Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Is 100% too much to ask for?

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Is 100% too much to ask for?
Lewkowski
Member
Member # 2028

 - posted      Profile for Lewkowski   Email Lewkowski       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In terms of quality? For example if you buy a CD you expect it to play 100% of the music on it. If you buy a book you expect it to have 100% of the words in it.
Posts: 890 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Haggis
Member
Member # 2114

 - posted      Profile for Haggis   Email Haggis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's not too much to ask for, but it is too much to expect.
Posts: 1771 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Slander Monkey
Member
Member # 1999

 - posted      Profile for Slander Monkey   Email Slander Monkey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why do I feel like I'm walking into a trap?

As far as quality goes, I think my expectations are 100% tied to the amount of money that I spend on something. If I buy a hardback book fresh off the presses for cover price, I'd expect it to have 100% of the words in it -- but at the same time, I would not expect the book seller to commit hari kari if it didn't, just swaping out a good book would be fine. On the other hand, if I buy a box full of old paperbacks at a used book sale for $5, I wouldn't be surprised to find a few books missing pages and such.

As for quality in athletics, I think the going rate right now is about 110%, so a minimum of 100% is totally fair to expect in that arena.

In reality, however, 100% quality is just a stupid, unobtainable ideal that requires perfection over everything else. Management concepts like six sigma reflect the acceptance of this fact.

---

And what Haggis said.

Posts: 258 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I always told my wife that 100% of my attention was too much to ask for, which might be the reason why she's my ex. [Big Grin]
Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshuaD
Member
Member # 1420

 - posted      Profile for JoshuaD   Email JoshuaD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Like the other posters suggested, it depends on context.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You would expect the CD to play 100% of the music on it, but would you also expect 100% of the music to be worth listening to?


(I'm expecting a trap also)

Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aupton15
Member
Member # 1771

 - posted      Profile for aupton15   Email aupton15   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If you look at things from a production standpoint, there are acceptable numbers of defective merchandise. Machines malfunction, people make mistakes, and things get broken. Most companies expect a small percentage of their product to be returned unusable. I think what you can expect is that when you purchase something that is supposed to work a certain way, that you get that product. If the first one doesn't work for some reason, you can expect to have it replaced with minimal inconvenience to yourself, and with no additional charges. I think those standards are reasonable.

I'm normally not the paranoid type, but you guys all have me thinking trap now too.

Posts: 1445 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ATW
Member
Member # 1690

 - posted      Profile for ATW   Email ATW   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I believe anything should live up to its claims and implied warranty.

Claims: If a can of peas says its 15 ounces, I want it to be 15 ounces. A quart of milk should be one quart.

Implied warranty: the product can be used for its intended purpose. It doesn't say on the label that the peas in the can taste good enough to be edible. But its implied since peas are generally known to be edible and they're being marketed on grocery store shelves beside other edible food.

You generally don't find peas packed in menthol shaving cream. But if you did, that would violate the implied warranty.

Posts: 575 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ed
Member
Member # 1673

 - posted      Profile for ed     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
waiting for the other shoe to fall there, lewkowski. :> but yeah, i think 100% is reasonable from a consumer POV.

ed

[ December 01, 2004, 10:30 AM: Message edited by: ed ]

Posts: 219 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There is no such thing as 100%, unless you talk about discrete objects (like your words in the book example). Otherwise, it is subject to probability and variation. A product is not 100% reliable, it has a Mean Time Before Failure (MTBF), and the warantee protects the consumer from really unlikely failures or mistakes in quality control.

I doubt that any can of peas weighs exactly 15.00000 ounces. We accept an amount of variability according to significant digits. If the can is 14.9 or 15.1, we don't care much. You'll even have a hard time identifying 100% of your property, as errors and variability in surveying take a toll.

Complex systems, like an automobile, almost always have at least one or two minor things wrong with them. So, wherever this thread is really leading, 100% is kind of unrealistic when it comes to products.

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I believe anything should live up to its claims and implied warranty.

Claims: If a can of peas says its 15 ounces, I want it to be 15 ounces. A quart of milk should be one quart.

Yeah, but am I the only one that thinks it's cool when the bag of fruit snacks says they'll be in the shape of sharks but there's one oddball cat in it?

