Terror names linked to Air France 447

[Grey Fox]

Wait until we have a list for the Chinese

Yang Yang #1 thru 35 millions.

[DGuller]

The actual chance of a plane going down is also incredibly unlikely, so that proves nothing.

Presumably there are different degrees of unlikeliness...

Of course.  I'm merely pointing out that the original statement contains statistical fallacy (called prosecutor's fallacy, to be exact).

[garbon]

Of course.  I'm merely pointing out that the original statement contains statistical fallacy (called prosecutor's fallacy, to be exact).

Well I hope Valmy recognizes that it is very unlikely for a plane to crash...and thus I assumed that his statement used the low likelihood of an airplane crash as a reference base.

[DGuller]

Well I hope Valmy recognizes that it is very unlikely for a plane to crash...and thus I assumed that his statement used the low likelihood of an airplane crash as a reference base.

I'm not sure we can make that assumption, because for one Valmy could be quoting an expert who failed to see the fallacy himself.  It would be far from the first time some expert failed to understand the nuances of conditional probability.

[Valmy]

I'm not sure we can make that assumption, because for one Valmy could be quoting an expert who failed to see the fallacy himself.  It would be far from the first time some expert failed to understand the nuances of conditional probability.

What he said was basically that it was almost impossible for a plane to go down by being struck by lightening alone.  They are designed to be struck by lightening, as all metal things that fly through clouds should be.

[garbon]

I'm not sure we can make that assumption, because for one Valmy could be quoting an expert who failed to see the fallacy himself.  It would be far from the first time some expert failed to understand the nuances of conditional probability.

Since it makes no difference to me, I'm content with accepting Valmy's report. You know, dGul, there's no need to take the opposing view all the time. Makes you look a bit pompous (rather like Carrot).

[DGuller]

Since it makes no difference to me, I'm content with accepting Valmy's report. You know, dGul, there's no need to take the opposing view all the time. Makes you look a bit pompous (rather like Carrot).

It's hard to not look pompous when you are smarter and more knowledgeable than the vast majority of people.

[DGuller]

What he said was basically that it was almost impossible for a plane to go down by being struck by lightening alone.  They are designed to be struck by lightening, as all metal things that fly through clouds should be.

Few plane crashes happen from just one factor.  It's almost always an unfortunate mix of several unlikely events coming together.  At least that's what I learned on the Discovery Channel. 

[garbon]

It's hard to not look pompous when you are smarter and more knowledgeable than the vast majority of people.

I'd actually suggest that it takes effort to be a condescending prick.  Besides you ain't that bright (the people present into evidence: New Jersey).

[alfred russel]

I'd actually suggest that it takes effort to be a condescending prick.  Besides you ain't that bright (the people present into evidence: New Jersey).

Is NJ so bad if you live one block from the Hudson River?

[alfred russel]

Caliga = Sherlock Holmes

Caliga jumped to a conclusion of what happened as soon as he read of the incident. Maybe he is right, and maybe he is even touched by genious, but he is still the anti-Sherlock Holmes. 

[garbon]

Is NJ so bad if you live one block from the Hudson River?

Sure. Even worse than living in Williamsburg, NY.

[Malthus]

I'm not sure we can make that assumption, because for one Valmy could be quoting an expert who failed to see the fallacy himself.  It would be far from the first time some expert failed to understand the nuances of conditional probability.

What he said was basically that it was almost impossible for a plane to go down by being struck by lightening alone.  They are designed to be struck by lightening, as all metal things that fly through clouds should be.

The problem is not lightning, but rather the strong turbulence that is associated with such storms.

[Warspite]

I'm not sure we can make that assumption, because for one Valmy could be quoting an expert who failed to see the fallacy himself.  It would be far from the first time some expert failed to understand the nuances of conditional probability.

What he said was basically that it was almost impossible for a plane to go down by being struck by lightening alone.  They are designed to be struck by lightening, as all metal things that fly through clouds should be.

The problem is not lightning, but rather the strong turbulence that is associated with such storms.

Yes, and how close to a stall passenger jets actually fly at cruise altitude.

[Berkut]

If the plane stalled, wouldn't it have plenty of time to at least send out a mayday or something?