The modern version of perfection is "5 nines", or 99.999%
reliability. This is another way of saying 0.001% failure, or 1 failure in 100,000, and 10 in a million. Pretty good if you're making a thousand or ten
thousand of anything, in which case you will probably never have a
failure attributable to your product. But if you make millions of cars,
you will have dozens of failures.
General Motors sold cars with defective ignition switches that led to the deaths of many people. General Motors sold a lot of cars with many defective components that led the deaths of a lot other people. Every car company sold many cars with many defective parts that led to the deaths of many people. The difference is that GM is very big and uses so many common components among its numerous car
"platforms" that their mistakes reach the level of statistical
confidence.
If big and a small manufactures make mistakes that kill people at the same rate, they will also make their families unhappy at the same rate. But the big numbers will make the lawyers happy. Statisticians will probably be sanguine.
Wednesday, May 28, 2014
Tuesday, May 27, 2014
Memorable Days
We honor on Memorial Day the people who sacrificed to protect our freedom. That's the standard construction. Rightly so. But those who object to war also serve and sacrifice, often even more.
I remember getting my draft card in 1974, in the closing years of the Vietnam conflict (war). Although it was #50 or so (out of 365), reflecting below-average luck, I knew that the true odds of ending up humping through the bush and risking death, even if I were "called up", were actually pretty low.
Does anyone know anything when they are 18 years old? I operated mostly on suspicions and hunches. But I can tell you honestly, it would have been far harder to object than to go along with what I thought was a "bad" war (now I doubt there ever was a "good" war). Enlisting would have required much less courage than resisting what I knew, or suspected, in my gut, even then, was wrong, wrong, wrong.
I remember getting my draft card in 1974, in the closing years of the Vietnam conflict (war). Although it was #50 or so (out of 365), reflecting below-average luck, I knew that the true odds of ending up humping through the bush and risking death, even if I were "called up", were actually pretty low.
Does anyone know anything when they are 18 years old? I operated mostly on suspicions and hunches. But I can tell you honestly, it would have been far harder to object than to go along with what I thought was a "bad" war (now I doubt there ever was a "good" war). Enlisting would have required much less courage than resisting what I knew, or suspected, in my gut, even then, was wrong, wrong, wrong.
Saturday, May 10, 2014
You get what you pay for
The US spends about $700 billion annually on its military. That is about $2,000 per American man, woman and child. That is more than all our allies and most of our potential enemies put together. What do we get for that?
This cost would be worth every penny if it helped us avoid World War III, because even in strictly simple economic terms war is far more expensive. And during the half-century following WWII, keeping the military big and sharp almost certainly helped keep the cold war from heating up. But now we should ask whether it is still worth the cost, and is the cost sustainable?
Europe and Japan were in rubble after WWII. They cleaned up and caught up in the subsequent few decades. Now, an American visiting these countries must honestly marvel at their advanced state: stable politics, excellent culture, livable cities, wonderful infrastructure, inclusive and affordable education, universal health care, etc. In a market economy, one nation cannot spend substantially more than the others on something that does not bring it any advantage.
In the community of nations, in the global neighborhood, are we the nutty family driving up-armor Hummers, buying assault rifles, and wondering how we can afford braces for the kids, or save for their college, or plan our retirement?
This cost would be worth every penny if it helped us avoid World War III, because even in strictly simple economic terms war is far more expensive. And during the half-century following WWII, keeping the military big and sharp almost certainly helped keep the cold war from heating up. But now we should ask whether it is still worth the cost, and is the cost sustainable?
Europe and Japan were in rubble after WWII. They cleaned up and caught up in the subsequent few decades. Now, an American visiting these countries must honestly marvel at their advanced state: stable politics, excellent culture, livable cities, wonderful infrastructure, inclusive and affordable education, universal health care, etc. In a market economy, one nation cannot spend substantially more than the others on something that does not bring it any advantage.
In the community of nations, in the global neighborhood, are we the nutty family driving up-armor Hummers, buying assault rifles, and wondering how we can afford braces for the kids, or save for their college, or plan our retirement?
Sunday, May 04, 2014
"Natural Gas" is Methane, AKA climate killer
Please let's abandon the term "natural gas" (which sounds so nice and warm and, um, natural) and adopt the more descriptive name methane (1 carbon + 4 hydrogens = CH4). Methane is a very efficient greenhouse gas, much more effective than carbon dioxide (CO2). I heat my house and water with methane, as little as possible.
The scariest thing about methane is that a lot of it is leaking from pipelines and production fields. (Coal is demonized as a contributor to climate change, but its insignificant vapor pressure means that at least it doesn't leak into the atmosphere in significant amounts). Ronald Reagan was right, for once, in saying that cow's farts (methane) were causing global warming. The Union of Concerned Scientists published an article about "natural gas" not being the answer to global warming.
But first things first: forget about "natural gas", an advertising pitch from the carbon industry, and let's call it METHANE.
The scariest thing about methane is that a lot of it is leaking from pipelines and production fields. (Coal is demonized as a contributor to climate change, but its insignificant vapor pressure means that at least it doesn't leak into the atmosphere in significant amounts). Ronald Reagan was right, for once, in saying that cow's farts (methane) were causing global warming. The Union of Concerned Scientists published an article about "natural gas" not being the answer to global warming.
But first things first: forget about "natural gas", an advertising pitch from the carbon industry, and let's call it METHANE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
