The last part of your post about alcohol is meaningless nonsense as far as I can tell. And I'd like to see your data on motor vehicles being used principally for recreation. I suspect that the vast majority of people use their vehicles for necessary transportation. In my entire life, I have never met a single person who claimed to use their car principally for recreational purposes. Maybe there are some rich folks who can afford to do this, but not the vast majority of workers.
The last part of your post about alcohol is meaningless nonsense as far as I can tell. And I'd like to see your data on motor vehicles being used principally for recreation. I suspect that the vast majority of people use their vehicles for necessary transportation. In my entire life, I have never met a single person who claimed to use their car principally for recreational purposes. Maybe there are some rich folks who can afford to do this, but not the vast majority of workers.
Then you can't tell much. I'm very sorry for you.
No need. Just go read a motorcycle magazine. It's pretty clear that the vehicles only exist for entertainment. Otherwise they would have features such as payload and safety.
I wouldn't expect many people to confess, either. But the way to move from A to B is by sedan or bus; the way to move stuff from A to B is by station wagon or van. If you move by convertible or motorcycle, you are just mechanically stretching your dick, even if you lie to yourself and others about it.
Timo Saloniemi
ah, so what's "malfunctioning alcohol" then?
And on your other point, so you admit you've got nothing and are basing your views on misinformation and uninformed speculation. (many areas in the U.S. either don't have reliable public transportation or have none at all, so "moving from A to B on bus" is not an option)
Methanol, of course. Yet another example of an ever-present risk in a popular form of recreation, disregarded by the user community even if halfheartedly addressed by certain do-good organizations.
Oh, give up already. If you really think a Harley Davidson is bought for transportation needs, you probably need to buy one. It really helps clear your mind.
Timo Saloniemi
see, it's funny that you moved the goalposts from "vehicles" in general to "motorcycles," but I'm not going to play the "move the goalposts" game.
Again, I'd like to see support for the claim that people generally use VEHICLES for "fun" rather than as a means of transportation.
methyl alcohol is not malfunctioning alcohol by any stretch of an analogy or imagination...
methyl alcohol is actually the simplest form of alcohol on the planet, but despite being simple, atomically speaking of course, it's one of the most versatile and well used chemicals around.
M
...And doesn't that make you look ridiculous.
I mean, go back and actually read what was written. It was you who moved the goalposts.
And that, too, is a straw man of yours. You are not entitled to insert words like "generally" there.
My argument about there existing unsafe vehicles purely for recreation stands. Your straw man burns brightly.
That irrelevant interlude aside, methanol is also a deadly poison commonly found when creation of more or less edible, delightfully intoxicating ethanol is attempted. A perfect analogy for all the other popular recreational technologies discussed, all with the possibility of a deadly malfunction.
Do I really have to spell these things out? Where's education going nowadays?
Timo Saloniemi
Well, I wasn't so much addressing their lineage as the fact that both seem to be scenarios where you're generally going in for a fun time and it's certainly not something you -need- to do and you should be reasonably safe. But there's always a chance something could go terminally wrong.
I wonder whether Federation citizens using holodecks need to sign waivers before entering.
Of course, now I'm imagining going into a holodeck to experience a simulation of an amusement park...perhaps one that includes holodecks...
I wonder whether Federation citizens using holodecks need to sign waivers before entering.
Of course, now I'm imagining going into a holodeck to experience a simulation of an amusement park...perhaps one that includes holodecks...
How can they NOT know that they're risky?
It not a matter of transportation verse recreation sonak, the point is you have parents allowing their children to go situations that have a proven probability of fatalities and injuries. This happen modern day, every day.
Sending - permitting your child onto a holodeck is no different than letting them go swimming (drowning is the second leading cause of accidental death among children ages 1 to 14). Alexander has been on the holodeck, if the holodeck had malfunctioned at one of those times, Alexander could have been killed.
However, as a parent you know that (like swimming) the odds are heavily in favor that your child will survive the holodeck experience, they'll come home just fine. And they will have enjoyed themselves.
How can they NOT know that they're risky?
It not a matter of transportation verse recreation sonak, the point is you have parents allowing their children to go situations that have a proven probability of fatalities and injuries. This happen modern day, every day.
Sending - permitting your child onto a holodeck is no different than letting them go swimming (drowning is the second leading cause of accidental death among children ages 1 to 14). Alexander has been on the holodeck, if the holodeck had malfunctioned at one of those times, Alexander could have been killed.
However, as a parent you know that (like swimming) the odds are heavily in favor that your child will survive the holodeck experience, they'll come home just fine. And they will have enjoyed themselves.
a holodeck is not an outdoor physical activity like swimming. It's a piece of technology available to consumers. Consumer technology, when used properly, is not supposed to be dangerous. I don't operate a microwave thinking "well, this is an incredibly dangerous technology," because if you use it correctly, don't overcook things in it, and don't put non-microwaveably safe items in it, it is basically safe. A holodeck should have incredibly strong safeguards built into it, like at the first sign of malfunctioning, it shuts off or something. The frequency at which holodeck safeties fail is absurd.
Also, even in an activity like swimming, you can reduce the risk for children to almost nil. Only go to supervised public pools with trained lifeguards, don't leave kids unattended, don't have them go into the deeper end until they're experienced swimmers, etc. The amount of tragedies with swimming not caused by negligence or ignorance is pretty low.
^There is no evidence to support that the holodeck safties have a high rate of failure. We maybe just see the rare failure.
Lets say the Ent-D had 4 holodecks, of which two were always in use by crew/families. And to be fair we'll say 1hour sessions so thats 48 sessiosn per day
Thats 17520 holodeck sessions per year, and I'll be generous and say we saw 3 failures per year on the show.
3/17520 * 100 = 0.017% failure rate, or in other words 99.983 safe.
Lets say the Ent-D had 4 holodecks, of which two were always in use by crew/families. And to be fair we'll say 1hour sessions so thats 48 sessiosn per day
Thats 17520 holodeck sessions per year, and I'll be generous and say we saw 3 failures per year on the show.
3/17520 * 100 = 0.017% failure rate, or in other words 99.983 safe.
On average, 26 infants a day are injured in crib/playpen related accidents. There is a death about every fourth day.
There are millions of cribs and playpens in America, they are considered quite safe given their low injury and fatality rate.
I would agree. But for those using/employing the holodeck, the failure rate is obviously acceptable. Either that, or they are ignorant of the failure rate.
Most of the time that is what we saw, Picard on his horse, Data's dance partner, mama Troi and her mud bath.
A train barreling through a Shakespearean play was rare.
Similar threads
