Glenn Beck Says All Hispanics Should Go Back Where They Came From!

[Yeekim]

I wonder what are the odds of getting killed by Israeli commando boarding your ship vs getting killed by a lightning?
Could you do the math for me, Form?

 

[MobBoss]

I wonder what are the odds of getting killed by Israeli commando boarding your ship vs getting killed by a lightning?
Could you do the math for me, Form?

He would have to know the total number of passengers of all ships boarded by the IDF. Presumably, its going to be very low.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I wonder what are the odds of getting killed by Israeli commando boarding your ship vs getting killed by a lightning?

How many ships have been boarded during the recent blockade attempts so far? A half dozen or so? How many deaths? 9? It would seem that the odds are quite good that someone may indeed die, except I think Israel learned their lesson to not kill innocent civilians in such an absurd manner.

 

[Yeekim]

He would have to know the total number of passengers of all ships boarded by the IDF. Presumably, its going to be very low.

Since lightning does not discriminate, he would have to know the total number of ... umm... "passenger enboardments"?
(Pardon my non-native English).
EDIT: We could break it into categories:
a) Likelihood of getting killed by IDF if you attempt to travel by sea.
b) Likelihood of getting killed by IDF if you attempt to travel by sea in Mediterranean.
c) Likelihood of getting killed by IDF if you attempt to travel by sea to break Gaza blockade.

 

[ColdClimate]

"When 11 people on a ship are kill by commandos, it's a tragedy,
When 11 people on a ship are kill by commandos and it is discussed on CFC-OT,
it's a bizarre listing of comparative statistics...."

~Stalin

 

[MobBoss]

It also means the odds of being struck by lightning are far greater than being killed in a rocket/morter attack.

Uhm, no, not how you have meant the term.

Is your context that greater = better?

Or are you now changing the context of your initial comment, and your examples?

Because the context of your initial comment, and exmples (the airline thing) are that the chance of being hit by lightning are better (greater) than 'irrational fear X'.

However, in the case of getting killed by a rocket in Israel, its not. Hamas has a 1:300 success rate of getting a fatality with a rocket or mortar per round fired. Lightning only hits 1:500,000 attempts.

Point being your odds of being hit by a rocket are far greater/better than being hit by a bolt of lightning.

Given that you have been pinned down on this badly, are you now going to argue semantics?

Since lightning does not discriminate, he would have to know the total number of ... umm... "passenger enboardments"?
(Pardon my non-native English).

I think he is assuming the static 1:500,000 as a norm regardless of number of lightning strikes known or unknown....

 

[ColdClimate]

I think you're comparing apples and oranges.

Do you want to figure out the odds that an Israeli will get hit by a rocket/mortar in thier lifetime?

Or whether a rocket/mortar launched will reach an israei victim?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I think you're comparing apples and oranges.

Yep. One is arguing instants the other time frame.

And the beat goes on ...

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Please stop these statistical pissing contests.

It's easy to pick and choose statistics that favour your viewpoint and comparing statistics without using statistical methods (which I'm guessing no-one pointing out statistics here actually understands or has studied) is meaningless.

Thanks, ParadigmShifter (studied maths and statistics to degree level).

 

[ColdClimate]

Now for the real question: what are the odds of an israeli being saved from a mortar attack by a lightning bolt that redirects it towards a turkish flotilla? And in 500 words or less essay answer, how does this directly relate to Helen Thomas, Glen Beck, and illegal hispanic immigrants in the middle east?

You have 5 minutes to submit you answer...

But on a serious note, if we can say for certain one way or another that it is more or less likely for someone in Israel to be hit by a projectile from Gaza, will anyone's mind be changed one way or another...?

 

[MobBoss]

Please stop these statistical pissing contests.

Ah, but isnt that the gist of CFC discussions? When someone makes an unsupportable comment, one gets called on it?

Sure, I get the fact that you can probably write a doctrate level thesis on the comparison depending on how many factors you want to add in. That wasnt my point.

My point was simply that the base data (number of rockets/deaths/injuries vs odds of being hit by lightning) shows the odds are better that a rocket/mortar from Gaza will kill/injure you than the odds of being hit by lightning are. Simply, on its face, without trying to ascertain weather patterns or population densities, elevation, humidty factors, etc.

In other words IN GENERAL.

In consideration of the numbers involved, I think its fairly evident that a rocket/mortar from Gaza has a better chance of being hit by lightning....but thats me.

As for the rest of you, ymmv.

 

[ColdClimate]

My point was simply that the base data (number of rockets/deaths/injuries vs odds of being hit by lightning) shows the odds are better that a rocket/mortar from Gaza will kill/injure you than the odds of being hit by lightning are. Simply, on its face, without trying to ascertain weather patterns or population densities, elevation, humidty factors, etc.

In other words IN GENERAL.

In consideration of the numbers involved, I think its fairly evident that a rocket/mortar from Gaza has a better chance of being hit by lightning....but thats me.

As for the rest of you, ymmv.

Um, without getting too picky, I think you proved with your statistic that it is more efficient to kill israelis with rockets and mortars than with lightning strikes, not that you are more likely to be killed one way or another....

not that it matters either way...

 

[MobBoss]

Um, without getting too picky, I think you proved with your statistic that it is more efficient to kill israelis with rockets and mortars than with lightning strikes, not that you are more likely to be killed one way or another....

