|
I love U all.
YOU SAID ? ?If it will (almost) definitely save your life (eg it's a parachute, and you have just fallen out of an airplane) and you are only willing to pay $1000 for it, then that's your value on you own life. I never said it was the worth of your life - I haven't defined that, and I don't really care? You see, I think this is all a little nutty, you can debate the semantics of Value vs.worth as much as you want, but its not really what you are trying to say is it? Sure it?s my own personal value/worth is? sure I get that? VALUE --An amount, as of goods, services, or money, considered to be a fair and suitable equivalent for something else; a fair price or return. www.dictionary.com WORTH -- The quality that renders something desirable, useful, or valuable or A quantity of something that may be purchased for a specified sum or by a specified means www.dictionary.com Look pretty similar to me? but who am I to argue? YOU SAID --?No, you are just confused. Maths A01. OK?? Better than Ok, I am wonderful! Thank you for asking! YOU SAID - ?You have given no evidence that air bags are useless. The public perception is that they decrease risk. You have evidence to the contrary, please state your argument, or at least make your assumption overt.? If necessarily I can inform you of many cases against the success of on air bag? However I agree they can save lives and ?useless? they may not turn out to be. I am a little confused of how someone who obviously views themselves as a person of such esteem can fail to notice the brash and satirical use of my words? oh well maybe next time you will have better luck.. YOU SAID??Most school children learn about negative numbers. Wearing a set of explosive overalls increases your chance of dying. Ie, the expectation value of saving your life does not approach zero, it is negative. Do the sums. Or do the subtraction. Or whatever.? Once again you have disappointed me. This is written in regard to the use of a bomb as a life saving device, I really thought you would grab the joke here, especially when I spoke about a ?bomb breaking some-ones fall? And yes thank you for the personal yet unsubstantiated attacks, they are a great stimulator for such conversations like this one we are having now! But to get to the point, even if to re-assert that maybe this is a worth-while discussion. I will continue? Yes I am aware of negative numbers, and in this case they are not relevant, seeing I used the joke ? ?Although its not going to save them unless it breaks their fall? suggest we are talking about the slim chance of it saving them? In which case I am arguable correct in saying it would be a life saving chance (percentage) approaching zero. If even more correct in saying infinitely small? Once again referring to my level of education, a nice cheap shot to add? ( I Just had to say that again, I just love arrogant people, don?t you. ;-) I have been giving it some thought, and I have decided, that even though you had a cheap unsubstantiated attack on me, and brought up all kinds of crap about NEGATIVE NUMBERS because you miss-understood the reinforced jokes I laid out before you. I will still answer your retorts. This is becoming quite humours. You see, with a negative number, such as the one you thought I was referring (and established above not to existed) would actually fix up a major flaw of my workings in my original piece. as is, IF you are carrying a bomb the likelihood of death is very high which you suggested a negative life saving value, I am presuming if I understand this pointless argument, the negative number would be quite high? (Please do correct me if I am wrong), Now, if you are paid for such a task then the monetary cost to you for this device would also be negative? Now I am sure if you work this into you little equation we will find a simple result. You see for the most part my workings were quite apt. The only flaw was to disregard you simple foot-notes, just another satirical sentiment, i thought would make things quirky! YOU SAID- ?Note this is not 0.1% chance of saving your life in an accident, but of saving your life. For instance, you had a 1% chance of having a accident, and it had 10% of saving your live in an accident, then it would have a 0.1% chance of saving your life. Don't let the lefties confuse you on this issue.? The most obvious error in a formula such as this is the unpredictable nature of having an accident, the probabilities of any accident occurring are silly at best. The probability of what will save someone in each situation is very, very hard to define as there are no controls or relevant tests applicable. This is life, what will save who, in what, next crash? Who knows? , last time it was my mobile phone! But I guess these are the best estimates we have to get numbers such as this? So I won?t hit it too hard. So I suppose because I confused SOO many people with my satirical jokes I am sure to be the biggest leftie here? Right? Nice one Strawman, nice one? See, I am not going to engage in ridicules and bigotry of such people as you. Good day to you Sir.
| 
