Originally posted by Xexima Originally posted by n25philly
and what lie would that be?
The one about why we are in Iraq now, when they have acknowledged that their are no WMD. Also the one about why we are not in Afghanistan, rather than Iraq, when that was the whole reason we went to war.
It was not a lie since the whole world believed they had WMD's. An Iraqi general under Saddam even said they were all moved to Syria. Oh, and we've been in Afganistan since before we went into Iraq.
It all depends on the alpha value... also a Shapiro-Wilks test should be done to determine if statistical sampling would even be useful; if the data doesn't follow a known distribution then it is pointless to use statistical estimates.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
Originally posted by modjoe86 Originally posted by PyscoJuggalo I always wondered about this number, look at this BULLSHEEEIT!
"The Consumer Confidence Survey is based on a representative sample of 5,000 U.S. households. The monthly survey is conducted for The Conference Board by TNS."
Wow, 5,000 households, what a great sample size! It's just like the "unemployment number," which measures people collecting unemployment beni's not the number of unemployed, it's all statistical BULL SHIT! Like old blue eyes said: "Statisticians are pimps and whores..." Or was that the media, well both are apt.
That's the whole point of a survey. You pick a simple random sample. With the randomness of surveyee choices, 5,000 is a fairly accurate representation in my book. Just look at results from people like Gallup. They are consistent. Even in the link I provided, the results went in a steadily declining trend. With cluster/ stratified sampling an enormous sample size is overkill. Take a Data or Stat class.
Take any stat class and you'll know that 5,000 households to represent the entire US is a horrible sample and most likely very biased.
Uh... the Consumer Confidence Index is about how much confidence consumers have in the economy. Mostly it has to do with how they think the economy is doing and will be doing in the near future. IIRC, over 100 means the people surveyed think the economy is doing okay or better, and will continue to do so in the near future; under 100 means the opposite. The further from 100, the more strongly people are confident/not-confident.
It has NOTHING to do with Happiness. The CCI is a subjective economic tool, not a Happiness Gauge. It has no direct bearing on what people think of Bush and his policies, or of any particular government agency or political party. Again, it's an *economic* tool meant to help economists determine how likely people are to keep spending money in the near future.
Originally posted by modjoe86 Originally posted by PyscoJuggalo I always wondered about this number, look at this BULLSHEEEIT!
"The Consumer Confidence Survey is based on a representative sample of 5,000 U.S. households. The monthly survey is conducted for The Conference Board by TNS."
Wow, 5,000 households, what a great sample size! It's just like the "unemployment number," which measures people collecting unemployment beni's not the number of unemployed, it's all statistical BULL SHIT! Like old blue eyes said: "Statisticians are pimps and whores..." Or was that the media, well both are apt.
That's the whole point of a survey. You pick a simple random sample. With the randomness of surveyee choices, 5,000 is a fairly accurate representation in my book. Just look at results from people like Gallup. They are consistent. Even in the link I provided, the results went in a steadily declining trend. With cluster/ stratified sampling an enormous sample size is overkill. Take a Data or Stat class.
So your saying, all I need is, 12,500 people in a random selection to make an accurate judgement of the current climate of the United States?
(average US family size is under 2.5, but I rounded up, so 2.5 * 5,000 = 12,500)
--When you resubscribe to SWG, an 18 yearold Stripper finds Jesus, gives up stripping, and moves with a rolex reverend to Hawaii. --In MMORPG's l007 is the opiate of the masses. --The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence! --CCP could cut off an Eve player's fun bits, and that player would say that it was good CCP did that.
It depends on how the sample represents the population at large. There is no absolute causality ensured by statistics; it is always a big guess.
It might be accurate: Take a large subset of a normal distribution and make sure that the distribution holds to normal parameters as best you can, then you'll get something representitive of the entire population.
The problems come in when the data selected represent the outliers within the entire population, but how can you tell without knowing how the entire population looks like?
You can't.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
Originally posted by PyscoJuggalo Originally posted by modjoe86 Originally posted by PyscoJuggalo I always wondered about this number, look at this BULLSHEEEIT!
