On 10/2/2015 4:41 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 6:34:39 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:
On 10/2/2015 1:20 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 3:04:44 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:
On 10/2/2015 11:54 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 10:26:59 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:
On 10/1/2015 5:36 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 3:47:16 PM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:
You said it's a common practice for people to leave the
batteries out. I say it's not "common" in relation to how many
detectors there are installed across the globe.

Whether the batteries are left out for a night, a day or a year
before the fatal fires starts has nothing to do with the
commonality of the practice. How often they are left out as
compared how often they are not is all that counts when
determining how "common" the practice is.

From a 9/2015 NFPA report:

Smoke Alarm Power Sources Hardwired smoke alarms were present
in 48% of reported home fires with smoke alarms. Alarms
powered by battery only were present in in 46% of reported
home fires.

In reported home fires in which the fire was large enough to
activate the alarm, - Hardwired smoke alarms operated 94% of
the time. - Battery-powered smoke alarms operated in four out
of five (80%) fires.

Reasons that Smoke Alarms Did Not Operate when Present in
Large Enough Fires --------------------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In fires in which the smoke alarms were present but did not
operate, - Almost half (46%) of the smoke alarms had missing
or disconnected batteries. Nuisance alarms were the leading
reason for disconnected smoke alarms. - Dead batteries caused
one-quarter (24%) of the smoke alarm failures. - Only 7% of
the failures were due to hardwired power source problems,
including disconnected smoke alarms, power outages, and power
shut-offs.

So, in response to your comment, below: "Common? Until I see
the numbers, I'll vote No." I vote *yes* (70% of the fires!)
-- unless you'd care to offer some OTHER numbers?

Right, in 70% of homes *in which the smoke alarms were present
but did not operate* dead or missing batteries was the cause. No
one denies that dead or missing batteries will cause a smoke
detector not to operate. The problem is (once again) that that
is not what we are discussing.

I'll try again: You said that the practice of leaving batteries
out after they are removed due to chirping is "common". I, once
again, say that when compared to all the cases where the
batteries are *not* left out, the practice is *not* common. The
*practice of leaving the batteries out* is not common. Does it
happen? Yes. Do bad things happen when someone does that? Yes.
Is it common? Not in the grand scheme of all detectors
everywhere.

Can you stick to that statement and tell me how you know that
the practice is common? Tell me how many times batteries are
left out vs. how many times they are replaced. Citing statistics
related to how many smoke detectors didn't operate due to
missing batteries (46%) does nothing to support your claim that
the practice of leaving batteries out is "common". All that does
is tell us that missing batteries is a common cause for smoke
detectors not to operate. Well, yeah. I think that's pretty
obvious.

It seems pretty obvious to me that the above statistic cites that
46% of those FIRES had smoke detectors with batteries "missing or
disconnected". Do you think the "smoke detector police" are going
to arbitrarily survey homes where NO FIRES HAVE BEEN REPORTED to
see if their smoke detectors have batteries in place? If a
battery is left out for a year (assume a battery normally *lasts*
a year, does that count as *one* event? Or, more than one?)

Thank you! You have finally made my point that the statistic you
cited, while true, does nothing to support your claim that leaving
batteries out is "common". That statistic is not relevant to this
discussion. It took us a while, but we're finally there.

No, you haven't defined "common"!

It is COMMON for people to run red lights! (sit at any intersection in
ANY city and you WILL see someone run a light!) It is COMMON for
people to be murdered with firearms (in practically any city)! (listen
to the news in any city and, chances are, today or yesterday *someone*
was murdered) It is COMMON for gunmen to go on rampages at schools,
malls, etc. (how many times does it have to NOT happen to be
considered a "rare" event)

If you look at the *probability* of any of these events happening,
they can be surprisingly LOW. But, that doesn't make them LESS
COMMON!

It is RARE for us to find evidence of life on other planets! It is
RARE for us to find $100 bills on the sidewalk in front of us! It is
RARE for long lost relatives to show up on doorsteps!

You seem to think "common" means "a majority of the time". That's not
what "common" means:

- of frequent occurrence; usual; familiar: - occurring or appearing
frequently : familiar a common sight - Occurring frequently or
habitually; usual: It is common for movies to last 90 minutes or more
- happening frequently, or existing in large amounts or numbers

etc.

You want "common" to mean: - the greater part or number; the number
larger than half the total (opposed to minority)

If that were the case, there would be no "common" names, "common"
foods, "common" practices, etc. as very few things occur in a
MAJORITY!

Put a NUMBER on your criteria. Or STFU.

Gee...you seem upset. Perhaps if you'd calm down, you could read what I
posted and grasp it.

Let me ask you a simple, straightforward question just to get us on the
same page:

If something happens 9.2% of the time, would you consider that to be a
common occurrence?

All I require is a simple "Yes" or "No". Can you do that?

You are confusing likelihood with frequency.

My chance of being MURDERED is essentially ZERO! Yet, murders are
FREQUENT and *common* occurrences!

I am *surrounded* by $20 bills. And, people carrying them. Yet, I
*rarely* encounter "loose" $20 bills on the sidewalk, in stores, etc.

We have electrical storms pretty frequently. Yet, I have NEVER
encountered a person who was struck by lightning. It's a RARE event!

50,000 cars per day travel a half mile stretch of road a few blocks from
here. Some *small* fraction of those encounter a "red light". An even
smaller fraction of them encounter a "questionable" red light (i.e.,
"MAYBE I can sneak through a long yellow"). Yet, I can watch probably 50
people run red lights there in any given 24 hour period. That's 0.1%.
FAR LESS THAN YOUR 9.2%!

YET, it is a COMMON OCCURRENCE! It happens frequently -- even if it only
happens some teeny-tiny fraction of the time that it *could* happen!

Why am I not surprised that you couldn't stay on topic? Now you're starting
to yell and make comparisons that are so far off topic as to be as
irrelevant as the statistics you brought up earlier.

(sigh) You truly don't get it, do you? A percentage is a *portion*;
a likelihood. It has nothing to do with a common-ness... a frequency...
which is a "per unit time" measurement.

My *chance* (likelihood) of being murdered (or, *anyone's* chance of
being murdered) is a probability. OTOH, the *frequency* of murders in
a community is a number of events per unit time. It is a separate and
independent metric from "probability".

A city with 100 million population may have a murder rate (likelihood,
probaility) that is effectively *zero* (0.0001%) yet have a murder EVERY
NIGHT on the evening news! It is a COMMON occurrence. It happens FREQUENTLY!

A city with 1000 population may have a murder rate that is much, much higher!
Maybe *1* percent (i.e., 10,000 times MORE LIKELY), yet murders happen
*monthly* rather than *daily*. It is far less COMMON. Yet, living in
that city is much RISKIER than the first city! You are 10,000 times
more likely to be one of those monthly victims than one of the DAILY
victims in the first location!

If you're thinking in terms of percentages, you're on entirely the
wrong track! Percentages have no concept of time -- of FREQUENCY!
("per unit time")