Making Baby Jesus Cry

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
If you go out on the street, there is a chance that some car will veer off the road and kill you. You could maybe change that result by wearing a huge, specially designed, titanium-and-platinum alloy cage around your body that costs $100,000, but there's only a 10% chance it will work. So you should do it, right?

I think there are a significant number of people who just want to get a handle on the cost-benefit analysis, and/or don't feel like it's worth it. I mean, fuck, for years we didn't have airbags in cars, even though we know they save a lot of people in accidents, because they made cars too expensive. We don't have a policeman for every 3 people, even though that would probably reduce the crime rate to zero, because it would be too expensive and is not worth the money.

You are using crap examples, is my point.

I agree with you completely. The problem is, somebody always makes this argument in reply -

"Yes, but you'd think differently if you were one of the people who DIED because something was too expensive."

You're talking macro; Spankster's just running to its absurd conclusion the American fantasy that death can somehow be cheated if we're just vigilant enough.

Hey, Spanks... read Tom Friedman's Oped piece from this morning, called "Learning From Lance." Bombs ain't our biggest problem.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
You could do like europe and require external airbags:


although the cost-benefit on that for RT, says "put 'em on!"

The past is always prologue -

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
"Yes, but you'd think differently if you were one of the people who DIED because something was too expensive."

I may be unusual,* but I wouldn't think differently. Even if I were horribly crippled, not dead, and therefore able to think about it after the fact.

*or, as most on here would say, fucking insane

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
This is not some random occurance. This is an intentional kill. If he luanches a missile there is a hundred percent chance I will die. I would like to reduce that by whatever percentage I can. It is like I have a neighbor that has a high power rifle aimed at my house. If he gets riled he might use it. Shouldn't I try and pull my shades down. If NK and SK go to war and that lunatic thinks he is going to lose there is no telling what he will do. Don't you think Saddam would have luanched missiles at the US if he could have. He luanched them at Isreal?

China also has a bunch of ICBMs and there has been a lot of sabre rattling over Taiwan. And we have pledged to protect it. If those two go at it who knows what the Chinese will do?

We are not talking about traffic deaths. Or mortality statistics. We are talking about millions of people vaporized in few seconds.

You are missing the point, because it's still a cost-benefit thing.

I am very, very amused that you apparently aren't so into economics.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Dimwit- they kept working on airbag technology until it was feasible. Ty and them want to drop SDI because its not ready yet. Go wild on stem cell because MAYBE someday things could be better- drop SDI because TODAY thinkgs aren't perfect.

there are probably good arguments to be made against SDI, but you guys don't make them. you all have to upgrade your advocate brain power around here.

SDI is a huge sloppy blowjob for the defense contracting industry. Nothing more; nothing less.

That Bush resurrected that piece of shit shows how uncreative his Admin is in finding new tricks to pump prime the economy.

Overheard in the pres/prime minsiter/king's office during every economic downturn in history:

"Sir, our economy's flagging. What shall we do?"

"Can we start a war?"

You can't pump prime the economy withdumb war purchases and the creation of new govt departments forever. Bush is striking out at every dumb way to create new industrial growth imaginable. Dusting off SDI shows real fucking desperation.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I may be unusual,* but I wouldn't think differently. Even if I were horribly crippled, not dead, and therefore able to think about it after the fact.

*or, as most on here would say, fucking insane

Docs make micro level decisions on treatment using epidemiological models based on macro cost benefit calculations all the time.

If you quiz your doc on why he's doing one thing and not another, you may get scared at what you hear.

I actually ask the docs to chuck the epidemiological shit and tell me what they'd do if the cash were unlimited and I were the only person alive.*

* And, validating your theory, I usually wind up soending piles of money on usless tests for things the macro data properly assumed I did not have. Its really interesting the way the macro stuff can predict things on the micro level, because technically, its seems like it shouldn't. Or I'm just dumb.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
SDI

What I want to see is a reliable cost vs. probability-it-will-work-and-when analysis. Hell, I'd donate $5 today if I knew it would prevent Kim Jong Il from bombing spankyland tomorrow.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Docs make micro level decisions on treatment using epidemiological models based on macro cost benefit calculations all the time.

If you quiz your doc on why he's doing one thing and not another, you may get scared at what you hear.

I actually ask the docs to chuck the epidemiological shit and tell me what they'd do if the cash were unlimited and I were the only person alive.*

* And, validating your theory, I usually wind up soending piles of money on usless tests for things the macro data properly assumed I did not have. Its really interesting the way the macro stuff can predict things on the micro level, because technically, its seems like it shouldn't. Or I'm just dumb.

You are irrational about medical care like Spankster is irrational about missile defense. You do all kinds of other risky things, but don't want to run the risk of not having taken one test.

I think my doctor is overly cautious and recommends too many tests, and hate even paying the radically reduced negotiated rates provided under my health plan.

Horses, courses. But Spanky's spending my tax dollars on bloated defense contractors, dammit, and you are just being freaky.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
You are irrational about medical care like Spankster is irrational about missile defense. You do all kinds of other risky things, but don't want to run the risk of not having taken one test.

I think my doctor is overly cautious and recommends too many tests, and hate even paying the radically reduced negotiated rates provided under my health plan.

Horses, courses. But Spanky's spending my tax dollars on bloated defense contractors, dammit, and you are just being freaky.

I'm not spending any of your dough. I just paid $500 for more kooky tests my insurer wouldn't cover. I do the same thing with my cars. I just bring it in and say "Go over it with a fine toothed comb and make me a list of any potential problem areas." I figure this saves me over the long haul.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I'm not spending any of your dough. I just paid $500 for more kooky tests my insurer wouldn't cover. I do the same thing with my cars. I just bring it in and say "Go over it with a fine toothed comb and make me a list of any potential problem areas." I figure this saves me over the long haul.

Which is why I said "But Spanky's spending my tax dollars on bloated defense contractors, dammit, and you are just being freaky."

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Which is why I said "But Spanky's spending my tax dollars on bloated defense contractors, dammit, and you are just being freaky."

My bad; I'm cooked.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
If that pyschotic leader of NK has some minor indegestion he can press a button and vaporise half the people that post to this board.\

If he takes me out he can singelhandedly take out half the posters who have ever posted to this board and 20% of the members of LawTalkers.com. RT would be out of a job.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
You are missing the point, because it's still a cost-benefit thing.

I am very, very amused that you apparently aren't so into economics.

NO - you are missing the point. We spend trillions on our defense for what purpose? Does any of it deal with an immediate injury to our citizenry. No. 9-11 was a huge tragedy, but only few thousand people died. We spend a lot of money with no direct benefits to US citizens.

But here is a directly military threat that could kill millioins. A signficant portion of the US population. So all this talk about safety measures is completeley not related.

From a cost benefit analysis when you look at airbags you look at the cost of using them vs. the lives saved.

In this situation you are looking at the cost of developing the system vs. the cost of the system is not used. The cost here if a missile hit California is pretty high. My guess the loss of San Francisco or Los Anglese would be in the trillions of dollars.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Spanky
NO - you are missing the point. We spend trillions on our defense for what purpose? Does any of it deal with an immediate injury to our citizenry. No.

We fight them over there so that we don't have to fight them here.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Dimwit- they kept working on airbag technology until it was feasible. Ty and them want to drop SDI because its not ready yet. Go wild on stem cell because MAYBE someday things could be better- drop SDI because TODAY thinkgs aren't perfect.

FYI, Study results released on Friday was very compelling on the regenerative qualities of adult stem cells injected into the human heart. I think it was at the Texas Heart Institute, but it may have been at UT-Houston. Somewhere from the Texas Medical Center.