"The Consumer Confidence Survey is based on a representative sample of 5,000 U.S. households. The monthly survey is conducted for The Conference Board by TNS."
Wow, 5,000 households, what a great sample size! It's just like the "unemployment number," which measures people collecting unemployment beni's not the number of unemployed, it's all statistical BULL SHIT! Like old blue eyes said: "Statisticians are pimps and whores..." Or was that the media, well both are apt.
That's the whole point of a survey. You pick a simple random sample. With the randomness of surveyee choices, 5,000 is a fairly accurate representation in my book. Just look at results from people like Gallup. They are consistent. Even in the link I provided, the results went in a steadily declining trend. With cluster/ stratified sampling an enormous sample size is overkill. Take a Data or Stat class.
So your saying, all I need is, 12,500 people in a random selection to make an accurate judgement of the current climate of the United States?
(average US family size is under 2.5, but I rounded up, so 2.5 * 5,000 = 12,500)
By climate I assume you mean the average living conditions, etc. And yes, that's right. If you used, as a stated earlier, the proper sampling method. Clustering - Pop. of interest (US population) would be divided into groups of sub-pops (upper class, upper middle class, middle class, lower middle class, lower class, geographic location) and random samples would be drawn from each sub-group. If 12,500 is your number of choice, take a random sample of 12,500/21 for each group; the 21 being each class+their geographic location(east, central, west). Your magic number is 595 people from each of those very specific sub-groups. This gives you fairly generizable results.
Originally posted by modjoe86 Originally posted by PyscoJuggalo Originally posted by modjoe86 Originally posted by PyscoJuggalo I always wondered about this number, look at this BULLSHEEEIT!
"The Consumer Confidence Survey is based on a representative sample of 5,000 U.S. households. The monthly survey is conducted for The Conference Board by TNS."
Wow, 5,000 households, what a great sample size! It's just like the "unemployment number," which measures people collecting unemployment beni's not the number of unemployed, it's all statistical BULL SHIT! Like old blue eyes said: "Statisticians are pimps and whores..." Or was that the media, well both are apt.
That's the whole point of a survey. You pick a simple random sample. With the randomness of surveyee choices, 5,000 is a fairly accurate representation in my book. Just look at results from people like Gallup. They are consistent. Even in the link I provided, the results went in a steadily declining trend. With cluster/ stratified sampling an enormous sample size is overkill. Take a Data or Stat class.
So your saying, all I need is, 12,500 people in a random selection to make an accurate judgement of the current climate of the United States?
(average US family size is under 2.5, but I rounded up, so 2.5 * 5,000 = 12,500)
By climate I assume you mean the average living conditions, etc. And yes, that's right. If you used, as a stated earlier, the proper sampling method. Clustering - Pop. of interest (US population) would be divided into groups of sub-pops (upper class, upper middle class, middle class, lower middle class, lower class, geographic location) and random samples would be drawn from each sub-group. If 12,500 is your number of choice, take a random sample of 12,500/21 for each group; the 21 being each class+their geographic location(east, central, west). Your magic number is 595 people from each of those very specific sub-groups. This gives you fairly generizable results.
I'm going to have to take a Stats class (well to get my Social Science related degree I will have to take it eventually)...
So your saying it could be repeated multiple times and the results would not vary more then 5%? (It's probably a smaller percentage, I'm just going with 5% because I know that is the largest number you can have before there is a significant difference)
--When you resubscribe to SWG, an 18 yearold Stripper finds Jesus, gives up stripping, and moves with a rolex reverend to Hawaii. --In MMORPG's l007 is the opiate of the masses. --The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence! --CCP could cut off an Eve player's fun bits, and that player would say that it was good CCP did that.
Originally posted by PyscoJuggalo Originally posted by modjoe86 Originally posted by PyscoJuggalo Originally posted by modjoe86 Originally posted by PyscoJuggalo I always wondered about this number, look at this BULLSHEEEIT!