I have no problem with that viewpoint either to be honest since it still supports my objection to the original comment.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Um, without getting too picky, I think you proved with your statistic that it is more efficient to kill israelis with rockets and mortars than with lightning strikes, not that you are more likely to be killed one way or another....

not that it matters either way...

What this guy said.

I was having a go at all of the statistics abusing posters rather than targeting anyone in particular.

The main fault is comparing 2 sets of statistics which have no connection to each other at all.

 

[MobBoss]

What this guy said.

I was having a go at all of the statistics abusing posters rather than targeting anyone in particular.

The main fault is comparing 2 sets of statistics which have no connection to each other at all.

I agree with you and I believe I pointed that out last page.

 

[ColdClimate]

I have no problem with that viewpoint either to be honest since it still supports my objection to the original comment.

Well, by that logic, the weapon of choice for Gazans should be colon cancer, given mortality stats from that country...and that just brings up some disturbing mental images...

 

[JollyRoger]

Perhaps Gaza should use Israeli commandos if they are aiming for brutal efficiency and the goal is dead civilians.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

I agree with you and I believe I pointed that out last page.

Well leave it at that then. Indeed you were correct in pointing that out.

A more interesting statistic would be chance of being an Israeli killed by Palestinian violence vs. Palestinian killed by Israeli violence vs. Israeli/Israeli violent deaths vs. Palestinian/Palestinian deaths.

At least then some statistical analysis could be performed.

Here's a link to a 2x2 chi-squared contingency test calculator which looks pretty easy to use:

http://faculty.vassar.edu/lowry/odds2x2.html

EDIT: There is a link to the main website there too. The chi-squared test is explained in chapter 8.

 

[Formaldehyde]

The main fault is comparing 2 sets of statistics which have no connection to each other at all.

It is not a "fault" at all. It is a quite common practice amongst rational adults:

http://reason.com/archives/2006/08/11/dont-be-terrorized

But how afraid should Americans be of terrorist attacks? Not very, as some quick comparisons with other risks that we regularly run in our daily lives indicate. Your odds of dying of a specific cause in any year are calculated by dividing that year's population by the number of deaths by that cause in that year. Your lifetime odds of dying of a particular cause are calculated by dividing the one-year odds by the life expectancy of a person born in that year. For example, in 2003 about 45,000 Americans died in motor accidents out of population of 291,000,000. So, according to the National Safety Council this means your one-year odds of dying in a car accident is about one out of 6500. Therefore your lifetime probability (6500 ÷ 78 years life expectancy) of dying in a motor accident are about one in 83.

What about your chances of dying in an airplane crash? A one-year risk of one in 400,000 and one in 5,000 lifetime risk. What about walking across the street? A one-year risk of one in 48,500 and a lifetime risk of one in 625. Drowning? A one-year risk of one in 88,000 and a one in 1100 lifetime risk. In a fire? About the same risk as drowning. Murder? A one-year risk of one in 16,500 and a lifetime risk of one in 210. What about falling? Essentially the same as being murdered. And the proverbial being struck by lightning? A one-year risk of one in 6.2 million and a lifetime risk of one in 80,000. And what is the risk that you will die of a catastrophic asteroid strike? In 1994, astronomers calculated that the chance was one in 20,000. However, as they've gathered more data on the orbits of near earth objects, the lifetime risk has been reduced to one in 200,000 or more.

So how do these common risks compare to your risk of dying in a terrorist attack? To try to calculate those odds realistically, Michael Rothschild, a former business professor at the University of Wisconsin, worked out a couple of plausible scenarios. For example, he figured that if terrorists were to destroy entirely one of America's 40,000 shopping malls per week, your chances of being there at the wrong time would be about one in one million or more. Rothschild also estimated that if terrorists hijacked and crashed one of America's 18,000 commercial flights per week that your chance of being on the crashed plane would be one in 135,000.

Even if terrorists were able to pull off one attack per year on the scale of the 9/11 atrocity, that would mean your one-year risk would be one in 100,000 and your lifetime risk would be about one in 1300. (300,000,000 ÷ 3,000 = 100,000 ÷ 78 years = 1282) In other words, your risk of dying in a plausible terrorist attack is much lower than your risk of dying in a car accident, by walking across the street, by drowning, in a fire, by falling, or by being murdered.

So do these numbers comfort you? If not, that's a problem. Already, security measures—pervasive ID checkpoints, metal detectors, and phalanxes of security guards—increasingly clot the pathways of our public lives. It's easy to overreact when an atrocity takes place—to heed those who promise safety if only we will give the authorities the "tools" they want by surrendering to them some of our liberty. As President Franklin Roosevelt in his first inaugural speech said, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself— nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance." However, with risks this low there is no reason for us not to continue to live our lives as though terrorism doesn't matter—because it doesn't really matter. We ultimately vanquish terrorism when we refuse to be terrorized.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Both of those statistics have a common element though, namely flight.

EDIT: Whoops, I misread that a bit, was thinking it was comparing flight safety to terrorist attack in flight safety.

All that shows is the likelihood of death in an airborne terrorist attack is less than being hit by lightning.

I'm sure we all agree being killed by lightning is unlikely.