Apples and Oranges
#1
10-04-2010, 01:16 PM
Apples and Oranges
Sorry. I don't like vague Thread Titles, but this really is about Apples and Oranges.
I started to say something in another thread, because I wanted to say something about statistics and regulations. But it wouldn't have sounded right.
In that thread, a Government used statistics to compare against randomly accumulated data to determine what regulations would be. They compared Apples and Oranges.
Sometimes, it's best to think about WHY you're comparing Apples and Oranges. Because it might just be smarter to buy BOTH the Apple AND the Orange, rather than compare them to see what's best.
I'm not disagreeing with any of the data, since it all seems to indicate that being visible is good.
I saw a research study once conducted at an intersection with a traffic light. Video of the intersection was used to postulate a vehicle's trajectory if it had not stopped when the traffic light changed from Green to Red. The study determined that a vehicle that did not stop when the light turned red only had a 17% (I think- it was less than 1/5) chance of hitting another car.
I mean, it's good to have data (as a trained metrologist, I wrote Uncertainty Analyses, and calculated Assurance Ratios and created Measurement Guardbands ). But data is seldom finite, and I try not to incorporate multiple compilations of additive data just to compare them to events that have random occurance patterns of a type totally unassociated with the other data pattern to ascertain a somewhat-nebulous comparison and then make policy decisions that attempt to certify that the study had scientific accuracy to the degree necessary to validate the desired political intentions.
Oops. Sorry. I used to get paid to write about the differences between Apples and Oranges.
That's what we do every day we ride. When a pickup slows in front of me to turn into a shopping center parking lot, I could probably blast down between lanes alongside that pickup and not hit it. But the pickup may have slowed even more to let the car out of the parking lot he was going into to make more room for himself. And, yeah, I probably won't hit that car coming out in front of me as I blast down the dotted line that's supposed to be clear. And if I don't hit it, it would be a blast.
We choose between Apples and Oranges all the time. If Apples are safe and Oranges are a little-less-safe but taste way better, I'm gonna choose some Oranges. But I'm sure going to try to make sure I have enough Apples, as long as it doesn't make my Oranges bad.
But EVERYBODY should be allowed the right to choose whether they want Apples or Oranges. In fact, they should have the right to have BOTH Apples and Oranges.
And the government shouldn't spend a lot of money deciding if I should want Apples, or whether I want Oranges.
I started to say something in another thread, because I wanted to say something about statistics and regulations. But it wouldn't have sounded right.
In that thread, a Government used statistics to compare against randomly accumulated data to determine what regulations would be. They compared Apples and Oranges.
Sometimes, it's best to think about WHY you're comparing Apples and Oranges. Because it might just be smarter to buy BOTH the Apple AND the Orange, rather than compare them to see what's best.
I'm not disagreeing with any of the data, since it all seems to indicate that being visible is good.
I saw a research study once conducted at an intersection with a traffic light. Video of the intersection was used to postulate a vehicle's trajectory if it had not stopped when the traffic light changed from Green to Red. The study determined that a vehicle that did not stop when the light turned red only had a 17% (I think- it was less than 1/5) chance of hitting another car.
I mean, it's good to have data (as a trained metrologist, I wrote Uncertainty Analyses, and calculated Assurance Ratios and created Measurement Guardbands ). But data is seldom finite, and I try not to incorporate multiple compilations of additive data just to compare them to events that have random occurance patterns of a type totally unassociated with the other data pattern to ascertain a somewhat-nebulous comparison and then make policy decisions that attempt to certify that the study had scientific accuracy to the degree necessary to validate the desired political intentions.
Oops. Sorry. I used to get paid to write about the differences between Apples and Oranges.
That's what we do every day we ride. When a pickup slows in front of me to turn into a shopping center parking lot, I could probably blast down between lanes alongside that pickup and not hit it. But the pickup may have slowed even more to let the car out of the parking lot he was going into to make more room for himself. And, yeah, I probably won't hit that car coming out in front of me as I blast down the dotted line that's supposed to be clear. And if I don't hit it, it would be a blast.
We choose between Apples and Oranges all the time. If Apples are safe and Oranges are a little-less-safe but taste way better, I'm gonna choose some Oranges. But I'm sure going to try to make sure I have enough Apples, as long as it doesn't make my Oranges bad.
But EVERYBODY should be allowed the right to choose whether they want Apples or Oranges. In fact, they should have the right to have BOTH Apples and Oranges.
And the government shouldn't spend a lot of money deciding if I should want Apples, or whether I want Oranges.