"The Consumer Confidence Survey is based on a representative sample of 5,000 U.S. households. The monthly survey is conducted for The Conference Board by TNS."
Wow, 5,000 households, what a great sample size! It's just like the "unemployment number," which measures people collecting unemployment beni's not the number of unemployed, it's all statistical BULL SHIT! Like old blue eyes said: "Statisticians are pimps and whores..." Or was that the media, well both are apt.
That's the whole point of a survey. You pick a simple random sample. With the randomness of surveyee choices, 5,000 is a fairly accurate representation in my book. Just look at results from people like Gallup. They are consistent. Even in the link I provided, the results went in a steadily declining trend. With cluster/ stratified sampling an enormous sample size is overkill. Take a Data or Stat class.
So your saying, all I need is, 12,500 people in a random selection to make an accurate judgement of the current climate of the United States?
(average US family size is under 2.5, but I rounded up, so 2.5 * 5,000 = 12,500)
By climate I assume you mean the average living conditions, etc. And yes, that's right. If you used, as a stated earlier, the proper sampling method. Clustering - Pop. of interest (US population) would be divided into groups of sub-pops (upper class, upper middle class, middle class, lower middle class, lower class, geographic location) and random samples would be drawn from each sub-group. If 12,500 is your number of choice, take a random sample of 12,500/21 for each group; the 21 being each class+their geographic location(east, central, west). Your magic number is 595 people from each of those very specific sub-groups. This gives you fairly generizable results.
I'm going to have to take a Stats class (well to get my Social Science related degree I will have to take it eventually)...
So your saying it could be repeated multiple times and the results would not vary more then 5%? (It's probably a smaller percentage, I'm just going with 5% because I know that is the largest number you can have before there is a significant difference)
Oh lord, testing the details of my knowledge from two semester ago. Here goes nothing, and if someone knows better correct me if I'm wrong. You would assign an alpha value to the experiment. I think we used .05 and .10 alot. After you run the experiment, you will get a level of signifgance value, which you compare to the alpha value. If your level of signifigance is below your alpha value, then the experiment is considered statistically valid. Now my head hurts, and you brought back haunting memories of the final in there. Thanks alot.
Originally posted by modjoe86 Originally posted by PyscoJuggalo Originally posted by modjoe86 Originally posted by PyscoJuggalo Originally posted by modjoe86 Originally posted by PyscoJuggalo I always wondered about this number, look at this BULLSHEEEIT!
"The Consumer Confidence Survey is based on a representative sample of 5,000 U.S. households. The monthly survey is conducted for The Conference Board by TNS."
Wow, 5,000 households, what a great sample size! It's just like the "unemployment number," which measures people collecting unemployment beni's not the number of unemployed, it's all statistical BULL SHIT! Like old blue eyes said: "Statisticians are pimps and whores..." Or was that the media, well both are apt.
That's the whole point of a survey. You pick a simple random sample. With the randomness of surveyee choices, 5,000 is a fairly accurate representation in my book. Just look at results from people like Gallup. They are consistent. Even in the link I provided, the results went in a steadily declining trend. With cluster/ stratified sampling an enormous sample size is overkill. Take a Data or Stat class.
So your saying, all I need is, 12,500 people in a random selection to make an accurate judgement of the current climate of the United States?
(average US family size is under 2.5, but I rounded up, so 2.5 * 5,000 = 12,500)
By climate I assume you mean the average living conditions, etc. And yes, that's right. If you used, as a stated earlier, the proper sampling method. Clustering - Pop. of interest (US population) would be divided into groups of sub-pops (upper class, upper middle class, middle class, lower middle class, lower class, geographic location) and random samples would be drawn from each sub-group. If 12,500 is your number of choice, take a random sample of 12,500/21 for each group; the 21 being each class+their geographic location(east, central, west). Your magic number is 595 people from each of those very specific sub-groups. This gives you fairly generizable results.
I'm going to have to take a Stats class (well to get my Social Science related degree I will have to take it eventually)...
So your saying it could be repeated multiple times and the results would not vary more then 5%? (It's probably a smaller percentage, I'm just going with 5% because I know that is the largest number you can have before there is a significant difference)
Oh lord, testing the details of my knowledge from two semester ago. Here goes nothing, and if someone knows better correct me if I'm wrong. Like Moo said above, you would assign an alpha value to the experiment. I think we used .05 and .10 alot. After you run the experiment, you will get a level of signifgance value, which you compare to the alpha value. If you level of signifigance is below your alpha value, then the eperiment is considered statistically valid. Now my head hurts, and you brought back haunting memories of the final in there. Thanks alot.
Thanks, sorry to bring back traumatic experiences
--When you resubscribe to SWG, an 18 yearold Stripper finds Jesus, gives up stripping, and moves with a rolex reverend to Hawaii. --In MMORPG's l007 is the opiate of the masses. --The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence! --CCP could cut off an Eve player's fun bits, and that player would say that it was good CCP did that.
You're absolutely adorable! A majority of the senate approved the intial action in Iraq and quite few of them were DEMOCRATS! Fancy that! Don't believe me? The facts are there; at least when I took American Government in college my professor had presented us all with documents showing how a majority had approved the presiden't decision (at least half of the democratic senators, most of them republican.. the number of independents is trival). They were required to disclose the documents, btw: Go google them and then shoot yourself for being so stupid.
Ever consider corporations donating to political parties to lessen/abate restrictions? You don't see democratic leaders attacking pharmaceuticals and oil companies. The party stands for whoever lobbies the most; the whole ideology is just part of the scheme to get a majority of the votes. They do make their own salaries, ya know. People think Americans are so stupid, because of fundamentally naive people like yourself.
Yeah, unfortunately I'm in my senior year of college, so I guess I don't have a college diploma yet
I do have an associates degree though and scored in the 92nd percentile on the general GRE....
No, I'm not majoring in political science, but I am majoring in mathematics.
If you'd like to discuss the cardinality of the reals and the dubious existence of a well-ordering thereof, then I'm game... of course I'd probably make a fool out of you again.
You've made a fool of no one. Out here in the real world, we know exactly how much 2 year degrees and GRE scores mean, and we know that condescension will get our arguments nowhere.
As I said before, and put that impressive Associate's to use this time and read the text, both parties had war supporters, but the Democrats as a whole were more vocally opposed. Feel free to question that, but both sides will disagree with you for one reason or another. In addition, they aren't accusing "the right," since "the right" has many anti-war leaders within it. They're accusing people who are still in favor of the war after all it's put everyone through. In the future, anytime you feel the need to base an argument on "my professor told me," please think twice.
Just because you can throw your money at the nearest politician doesn't mean you should or will. These people may not be talking smack about pharmaceutical and oil companies, but they aren't singing their praises, either. Politicians, and especially Democrats, are famously reluctant to take a strong stance on most issues (with notable exceptions). But while they may keep silent, their constituents do not. Democrats at the civilian level can't go a day without bashing big business. I don't know about you, but if they elected me into office, I'd listen to them. Cause, yeah, I'd be making my own salary, but I wouldn't see Exxon cutting the check.
Oh lord, testing the details of my knowledge from two semester ago. Here goes nothing, and if someone knows better correct me if I'm wrong. You would assign an alpha value to the experiment. I think we used .05 and .10 alot. After you run the experiment, you will get a level of signifgance value, which you compare to the alpha value. If your level of signifigance is below your alpha value, then the experiment is considered statistically valid. Now my head hurts, and you brought back haunting memories of the final in there. Thanks alot.
Spelling.
Dude, you're stupid. I'm going to find you and fight you.
If you could, imagine you're sound asleep in your bed. You and your family work hard to make enough to get by and all of you play by all the rules. As you're drifting off in your warm, comfortable bed, you hear your front door kicked in. Apparently, the secret police have found out you, God forbid, possibly spoke out against your current president, and they are here to arrest you and your entire family. After being hooked up to a car battery and shocked for five hours straight, the interrogators mercifully decide to shoot you in the head with a 9 mm as your punishment for speaking your mind. But not before your wife is forced into a room with soldiers and violated repeatedly and your three children placed in jail until they become adults, after which they must swear undying allegiance to the government.
This, of course, does not happen here in the United States, and it never will. Across the globe, somewhere between the 29th and 37th parallel, there once existed a nation that was subjected to these and innumerous other injustices - until recently. Iraq is now free, and so are its tens of millions of people. The more opponents of the war claim that there were no weapons of mass destruction, the easier it gets to justify the liberation of the Iraqi people. The continuing fight in the Middle East proves to me, every day, that we have freed an entire population from a tyrannical reign that would only spiral the nation downward into an inescapable abyss of oppression.
March 16, 1988. Saddam, unhappy with dissidents, detonated chemical warheads in the Kurdish part of Iraq in the north. Sarin nerve gas was released and killed over 5,000 Iraqi citizens, injured 7,000, and caused the debilitating health effects to ripple through the area even today. In the last 20 years, there have been 10 other recorded incidents of Saddam using chemical weapons to pacify his own people, or launch a military strike against his neighboring countries. Never mind that the Geneva Convention prohibits all use of poisonous or asphyxiating gases during combat. He committed acts of aggression so often and so egregiously that he was a danger to not only the world, but also to people in his own country.
The Bush administration never said it was only about the search for weapons of mass destruction. They wanted Saddam removed for the good and safety of the world, and to say that they lied about WMDs just to go to war is ignorant. In Iraq, a dictator with a history of using chemical weapons is told not to even make them anymore. After being prohibited from the manufacturing of WMDs, as an agreement to a ceasefire he signed, the dictator is subject to random searches of weapons sites.
But lo and behold, he starts denying access to those sites and expels the inspectors from the country. Doesn't that set off any sort of warning light to the world? Are the countries that opposed the war so blind that they need to see him use the finished product before they say, "Wait, hold on, that's not right?" He violated a cease-fire agreement, and unlike the precedent set in world history, the world let him violate it for years afterward with 15 or so security resolutions and countless inspector expulsions. In the past, once a country violates an agreement like that, it's lights out. But we gave him more than a decade to get his act together and prove he was a relatively safe member of the international community. He proved himself to be a selfish, murderous, decadent shell of a man.
The war in Iraq is a success, no doubt about it. We have established a democracy where people's voices matter, captured the deposed dictator and he will soon face the justice from his people that the world was too feeble to deliver.
There are 4 Areas in the Chicago police department, that means 1/4'th of the City was under the command of a toturer...
--When you resubscribe to SWG, an 18 yearold Stripper finds Jesus, gives up stripping, and moves with a rolex reverend to Hawaii. --In MMORPG's l007 is the opiate of the masses. --The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence! --CCP could cut off an Eve player's fun bits, and that player would say that it was good CCP did that.
You've made a fool of no one. Out here in the real world, we know exactly how much 2 year degrees and GRE scores mean, and we know that condescension will get our arguments nowhere.
Condescension. That's a good one; refer back to your original post claiming that I could not have gotten anymore than a GED.
GRE scores mean nothing? That must be the most inane statement of the month: Higher GRE scores imply that you have a MUCH better chance at getting accepted in a better grad school => more income
Don't try to feed me the "A Chico grad will make as much as a Stanford grad" bullsh*t, since we know exactly what the discrepancy in pay is.
As I said before, and put that impressive Associate's to use this time and read the text, both parties had war supporters, but the Democrats as a whole were more vocally opposed. Feel free to question that, but both sides will disagree with you for one reason or another. In addition, they aren't accusing "the right," since "the right" has many anti-war leaders within it. They're accusing people who are still in favor of the war after all it's put everyone through. In the future, anytime you feel the need to base an argument on "my professor told me," please think twice.
"Vocally opposed", yet many of them that are "vocally opposed" gave the necessary signatures for the war. A mere coincidence that they wavered with public sentiment? I doubt it. Wasn't based on what my professor told me, but what he had SHOWN me. I'm not going to procure the document for you; you should get it for yourself and realize that your argument is mute, or do you lack the necessary skills to use google?
Just because you can throw your money at the nearest politician doesn't mean you should or will. These people may not be talking smack about pharmaceutical and oil companies, but they aren't singing their praises, either. Politicians, and especially Democrats, are famously reluctant to take a strong stance on most issues (with notable exceptions). But while they may keep silent, their constituents do not. Democrats at the civilian level can't go a day without bashing big business. I don't know about you, but if they elected me into office, I'd listen to them. Cause, yeah, I'd be making my own salary, but I wouldn't see Exxon cutting the check.
Too bad their constituents don't mean jack sh*t unless they're are raking in the top 90% of America's wealth, in which case, they really couldn't give a f*** less about national welfare. Most people are in the low 10%... so go figure Sure you'd listen to em.... they'd pay you more under the table than you could ever give yourself in the public eye. When you have to disclose to every living soul what you earn, you can't really get away with much.
Pharma's have only been getting recently creamed, because of the fatal side-effects of some of their top drugs... and you still have all of the FDA issues with farmers getting away with low standards (particularly the beef industry) .
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
Originally posted by //\//\oo It depends on how the sample represents the population at large. There is no absolute causality ensured by statistics; it is always a big guess. It might be accurate: Take a large subset of a normal distribution and make sure that the distribution holds to normal parameters as best you can, then you'll get something representitive of the entire population. The problems come in when the data selected represent the outliers within the entire population, but how can you tell without knowing how the entire population looks like? You can't.
Yes! Yes! Yes! you are soooooooooo right! thank you!!! There are too many variables to consider. It is not like compairing apples and grapes. They do not have emotions that change on mood, climate, tv, papers and cute chicks on news shows.
I shoot for the curve... anything above that is gravy.
Originally posted by modjoe86 Oh lord, testing the details of my knowledge from two semester ago. Here goes nothing, and if someone knows better correct me if I'm wrong. You would assign an alpha value to the experiment. I think we used .05 and .10 alot. After you run the experiment, you will get a level of signifgance value, which you compare to the alpha value. If your level of signifigance is below your alpha value, then the experiment is considered statistically valid. Now my head hurts, and you brought back haunting memories of the final in there. Thanks alot.
Spelling.
Dude, you're stupid. I'm going to find you and fight you.
Lol dabble, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Inivitation is open.
Originally posted by modjoe86 Originally posted by Dabble
Originally posted by modjoe86 Oh lord, testing the details of my knowledge from two semester ago. Here goes nothing, and if someone knows better correct me if I'm wrong. You would assign an alpha value to the experiment. I think we used .05 and .10 alot. After you run the experiment, you will get a level of signifgance value, which you compare to the alpha value. If your level of signifigance is below your alpha value, then the experiment is considered statistically valid. Now my head hurts, and you brought back haunting memories of the final in there. Thanks alot.
Spelling.
Dude, you're stupid. I'm going to find you and fight you.
Lol dabble, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Inivitation is open.
Originally posted by modjoe86 Originally posted by PyscoJuggalo I always wondered about this number, look at this BULLSHEEEIT!
"The Consumer Confidence Survey is based on a representative sample of 5,000 U.S. households. The monthly survey is conducted for The Conference Board by TNS."
Wow, 5,000 households, what a great sample size! It's just like the "unemployment number," which measures people collecting unemployment beni's not the number of unemployed, it's all statistical BULL SHIT! Like old blue eyes said: "Statisticians are pimps and whores..." Or was that the media, well both are apt.
That's the whole point of a survey. You pick a simple random sample. With the randomness of surveyee choices, 5,000 is a fairly accurate representation in my book. Just look at results from people like Gallup. They are consistent. Even in the link I provided, the results went in a steadily declining trend. With cluster/ stratified sampling an enormous sample size is overkill. Take a Data or Stat class.
