Soaring, Cryptography and Nuclear Weapons

What could soaring possibly have in common with nuclear weapons? To
find out, read my new article "Soaring, Cryptography and Nuclear
Weapons" at

http://www.nuclearrisk.org/soaring_article.php

If nuclear weapons are too much of a turn off, take a look at the
related lecture on flying safety which I gave last November at PASCO's
Soaring Safety Seminar. Entitled, "Complacency: What Me Worry?" that
one is at

http://www-ee.stanford.edu/~hellman/...2007_talk.html

Martin

PS I have more soaring safety articles at

http://www-ee.stanford.edu/~hellman/soaring/safety.html

and links to soaring photo pages at

http://www-ee.stanford.edu/~hellman/soaring/photos.html

On Oct 20, 6:14*pm, Hellman wrote:
What could soaring possibly have in common with nuclear weapons? To
find out, read my new article "Soaring, Cryptography and Nuclear
Weapons" at

http://www.nuclearrisk.org/soaring_article.php

If nuclear weapons are too much of a turn off, take a look at the
related lecture on flying safety which I gave last November at PASCO's
Soaring Safety Seminar. Entitled, "Complacency: What Me Worry?" that
one is at

http://www-ee.stanford.edu/~hellman/...2007_talk.html

Martin

PS I have more soaring safety articles at

http://www-ee.stanford.edu/~hellman/soaring/safety.html

and links to soaring photo pages at

http://www-ee.stanford.edu/~hellman/soaring/photos.html

Martin,

Outstanding articles!! I'll be sharing these with everyone at the
flight school where I work.

Mike

On Oct 20, 7:14*pm, Hellman wrote:
What could soaring possibly have in common with nuclear weapons? To
find out, read my new article "Soaring, Cryptography and Nuclear
Weapons" at

http://www.nuclearrisk.org/soaring_article.php

If nuclear weapons are too much of a turn off, take a look at the
related lecture on flying safety which I gave last November at PASCO's
Soaring Safety Seminar. Entitled, "Complacency: What Me Worry?" that
one is at

http://www-ee.stanford.edu/~hellman/...2007_talk.html

Martin

PS I have more soaring safety articles at

http://www-ee.stanford.edu/~hellman/soaring/safety.html

and links to soaring photo pages at

http://www-ee.stanford.edu/~hellman/soaring/photos.html

coverage
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article6901.html

"Hellman" wrote

What could soaring possibly have in common with nuclear weapons?

Great articles, Martin. Thanks for sharing them.

- Bill



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 18:14:35 -0700 (PDT), Hellman wrote:

What could soaring possibly have in common with nuclear weapons? To
find out, read my new article "Soaring, Cryptography and Nuclear
Weapons" at

http://www.nuclearrisk.org/soaring_article.php

"On an annual basis, that makes relying on nuclear weapons a 99% safe
maneuver. As with 99.9% safe maneuvers in soaring, that is not as safe
as it sounds and is no cause for complacency. If we continue to rely on
a strategy with a one percent failure rate per year, that adds up to
about 10% in a decade and almost certain destruction within my
grandchildren's lifetimes."

Your math is off, risk is not cumulative.
--
Meet Ari!
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3wh3hh

Ari wrote:


"On an annual basis, that makes relying on nuclear weapons a 99% safe
maneuver. As with 99.9% safe maneuvers in soaring, that is not as safe
as it sounds and is no cause for complacency. If we continue to rely on
a strategy with a one percent failure rate per year, that adds up to
about 10% in a decade and almost certain destruction within my
grandchildren's lifetimes."

Your math is off, risk is not cumulative.

Absolutely right! But here's the deal: 0.99 to the 10th power is .904
(90% safe, 10% unsafe).

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

Ari wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 18:14:35 -0700 (PDT), Hellman wrote:

What could soaring possibly have in common with nuclear weapons? To
find out, read my new article "Soaring, Cryptography and Nuclear
Weapons" at

http://www.nuclearrisk.org/soaring_article.php

"On an annual basis, that makes relying on nuclear weapons a 99% safe
maneuver. As with 99.9% safe maneuvers in soaring, that is not as safe
as it sounds and is no cause for complacency. If we continue to rely on
a strategy with a one percent failure rate per year, that adds up to
about 10% in a decade and almost certain destruction within my
grandchildren's lifetimes."

Your math is off, risk is not cumulative.

I don't think he meant "adds up" literally - if he did he wouldn't have
added the "about" qualifier. The multiplicative value of the safe maneuver
ensemble (0.99**10) happens to yield a risk of about 10%. The examples
elsewhere in his article indicates he understands the proper math. It's not
like he doesn't have the education. ;-)

The issue isn't, IMHO, the math, but rather several other points:

0) The redundant identification of a risk already known while speaking
little of a viable solution. Or even whether a solution can be found
because the underlying problem(s) disallow and viable solution.

1) Invention of arbitrary risk percentages over arbitrarily selected
periods.

2) The attempt to apply an objective measure (statistics) to singular
subjective human actions. In this realm, statistics appears about as
relevant a tool as a hammer is to painting.

On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 02:32:02 GMT, Eric Greenwell wrote:

Ari wrote:


"On an annual basis, that makes relying on nuclear weapons a 99% safe
maneuver. As with 99.9% safe maneuvers in soaring, that is not as safe
as it sounds and is no cause for complacency. If we continue to rely on
a strategy with a one percent failure rate per year, that adds up to
about 10% in a decade and almost certain destruction within my
grandchildren's lifetimes."

Your math is off, risk is not cumulative.

Absolutely right! But here's the deal: 0.99 to the 10th power is .904
(90% safe, 10% unsafe).

So what you are saying is that the power is equal to the number of years
(decade)?
--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJVydzNJrno

On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 22:04:55 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:

Ari wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 18:14:35 -0700 (PDT), Hellman wrote:

What could soaring possibly have in common with nuclear weapons? To
find out, read my new article "Soaring, Cryptography and Nuclear
Weapons" at

http://www.nuclearrisk.org/soaring_article.php

"On an annual basis, that makes relying on nuclear weapons a 99% safe
maneuver. As with 99.9% safe maneuvers in soaring, that is not as safe
as it sounds and is no cause for complacency. If we continue to rely on
a strategy with a one percent failure rate per year, that adds up to
about 10% in a decade and almost certain destruction within my
grandchildren's lifetimes."

Your math is off, risk is not cumulative.

I don't think he meant "adds up" literally - if he did he wouldn't have
added the "about" qualifier. The multiplicative value of the safe maneuver
ensemble (0.99**10) happens to yield a risk of about 10%. The examples
elsewhere in his article indicates he understands the proper math. It's not
like he doesn't have the education. ;-)

Got that right, I am a big Hellman crypto fan, his credential outweigh
mine the flea to the elephant.
--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJVydzNJrno

On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 22:04:55 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:

The issue isn't, IMHO, the math, but rather several other points:

0) The redundant identification of a risk already known while speaking
little of a viable solution. Or even whether a solution can be found
because the underlying problem(s) disallow and viable solution.

1) Invention of arbitrary risk percentages over arbitrarily selected
periods.

2) The attempt to apply an objective measure (statistics) to singular
subjective human actions. In this realm, statistics appears about as
relevant a tool as a hammer is to painting.

The last is what threw me as well. I don't see real life, war time,
complexities being identified with statistical data. If that
extrapolation is permissible, we can have long discussions about coin
flipping and guessing the dates of the next 9/11.
--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJVydzNJrno