade -- he argues that a disproportionate fraction of
terminated pregnancies would have produced violent criminals. Of course
correlation does not prove causality and induction is tricky business
and all that, but I don't see how most of these issues can't be
rationally discussed without numbers.

I agree wholeheartedly with the author's claim that the perceived risks
of an activity or circumstance often have no correlation to the actual
risk. I recently returned from a vacation in Costa Rica, the highlight
of which was a canopy tour (zip lines through the rain forest) in Palo
Verde. I spoke with a lot of others that said they would NEVER do
anything that "risky" even though the biggest "risk" involved would be
coming in too fast and *maybe* spraining an ankle. The logic of those
that said they would never do that seemed to be, "It looks scary so it
must be dangerous."
As for the author's citing of Roe v. Wade as a specific cause for a
lowered violent crime rate might be controversial the underlying
premise, that when the male population between the ages of about 17 to
25 goes down- especially those 17 to 25 yr old males raised in a one
parent household- so does violent crime, is neither new nor
particularly controversial. The people in the '80s that were
forecasting increases in violent crime were mostly politicians
disguised as police administrators that wanted more money for their
agencies. Those people have a vested interest in ignoring the
relationship between today's birth rate and the violent crime rate 17
to 25 years from now. I mean, if you were charged with protecting the
public would *you* want to tell the guy that signs your paycheck that,
while you can achieve success in specific instances, your overall
success is largely dependent on how many male children were born to
unwed mothers 20 years ago? g

Regards,
Bob Hunt

Bob wrote:

I recently returned from a vacation in Costa Rica, the highlight
of which was a canopy tour (zip lines through the rain forest) in Palo
Verde.

Hey - no fair posting that just to make us jealous! ;-)

- Frank Krygowski

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 15:22:07 -0800, Bob wrote:

I agree wholeheartedly with the author's claim that the perceived risks
of an activity or circumstance often have no correlation to the actual
risk.

I recently returned from a vacation in Costa Rica, the highlight of
which was a canopy tour (zip lines through the rain forest) in Palo
Verde. I spoke with a lot of others that said they would NEVER do
anything that "risky" even though the biggest "risk" involved would be
coming in too fast and *maybe* spraining an ankle. The logic of those
that said they would never do that seemed to be, "It looks scary so it
must be dangerous."

This is where the insurance industry reaps its greatest profits. They can
get away with charging ridiculous premiums for things that are generally
perceived as dangerous, which may or may not be. Of course the actual
loss rates are proprietary.

Matt O.

wrote:
Bob wrote:

I recently returned from a vacation in Costa Rica, the highlight
of which was a canopy tour (zip lines through the rain forest) in Palo
Verde.

Hey - no fair posting that just to make us jealous! ;-)

- Frank Krygowski


If it makes you feel better, I came back to winter in Chicago. :-(

Regards,
Bob Hunt

wrote:

Bush said in State of Disunion address America is addicted to oil. One
nice
thing is he did not stumble on that sentence. 11 times he stumbled on
the whole
speech. Who cares of America is additcted to oil or not? Only oil
company cared for that
speech. Bush made oil company the biggest profit maker ever. So oil
company
thanks for Bush. Did Bush speech on alternative energy matter? No. It's
just speech.
What his energy plan will be spending federal money on thing can't be
work out in
real world while the oil company will continue to jack up the price.
In the end, oil company
will make more profit while the American drivers just could not stop
driving the car.


.... also addicted to vans/trucks/SUVs, cell phones, cable/satellite television,
and "garbage food". I could rattle off some other additions but my Big Mac is
getting cold.