Self Selecting Sample - The assumption that a group willing to take a survey represents a random sample. The Hite report (1976) on female sexual attitudes was based on surveys of 3019 women, unfortunately Shere Hite distributed over 100,000 surveys. All the report measured was the sexual attitudes of the 3% who were willing to fill out the survey. Another example can be found with 900 number polls on TV shows. These are only a representation of people who feel strongly enough to pay 75 cents a call and do not represent the real population.
For parity, I figured I should point out that there is some of this going on too:
Sample Trashing - Throwing out perfectly good data as "unreliable" because it goes against what the statistics are trying to prove. Popular with ESP believers who point to a few studies with positive results, and ignore the majority of the studies with negative results.
Originally posted by //\//\oo Condescension. That's a good one; refer back to your original post claiming that I could not have gotten anymore than a GED. GRE scores mean nothing? That must be the most inane statement of the month: Higher GRE scores imply that you have a MUCH better chance at getting accepted in a better grad school => more income Don't try to feed me the "A Chico grad will make as much as a Stanford grad" bullsh*t, since we know exactly what the discrepancy in pay is.
"Vocally opposed", yet many of them that are "vocally opposed" gave the necessary signatures for the war. A mere coincidence that they wavered with public sentiment? I doubt it. Wasn't based on what my professor told me, but what he had SHOWN me. I'm not going to procure the document for you; you should get it for yourself and realize that your argument is mute, or do you lack the necessary skills to use google? Too bad their constituents don't mean jack sh*t unless they're are raking in the top 90% of America's wealth, in which case, they really couldn't give a f*** less about national welfare. Most people are in the low 10%... so go figure Sure you'd listen to em.... they'd pay you more under the table than you could ever give yourself in the public eye. When you have to disclose to every living soul what you earn, you can't really get away with much.
Pharma's have only been getting recently creamed, because of the fatal side-effects of some of their top drugs... and you still have all of the FDA issues with farmers getting away with low standards (particularly the beef industry) . Sure you'd listen to em.... they'd pay you more under the table than you could ever give yourself in the public eye. When you have to disclose to every living soul what you earn, you can't really get away with much.
Pharma's have only been getting recently creamed, because of the fatal side-effects of some of their top drugs... and you still have all of the FDA issues with farmers getting away with low standards (particularly the beef industry) .
I wasn't saying condescension is somehow not allowed. It makes for a nice little luxury when you clearly know what you're talking about. You, on the other hand, can barely make it through a sentence without a jab, which suggests you're aware of the weakness in your argument.
I won't attempt to lecture you about the role of GRE scores in getting into Grad School; you won't believe me until you do it.
No Democrat that loudly decried the war supported it with his vote. With the media breathing down everyone's neck, no one would dare. If anyone wavered under public opinion, it was the Republicans, because again, you're about the only one that actually thinks the Democrats were the ones to initially favor it more. Democrats will tell you they didn't because they like to tell everyone they're the good guys, and Republicans will tell you so because they (largely) think the Democrats were and are a bunch of pussy liberals. Both parties signed on to the war, but the Republicans, both in Washington and around the country, have had a lot more converts.
Who on Earth do you think gets any politician into office? And who keeps them there? Do you think any company will pay you because they like you? They pay you because you're in a position of power, and unless you stay there, the cash flow has to end sometime. Even if every Democrat were somehow in bed with big business (an idea most educated people will laugh at), it would be laregely irrelevant, because they'd still be doing exactly what they were elected to do. But that's not the case. The Democrats have a reputation as the friend of the middle class and the enemy of big business, and not just because they talk the talk. Whether or not you or I agree with that, it's true. If you're honestly implying that the aim of any and every politician, regardless of party, is to swindle his/her way into office and extort as much money as possible from every lobbyist in the area until the jig is up, then this debate is over, and was before it started.
we have shitty things like this in the UK the prise of oil never really made anyone happy or sad other then they guys selling it
We have this crazy idea in the west that if were out shopping were happy and that’s just not true. We fill our lives with trinkets to make up for not spending time with family and friends. It’s an instant feel good. What would really make us happy was if we had time to spend with family and friends spare cash in our pockets and a cupboard full of food in a house that was safe.