#7
10-04-2010, 01:48 PM
Sorry but it was at this point I concluded that there was only a 10% chance that you may or may not be correct.
Trending Topics
#9
10-04-2010, 02:16 PM
Sorry. I don't like vague Thread Titles, but this really is about Apples and Oranges.
I started to say something in another thread, because I wanted to say something about statistics and regulations. But it wouldn't have sounded right.
In that thread, a Government used statistics to compare against randomly accumulated data to determine what regulations would be. They compared Apples and Oranges.
Sometimes, it's best to think about WHY you're comparing Apples and Oranges. Because it might just be smarter to buy BOTH the Apple AND the Orange, rather than compare them to see what's best.
I'm not disagreeing with any of the data, since it all seems to indicate that being visible is good.
I saw a research study once conducted at an intersection with a traffic light. Video of the intersection was used to postulate a vehicle's trajectory if it had not stopped when the traffic light changed from Green to Red. The study determined that a vehicle that did not stop when the light turned red only had a 17% (I think- it was less than 1/5) chance of hitting another car.
I mean, it's good to have data (as a trained metrologist, I wrote Uncertainty Analyses, and calculated Assurance Ratios and created Measurement Guardbands ). But data is seldom finite, and I try not to incorporate multiple compilations of additive data just to compare them to events that have random occurance patterns of a type totally unassociated with the other data pattern to ascertain a somewhat-nebulous comparison and then make policy decisions that attempt to certify that the study had scientific accuracy to the degree necessary to validate the desired political intentions.
Oops. Sorry. I used to get paid to write about the differences between Apples and Oranges.
That's what we do every day we ride. When a pickup slows in front of me to turn into a shopping center parking lot, I could probably blast down between lanes alongside that pickup and not hit it. But the pickup may have slowed even more to let the car out of the parking lot he was going into to make more room for himself. And, yeah, I probably won't hit that car coming out in front of me as I blast down the dotted line that's supposed to be clear. And if I don't hit it, it would be a blast.
We choose between Apples and Oranges all the time. If Apples are safe and Oranges are a little-less-safe but taste way better, I'm gonna choose some Oranges. But I'm sure going to try to make sure I have enough Apples, as long as it doesn't make my Oranges bad.
But EVERYBODY should be allowed the right to choose whether they want Apples or Oranges. In fact, they should have the right to have BOTH Apples and Oranges.
And the government shouldn't spend a lot of money deciding if I should want Apples, or whether I want Oranges.
I started to say something in another thread, because I wanted to say something about statistics and regulations. But it wouldn't have sounded right.
In that thread, a Government used statistics to compare against randomly accumulated data to determine what regulations would be. They compared Apples and Oranges.
Sometimes, it's best to think about WHY you're comparing Apples and Oranges. Because it might just be smarter to buy BOTH the Apple AND the Orange, rather than compare them to see what's best.
I'm not disagreeing with any of the data, since it all seems to indicate that being visible is good.
I saw a research study once conducted at an intersection with a traffic light. Video of the intersection was used to postulate a vehicle's trajectory if it had not stopped when the traffic light changed from Green to Red. The study determined that a vehicle that did not stop when the light turned red only had a 17% (I think- it was less than 1/5) chance of hitting another car.
I mean, it's good to have data (as a trained metrologist, I wrote Uncertainty Analyses, and calculated Assurance Ratios and created Measurement Guardbands ). But data is seldom finite, and I try not to incorporate multiple compilations of additive data just to compare them to events that have random occurance patterns of a type totally unassociated with the other data pattern to ascertain a somewhat-nebulous comparison and then make policy decisions that attempt to certify that the study had scientific accuracy to the degree necessary to validate the desired political intentions.
Oops. Sorry. I used to get paid to write about the differences between Apples and Oranges.
That's what we do every day we ride. When a pickup slows in front of me to turn into a shopping center parking lot, I could probably blast down between lanes alongside that pickup and not hit it. But the pickup may have slowed even more to let the car out of the parking lot he was going into to make more room for himself. And, yeah, I probably won't hit that car coming out in front of me as I blast down the dotted line that's supposed to be clear. And if I don't hit it, it would be a blast.
We choose between Apples and Oranges all the time. If Apples are safe and Oranges are a little-less-safe but taste way better, I'm gonna choose some Oranges. But I'm sure going to try to make sure I have enough Apples, as long as it doesn't make my Oranges bad.
But EVERYBODY should be allowed the right to choose whether they want Apples or Oranges. In fact, they should have the right to have BOTH Apples and Oranges.
And the government shouldn't spend a lot of money deciding if I should want Apples, or whether I want Oranges.