Not to mention that one huge giant blob of a nerd when the box shows only a bunch of small tiny ones on the front.

[Razz]

Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
msquared
Member
Member # 113

 - posted      Profile for msquared   Email msquared   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes you are.

msquared

Posts: 4002 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What about when animal crackers strike inappropriate poses?

http://www.wattfarm.com/blog/archives/000799.html

BTW, this apparently went for $33 on eBay, assuming there was no fraud.

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Let's talk about drugs.

What is the acceptable error rate in pharmecuticals? I would say around 98%. If most people could take it, then I don't think the lawyers should be able to make a case, particularly with all the caveats and fine print used with drugs these days.

With laws, I would say 95% is good enough. If it works 19 out of twenty times, fine. But give the judge enough discretion to cypher out that one time on his own.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JLMyers
Member
Member # 1983

 - posted      Profile for JLMyers   Email JLMyers   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How about 100% new parts in your car? I was suprised to find out (when my alternator went out) that US car manufactures commonly use rebuilt parts when building "new" cars. [Mad] I've now changed out so many in my "new" Buick, that I am considering joining an Indy pit crew. [Wink]

KE

Posts: 2007 | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aupton15
Member
Member # 1771

 - posted      Profile for aupton15   Email aupton15   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"What is the acceptable error rate in pharmecuticals? I would say around 98%. If most people could take it, then I don't think the lawyers should be able to make a case, particularly with all the caveats and fine print used with drugs these days.

With laws, I would say 95% is good enough. If it works 19 out of twenty times, fine. But give the judge enough discretion to cypher out that one time on his own."

What do you mean by work? I'm only really familiar with Psych. drugs, and I know they don't work like they are supposed to even close to 90% of the time. It's more like 60%, and it's pretty consistently at that rate across the different disorders. That's why we don't just have Prozac...it doesn't work with 40% of people, so they had to try Paxil. I'm sure there are some drugs for physical ailments that work at a better rate, but I'm not sure how you determine which should and which shouldn't. There are some illnesses (like cancer) where the risk is so high that people will try drugs that work as little as 25% of the time, because they are a little more desperate for something that will help. This is a difficult thing to regulate with a particular percentage effectiveness.

Posts: 1445 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am addressing being lethal or unforeseen side effects. Yes, pay off the victims, but the wholesale withdrawal of drugs which help people seems a bit high in the expectation department.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aupton15
Member
Member # 1771

 - posted      Profile for aupton15   Email aupton15   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I see, so you're saying that if a drug is 95% effective, and causes harm 5% of the time, people should be able to decide whether or not they can use it. I basically agree, though I think it still has to be done on a drug by drug basis. As long as people are made aware of the potential side-effects/mortality rates, they should be allowed to decide if it is worth the risk. The worst cases I've seen against the medical community have been when patients aren't made aware of the pitfalls of a particular drug. That is 100% unacceptable.
Posts: 1445 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LadyKat
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for LadyKat   Email LadyKat   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Like how some antibiotics negate the effects of birth control. [Big Grin]

I have a friend with an unexpected little bundle of joy... due to the doc not mentioning that one. [Razz]

Posts: 98 | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Opps!
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ivan
Member
Member # 1467

 - posted      Profile for Ivan   Email Ivan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I wonder if she can sue the doctor for the cost of raising the child. That's a pretty large omission, I would think. [Wink]
Posts: 1710 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lewkowski, you going to 'splain?
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LadyKat
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for LadyKat   Email LadyKat   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ivan,

Can't sue a Navy doc. She is (or was at the time) an active duty Marine.

Posts: 98 | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lewkowski
Member
Member # 2028

 - posted      Profile for Lewkowski   Email Lewkowski       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Lewkowski, you going to 'splain? "

Heh its really lame... I was just ranting didn't think this woudl balloon into a big thread.

Posts: 890 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ivan:
I wonder if she can sue the doctor for the cost of raising the child. That's a pretty large omission, I would think. [Wink]

Double omission -- both the Doctor and the Pharmacist didn't mention it? Must have been in the fine print though.
Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wasn't there a news story that KY jelly broke down the latex of condoms a while back?

Just mentioning something I thought I heard.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1