loose chain guard with defect plastic bar to hold it

On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 1:25:55 PM UTC-4, Emanuel Berg wrote:
John B. writes:

In 1996 Rob Hall and Scott Fischer were some
of the most experienced climbers on Mount
Everest. Yet both died from exposure and
several clients were also lost or suffered
permanent damage.

Your example has nothing to do with the
ability of Hall or Fischer. The catastrophe
was caused by a blizzard that struck the
mountain while the climbers were exposed.

Now:

Lat's say P is the risk of having an accident
and that is a function that indeed is reduced
with e, the number of times you've done it -
i.e., your experience.

So the risk for you to have an accident the
e'th time you do it is P(e).

The risk function reduction will be very steep
in the beginning: compared to P(1), you will be
much safer at P(2), and even safer at P(3), and
this is why beginners typically first learn in
a special setting which is more forgiving
to mistakes.

However, doing it thousands of times, there
will be virtually no improvement in safety due
to experience - say, from P(6000) to P(6001),
the risk will be in all essence the same!

So at some point e, there is virtually no gain,
on the other hand, the risk, tho perhaps very
small, still exists every time you do it.

So experienced people have accidents and that
is not because they lack experience - it is
because they are exposed to the risk, however
small, over and over!

--
underground experts united .... http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573
Emacs Gnus Blogomatic ......... http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/blogomatic
- so far: 40 Blogomatic articles -

This is sounding more and more like a poor attempt at trolling.

Cheers

On 5/26/2016 1:25 PM, Emanuel Berg wrote:
John B. writes:

In 1996 Rob Hall and Scott Fischer were some
of the most experienced climbers on Mount
Everest. Yet both died from exposure and
several clients were also lost or suffered
permanent damage.

Your example has nothing to do with the
ability of Hall or Fischer. The catastrophe
was caused by a blizzard that struck the
mountain while the climbers were exposed.

Now:

Lat's say P is the risk of having an accident
and that is a function that indeed is reduced
with e, the number of times you've done it -
i.e., your experience.

So the risk for you to have an accident the
e'th time you do it is P(e).

The risk function reduction will be very steep
in the beginning: compared to P(1), you will be
much safer at P(2), and even safer at P(3), and
this is why beginners typically first learn in
a special setting which is more forgiving
to mistakes.

However, doing it thousands of times, there
will be virtually no improvement in safety due
to experience - say, from P(6000) to P(6001),
the risk will be in all essence the same!

So at some point e, there is virtually no gain,
on the other hand, the risk, tho perhaps very
small, still exists every time you do it.

So experienced people have accidents and that
is not because they lack experience - it is
because they are exposed to the risk, however
small, over and over!

So much speculation. So little data!


--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski
writes:

So much speculation. So little data!

Do you have any data to back up that claim, or
is it just speculation?

In Sweden there is a law bikers below 15 years
of age have helmets. (This law is never
enforced, tho riding a bike without a light is,
but not often, and it only happens when the
police makes a push for it, and stand guard
somewhere - they never do it spontaneously
which I speculate is indicative of them not
really caring.)

The helmets are "CE marked".

Some are ridiculously cheap - 100 SEK which is
~($12, £8, or €11) - but they still adheres to
the EN 1078 or EN 1080 standards - perhaps
those standards aren't that choosy, ey?

--
underground experts united .... http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573
Emacs Gnus Blogomatic ......... http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/blogomatic
- so far: 41 Blogomatic articles -

On 5/26/2016 4:57 PM, Emanuel Berg wrote:
Frank Krygowski
writes:

So much speculation. So little data!

Do you have any data to back up that claim, or
is it just speculation?

In Sweden there is a law bikers below 15 years
of age have helmets. (This law is never
enforced, tho riding a bike without a light is,
but not often, and it only happens when the
police makes a push for it, and stand guard
somewhere - they never do it spontaneously
which I speculate is indicative of them not
really caring.)

