23 Apr
2012
23 Apr
'12
12:40 p.m.
On 23/04/2012 10:07, Mouse wrote:
What correction for what effect? "A is far commoner
than B, so seeing more instances of failing A than
of failing B does not allow any deductions about the relative failure
rates". I took that to be your point; even if it's not the point you
intended, it's a point I felt worth addressing.
I've personally seen far more failures of well-designed computers than
of experimental scramjets. Does that mean experimental scramjets are
the more reliable of the two? No; I just have never had anything to do
with scramjets, reliable or otherwise. My favourite is that as more people in the
UK are injured by tripping on
loose slippers than are injuried by chain saws then slippers are more
dangerous that chain saws. Fact is very few folks in the UK own chain
saws...
(Not sure how well slippers translates into West Pondian but lightweight
house shoes...)
I've
received more digital cameras to repair lately than 1960's
discrete-component calculators. Does that mean modern digital
cameras are less reliable than 1960s discrete calculators?
in my case, the lesson
from experience still holds when corrected
for such effects. /~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents-montreal.org
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B