Comments on: Airline Travel

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 19:21:01 +0000

that’s exactly what I was thinking.

I find this graph slightly offensive.

By: jd

jd — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 21:02:41 +0000

what about distance from airport to home and probability of multiple bags getting lost?

By: ynotoman

ynotoman — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 13:50:53 +0000

ah – but what if you are the snoring guy?

By: Gary "magic balls" Malone

Gary "magic balls" Malone — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 23:33:59 +0000

ummm….its 12 likelihoods. Never heard of that measurement aih?

By: CellBlock

CellBlock — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 22:49:16 +0000

For me, the increasing probability is of BECOMING the snoring fat guy.

Sorry, person next to me, but I’m fat, and the flight is boring, so I’m taking a nap.

By: Ruby

Ruby — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 18:08:11 +0000

Might wanna check the exhaust on that baby.

By: Jim

Jim — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 17:28:43 +0000

Whenever I am on a plane, I am inevitably seated next to a baby who smokes.

By: Amelia

Amelia — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 17:22:14 +0000

Does the probability of a Billy Idol presence decrease if the plane is not en route to Las Vegas?

By: Neil Ginsberg

Neil Ginsberg — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 17:07:27 +0000

Ha! True. I should do a graph: type of technical imperfection in graph vs. likelihood of inane discussion nitpicking said imperfection.

By: Neil Ginsberg

Neil Ginsberg — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 17:03:35 +0000

Guys, chill out. It’s just a silly graph, for cryin out loud! No one’s gonna build a space ship based on the results of this graph.

But, if you want to be technical, then “1″ would represent the likelihood of sitting next to a snoring fat guy on a 1 hour trip, and the other numbers would all be multiples of that value. So the values in the Y axis are all relative values.

By: Kaiser Steve

Kaiser Steve — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 16:54:20 +0000

I’m thinking its a percentage (which makes just as much sense as it being next to 12 guys)

By: Maderman

Maderman — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 16:42:40 +0000

Ditto. Clever idea. Execution needs work.

dawidi’s comment rates a 10 in my book, though. (on a scale of 1 to 10, that is, where 10 is high)

By: Fegli

Fegli — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 15:55:10 +0000

Or babies. Don’t forget the probability of sitting near a baby. Probability of screaming increased with each interval over four hours.

By: Notsosmart

Notsosmart — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 15:32:10 +0000

comments make my head hurt.

By: Kyler

Kyler — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 15:02:20 +0000

I concur. Graph idea = win. Graph y-axis = fail.

By: bacon

bacon — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:58:26 +0000

Yep. Vertical axis would make so much more sense if it was percentage from 0-100%

By: dawidi

dawidi — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:28:19 +0000

So the likelihood goes up from 1 (i.e. 100%, “all the time”) to… er, 12 ?
Normalization fail? ;o)
Or would that be 100% probability of sitting next to 12 snoring fat guys? (That would be quite an accomplishment in a euclidian, uh, airplane)

By: Kaiser Steve

Kaiser Steve — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:23:01 +0000

Zuerst!

and thats so true.