Discussion in 'General Topics' started by RDoug, Apr 18, 2017.
Todd! Good to see...oh, that's not Todd.
You grew your hair out!
Time and place. And that ain't it. But hey, I don't work there and that's their thing.
Well the whole common strat........... actually you know what, lets not.
Anyway, speaking of Todd: was he banned or did he leave of his own will? He was actually ok even if we didn't see eye-to-eye on many topics.
He wasn't banned, but mind your business.
Man, is there anything I don't need to be scared of and pack for? It had really, really never occurred to me that I might have to shoot my co-pilot to protect the aircraft. Thanks, now I've got that to worry about.
"Shoot Out At the OK Cockpit" would be an outstanding absurdist short film concept though.
Do you fly with any Egyptian pilots?
Preparedness being dismissed as paranoia is often a rationality by people who refused to make the same decision. That doesn't make them right.
I keep a tourniquet in my glove box and a first aid kit in my trunk. It's there specifically if I see/respond to a car accident because it could save a life. Been there for years unused. But maybe... just maybe... Same reason a lot of us choose to carry a gun.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's cool. I keep a fully stocked and updated first aid kit in my car, and a fire extinguisher. And I've had several occasions to use both. I always wear shoes and natural fabric (naturally flame retardant) clothes when flying. I have a couple nomex suits but don't usually use them. I carry an overnight bag on day trips, you know, just in case. Used that too, more often than I've wanted to. I don't keep a gun in my car under normal circumstances. I guess I just studied probability and statistics a little more diligently.
But now that you mention it, I guess I should start packing when I go to church. That place is filled with cra-crays. Besides, wasn't it Jesus who said, "Unloadeth thy other barrel?"
You can say probability and statistics but there are two big problems with that in this.
1. Statistics don't account for the fact that there are forces outside the historical grouping deliberately seeking methods that weren't accounted for. The if example was 9/11, because nobody thought from the time they designed the buildings to the moment of the hijackings themselves that what happened was a likely or even possible outcome. The paradigm was hijacking = hostage situation, not flying precision guided weapon. It's the same reason you didn't see all the vehicle barriers around the walking plaza street areas in cities decades ago. Nobody was attempting to account for "possible" scenarios, they were tracking likely/historical.
2. Probability has a threshold of acceptance. What may be acceptable to you may not be to other people. I know people who go hiking in certain parts of Alaska unarmed.... F'ing morons to me but it's there life to make decisions over. Your church scenario is a perfect example of somebody with a high threshold dismissing preparedness from somebody else with a lower one. Given some of the recent events like Dillan Roof are you prepared to say churches/temples/etc are some sort of recognized safe haven nobody would think to attack? I can tell you if I was a Sikh I might be a little more concerned about security after some of the idiots lately.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think in most cases if handled properly per opsec you will not know.
Huh....seems to me the same logic could apply to the seat belt you wear when driving or the fire extinguisher you likely have in your home. Statistically the idea that you could be in a car accident where a seatbelt could save you or have a fire in your kitchen where a fire extinguisher could help save you is statistically pretty small yet most normal people have them.
I guess i'm paranoid for wearing a seatbelt and having fire extinguishers.
I'm not saying that you personally hold this cognitive dissonance, but in general, I find it fascinating that the people who usually make the most noise about America's gun/violence problems are frequently the same people who then turn around and criticize others as being paranoid for wanting to be equipped to deal with said studied statistics and probabilities.
I think you quoted the wrong post. I'm not the guy who was calling folks paranoid. That said, I would call a lot of people really bad at math (to include logic).
Actually - this is not correct, you can use statistics to account for proverbial "Black Swans" - it's just harder to do so accurately.
Big data is changing that though - in the future I wouldn't be surprised if data analytics allowed us to have an almost "Minority Report" level of predictive power. I'm not even a professional programmer and I wrote a script using open source OCR libraries and open source machine learning libraries to do facial recognition what the guys at the Utah data center are able to do is probably uncanny.
Umm, you do know they are required to tell the other pilot if they are, don't you? Plus, it'd be pretty obvious, for obvious reasons, once the door is closed.
I am aware of many things about the program and of course due to opsec I will not disclose one way or the other.
I intended to quote you, but I know you weren't the one calling people paranoid. It was your measure of the weight that 'studies and statistics' hold with you that prompted my response. But again, I was only commenting on a generality, not necessarily about you in particular. (unless that shoe fits ;-) )
Well, based on how you replied to Derg, it sounds like you've never flown with one.
Separate names with a comma.