<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: And planes don&#039;t fall from the sky?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://surrealnotions.com/2009/11/and-planes-dont-fall-from-the-sky/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://surrealnotions.com/2009/11/and-planes-dont-fall-from-the-sky/</link>
	<description>Designing simple solutions for people... not machines</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Aug 2010 15:04:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Josh</title>
		<link>http://surrealnotions.com/2009/11/and-planes-dont-fall-from-the-sky/comment-page-1/#comment-243</link>
		<dc:creator>Josh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 07:59:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://surrealbydesign.com/?p=62#comment-243</guid>
		<description>@Kacey I&#039;m well aware of the principles of flight and at least vaguely aware of the statistical models around part failure. My remarks are more a sarcastic commentary about the obvious inefficacy and inefficiency in the processes used. Poor processes are very common. I was attempting to mirror the absurdity of the process with an absurd question, &quot;Why don&#039;t planes fall from the skies?&quot;

The amazing part isn&#039;t that planes can fly. Rather, it is amazing that people using these fucked up processes can maintain planes that consistently fly.

That being said, Barnett probably has some interesting papers (well, interesting to geeks like me anyway). Even if they focus on the slightly more mundane question, how frequently do the people and machines actually fail?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Kacey I&#8217;m well aware of the principles of flight and at least vaguely aware of the statistical models around part failure. My remarks are more a sarcastic commentary about the obvious inefficacy and inefficiency in the processes used. Poor processes are very common. I was attempting to mirror the absurdity of the process with an absurd question, &#8220;Why don&#8217;t planes fall from the skies?&#8221;</p>
<p>The amazing part isn&#8217;t that planes can fly. Rather, it is amazing that people using these fucked up processes can maintain planes that consistently fly.</p>
<p>That being said, Barnett probably has some interesting papers (well, interesting to geeks like me anyway). Even if they focus on the slightly more mundane question, how frequently do the people and machines actually fail?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kacey</title>
		<link>http://surrealnotions.com/2009/11/and-planes-dont-fall-from-the-sky/comment-page-1/#comment-242</link>
		<dc:creator>Kacey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 03:21:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://surrealbydesign.com/?p=62#comment-242</guid>
		<description>I feel obligated to tell you its because of Bernoulli&#039;s Principle

:)

If you&#039;re really interested, one of my summer profs is the industry expert on statistical analysis in the airline industry and failures.
http://sloancf.mit.edu/vpf/popup-if.cfm?in_spseqno=5&amp;co_list=F</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I feel obligated to tell you its because of Bernoulli&#8217;s Principle<br />
 <img src='http://surrealnotions.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>If you&#8217;re really interested, one of my summer profs is the industry expert on statistical analysis in the airline industry and failures.<br />
<a href="http://sloancf.mit.edu/vpf/popup-if.cfm?in_spseqno=5&amp;co_list=F" rel="nofollow">http://sloancf.mit.edu/vpf/popup-if.cfm?in_spseqno=5&amp;co_list=F</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.204 seconds -->
