This Chap is led to ask the question by his recent international travel experience, which involved TSA’s “Random” testing, of some sort, both departing and returning. And while the Chap was standing there watching his handbag being swabbed, he began to wonder — what are the odds that true “Random” testing would lead to two “Random” checks in a journey? Flattering though it may be for someone in the Gubmint to consider the Chap warrants additional scrutiny, the statistician in him got to wondering… Or to put it another way, at what point on encountering yet another request to “step to the side” might a Chap question the uniformed person’s assertion of “randomness”?
Just as a side note – my spell checker just suggested that uniformed was incorrectly spelt and suggested uninformed. This chap thinks that in many cases they might be synonyms?
To continue! Now, this Chap’s statistics are of a more specialized, psychological-type thing. Fortunately, the Other Chap, being a certified Math Whiz, may be presumed to have the Chops to figure this one out. We have every confidence. So, take it away, Maestro!
No pressure there then ….
No. None at all.
Have to see that this chap was immediately reminded of another chap, back in the 70s when hijacking was prevalent – including bombs on board. Turns out his knowledge of stats was – to say the least – rudimentary.
Well, I wasn’t intending to stop!
Anyway, suffice to say, said chap had yet another chap as a good friend who was very fearful of flying in these times. To quote him ….
I am so afraid of flying these days. I just don’t want to fly knowing there is such a high probability of a bomb being on board the plane and that I might die.
The statistician had a think and came up with his solution, suggesting that all the other chap needed to do was always carry his own bomb with him …. because though the chance of one bomb being hidden on a plane was getting higher every day … the chance of two bombs … well now – that was close to zero. Problem solved.
Wow. Brilliant. Did it work?
Graham. Seriously? Now I see why you reached out!
As far as I can see, the stats support the idea that as far as random selection is concerned there is indeed reason to be suspicious, but still in the area of possibility. Now – next time you go through LHR – and you are pulled aside, it might well suggest that there is something more than randomness going on.
The signs were very clear, any small containers with liquids needed to be removed from the luggage and put into a separate see-through plastic bag – duly provided below said signs. You then – and only then – move on to the security check line.
A woman, four places in front of this chap must have missed the signs and is asked to unpack her luggage and ‘decant’ right there in the security line.
You would have thought that seeing her going through this might have jogged the woman three places in front of this chap into action.
Maybe seeing two women unpack their bags on the inspection line might have reminded the woman two places in front of me.
The woman immediately in front of me turned to look at me and said
“Could I apologize on behalf of my gender.”
Apology accepted. We watched, without movement, along with the small line behind us as the other lines moved through at a pace.
Mr. Bojangles stands across the bar from me, waxing lyrical about the inadequacy of his manager.
Tight 3 piece suit. Windsor knot on his Pink tie. Large Gold (colored) watch on one wrist, large Gold (colored) chain on the other. He needs to understand that more meaningful language and less profanity is a good thing to use when communicating. There is more F’ing and Blinding in his sentences than Chris Lochhead fits into his Legends and Losers podcast.
More even than this? Maybe he should take the challenge.
With all due respect, Doctor Watson, what the video above – and the other doctor is talking about is fluency in swearing ….. that is the number of different swear words used … and with that I have to agree and ‘caaaaaan’t’ argue – it is not ‘cock’ and bull. Then again, have a gander at this!
“All due respect…” — such a reliable sign you’re about to be dissed.
He just wrote this story based on a semi overheard conversation – which somehow didn’t seem to fit the thread of the other site – but seemed perfect for here … so, without further ado …
“What you mean is that you don’t know!”
“What will he say?”
“Well look – he’s going to be OK … but … “
“How could you?”
Half heard exchanges. Well – not really exchanges, the words were all coming from the little guy. The ‘alpha dog’.
The big guy. The one with ‘the tats’ is silent, just looking – unclear if he was listening but lets say if you passed him on a street, you’d probably cross the road. He is absolutely not someone you want to meet on your own around the allies and arches of London Bridge. Which is where the three of us were heading. Continue reading “Don’t Judge A Book By Its Covers”
The chaps are oft brought to write about observations they see, read and hear. This piece is different. This piece is a simple story of a real-life experience. That said – as always – we hope the opinion seeps through!
This chap won’t name the place, to protect the innocent. Suffice to say, a restaurant known for their breakfast and highly rated at that.
Breakfast served, and this chap asked if he could get some Salt and Pepper.
Once the waiter understood that when asking for Salt and Pepper, this chap meant that he would like some Salt and Pepper, said waiter wandered off (this chap assumed) to get some Salt and Pepper. Continue reading “Salt and Pepper”