The helmets are "CE marked".

Some are ridiculously cheap - 100 SEK which is
~($12, £8, or €11) - but they still adheres to
the EN 1078 or EN 1080 standards - perhaps
those standards aren't that choosy, ey?

All that's very nice information, Emanuel, but way back I suggested that
despite the hype, bicycling is not a major source of serious brain
injuries. I pointed out that in the U.S., bicycling causes only about
0.6% of traumatic brain injury fatalities, and that the number
apparently hasn't been affected by the popularity of helmets.

I suggested that you look for similar data for your country. You said
(and I quote) "The commune should have such data, and the
hospitals and insurance companies as well. So I'll see if I can find it!"

Did you fail to find information on the ranked causes of traumatic brain
injury? Or are you not posting the information because it belies your
"biking is dangerous" idea?


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thu, 26 May 2016 19:25:51 +0200, Emanuel Berg
wrote:

John B. writes:

In 1996 Rob Hall and Scott Fischer were some
of the most experienced climbers on Mount
Everest. Yet both died from exposure and
several clients were also lost or suffered
permanent damage.

Your example has nothing to do with the
ability of Hall or Fischer. The catastrophe
was caused by a blizzard that struck the
mountain while the climbers were exposed.

Now:

Lat's say P is the risk of having an accident
and that is a function that indeed is reduced
with e, the number of times you've done it -
i.e., your experience.

Define "P".

So the risk for you to have an accident the
e'th time you do it is P(e).

The risk function reduction will be very steep
in the beginning: compared to P(1), you will be
much safer at P(2), and even safer at P(3), and
this is why beginners typically first learn in
a special setting which is more forgiving
to mistakes.

However, doing it thousands of times, there
will be virtually no improvement in safety due
to experience - say, from P(6000) to P(6001),
the risk will be in all essence the same!

So at some point e, there is virtually no gain,
on the other hand, the risk, tho perhaps very
small, still exists every time you do it.

So experienced people have accidents and that
is not because they lack experience - it is
because they are exposed to the risk, however
small, over and over!

Ah, but "experienced people" have very few accidents. Far fewer then
inexperienced people. If your calculation were correct inexperienced
people would have fewer accidents as they engage in "whatever" less
frequently.

Proof? Well, a simple task like driving nails.

An inexperienced bloke, hired as a carpenter, will hit his thumb, or
finger, with the hammer quite frequently while the old gray headed
bloke who has spent his life building houses almost never hits his
thumb.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 26 May 2016 19:26:47 +0200, Emanuel Berg
wrote:

John B. writes:

In 1996 Rob Hall and Scott Fischer were some
of the most experienced climbers on Mount
Everest. Yet both died from exposure and
several clients were also lost or suffered
permanent damage.

Your example has nothing to do with the
ability of Hall or Fischer. The catastrophe
was caused by a blizzard that struck the
mountain while the climbers were exposed.

Well, there are many books about those events
so I think there are many views and proposed
reasons all of which may be part true...

For example, in this book:

@book{k2,
author = {Ed Viesturs; David Roberts},
ISBN = 0767932609,
publisher = {Broadway},
title = {K2: Life and Death on the World's Most Dangerous Mountain},
year = 2010
}

they say Fischer suffered from
altitude sickness.

So? I've worked jobs in the high mountains and I can assure you that
altitude sickness has nothing to do with ability.
--
cheers,

John B.

John B. writes:

Ah, but "experienced people" have very few
accidents. Far fewer then inexperienced
people. If your calculation were correct
inexperienced people would have fewer
accidents as they engage in "whatever"
less frequently.

Yes, in terms of the calculation.

In terms of reality there is also the increased
difficulty to consider, which is typically
implied when increasing your skill and getting
more experience. (Now we are taking
"experience" in the human sense and not in the
previous math example sense where it was just
doing the same over and over.)

For example mountaineering as we talked
about earlier.

If you are a Swede, you'd typically start that
with Kebnekaise which is the highest mountain
in Sweden - 2 098 m (or 6 882 ft). That isn't
very high and climbing it doesn't really
necessitate "climbing", and, if you still have
an accident, civilization isn't many scooter
hours away.

So it is a good place to be a beginner.

Then at the medium level, you do the same
thing, only in the Alps! Here, the altitude is
much worse (Mont Blanc, 4 809 meter) and there
are all kinds of technical problems not found
in the Scandinavian Mountains.

Then at, the most dedicated (or fanatic) level,
the sky is literally the limit with the
Himalaya - K2, Annapurna, etc.

So here there are three tendencies, 1) getting
exposed to the risk over and over the more you
do it, 2) the increased risk that comes with
doing evermore difficult stuff, and 3) your
increased experience to reduce the risk.
So there is a race between experience and risk,
and if risk wins - uh-oh!

An inexperienced bloke, hired as a carpenter,
will hit his thumb, or finger, with the
hammer quite frequently while the old gray
headed bloke who has spent his life building
houses almost never hits his thumb.

What about all the people who worked in
sawmills and now have round thumbs? I don't
think all those accidents happened because of
inexperience. It was just them working there
for decades and some time or another they were
just at the wrong side of the saw blade...

--
underground experts united .... http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573
Emacs Gnus Blogomatic ......... http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/blogomatic
- so far: 42 Blogomatic articles -

John B. writes:

So? I've worked jobs in the high mountains
and I can assure you that altitude sickness
has nothing to do with ability.

Indeed: people have accidents including those
with experience and ability.

--
underground experts united .... http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573
Emacs Gnus Blogomatic ......... http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573/blogomatic
- so far: 42 Blogomatic articles -

On Fri, 27 May 2016 22:13:50 +0200, Emanuel Berg
wrote:

John B. writes:

Ah, but "experienced people" have very few
accidents. Far fewer then inexperienced
people. If your calculation were correct
inexperienced people would have fewer
accidents as they engage in "whatever"
less frequently.

Yes, in terms of the calculation.

In terms of reality there is also the increased
difficulty to consider, which is typically
implied when increasing your skill and getting
more experience. (Now we are taking
"experience" in the human sense and not in the
previous math example sense where it was just
doing the same over and over.)

For example mountaineering as we talked
about earlier.

If you are a Swede, you'd typically start that
with Kebnekaise which is the highest mountain
in Sweden - 2 098 m (or 6 882 ft). That isn't
very high and climbing it doesn't really
necessitate "climbing", and, if you still have
an accident, civilization isn't many scooter
hours away.

So it is a good place to be a beginner.

Then at the medium level, you do the same
thing, only in the Alps! Here, the altitude is
much worse (Mont Blanc, 4 809 meter) and there
are all kinds of technical problems not found
in the Scandinavian Mountains.

Then at, the most dedicated (or fanatic) level,
the sky is literally the limit with the
Himalaya - K2, Annapurna, etc.

So here there are three tendencies, 1) getting
exposed to the risk over and over the more you
do it, 2) the increased risk that comes with
doing evermore difficult stuff, and 3) your
increased experience to reduce the risk.
So there is a race between experience and risk,
and if risk wins - uh-oh!

An inexperienced bloke, hired as a carpenter,
will hit his thumb, or finger, with the
hammer quite frequently while the old gray
headed bloke who has spent his life building
houses almost never hits his thumb.

What about all the people who worked in
sawmills and now have round thumbs? I don't
think all those accidents happened because of
inexperience. It was just them working there
for decades and some time or another they were
just at the wrong side of the saw blade...

I think that you will find that people who work in saw mills - a place
that saws tree trunks up into boards - very seldom have "round thumbs.
Becoming intimately involved with a, say 50 or 60 inch, saw blade that
is spinning at, again say, 500 RPM, usually does not involve thumbs.

Heads, arms, yes. Thumbs, no.
--
cheers,

John B.