Instead we speed 40 hours a week slaving our bollocks off for little pay. Most working odd hours and having little time to there self or loved ones.
in truth if you were to go out and ask people if they are really happy most would say no. almost all would say content. (that’s not really happy though) what most people want is work life balance enough cash to live and time to spend how they choose. I bet cash not being an issue most would opt for flexible part time work (15-25 hours per week) what’s more I’d bet even people that love there job would rather spend more time at home than work.
Sadly an happy nation does not exist most are content but properly only 2-3% people (not governments or employers) would keep the status quo if money wernt an issue
Look let's be honest with eachother on this issue...
Americans are happy because we are a nation of anti-intellectuals. We like simple answers to complex questions.
The Iraq debate? Either you 'stay the course' or 'cut and run.'
You are either with the terrorists or you are with US.
The great achievement of the Conservative movement has been to discredit any sort of critical thought. Thinking too much is bad for your health. That is why George Dubya appeals to so many of us. He is one of US!! He is a good ole boy (even though he comes from an east coast elite society).
What helped Clinton get elected was his good ole boy accent, which helped to mask his great intellect (he was a Rhodes Scholar, rember).
The truth is, Democrats will never win any significant office ever again in this country until they can dumb down their postions with simple language (that is assuming that they actually have a position).
Who on Earth do you think gets any politician into office? And who keeps them there? Do you think any company will pay you because they like you? They pay you because you're in a position of power, and unless you stay there, the cash flow has to end sometime. Even if every Democrat were somehow in bed with big business (an idea most educated people will laugh at), it would be laregely irrelevant, because they'd still be doing exactly what they were elected to do. But that's not the case. The Democrats have a reputation as the friend of the middle class and the enemy of big business, and not just because they talk the talk. Whether or not you or I agree with that, it's true. If you're honestly implying that the aim of any and every politician, regardless of party, is to swindle his/her way into office and extort as much money as possible from every lobbyist in the area until the jig is up, then this debate is over, and was before it started.
Do you actually believe that Democrats are that virtuous? I’m not saying that all politicians are bad, or are in bed with big business, but many of them in both parties are. If it is not big business it is special interest. In the end it is the same, the pocketbook sways their votes.
I shoot for the curve... anything above that is gravy.
Comments
It was not a lie since the whole world believed they had WMD's. An Iraqi general under Saddam even said they were all moved to Syria. Oh, and we've been in Afganistan since before we went into Iraq.
member of imminst.org
It all depends on the alpha value... also a Shapiro-Wilks test should be done to determine if statistical sampling would even be useful; if the data doesn't follow a known distribution then it is pointless to use statistical estimates.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
Take any stat class and you'll know that 5,000 households to represent the entire US is a horrible sample and most likely very biased.
member of imminst.org
Uh... the Consumer Confidence Index is about how much confidence consumers have in the economy. Mostly it has to do with how they think the economy is doing and will be doing in the near future. IIRC, over 100 means the people surveyed think the economy is doing okay or better, and will continue to do so in the near future; under 100 means the opposite. The further from 100, the more strongly people are confident/not-confident.
It has NOTHING to do with Happiness. The CCI is a subjective economic tool, not a Happiness Gauge. It has no direct bearing on what people think of Bush and his policies, or of any particular government agency or political party. Again, it's an *economic* tool meant to help economists determine how likely people are to keep spending money in the near future.
So your saying, all I need is, 12,500 people in a random selection to make an accurate judgement of the current climate of the United States?
(average US family size is under 2.5, but I rounded up, so 2.5 * 5,000 = 12,500)
--When you resubscribe to SWG, an 18 yearold Stripper finds Jesus, gives up stripping, and moves with a rolex reverend to Hawaii.
--In MMORPG's l007 is the opiate of the masses.
--The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence!
--CCP could cut off an Eve player's fun bits, and that player would say that it was good CCP did that.
It depends on how the sample represents the population at large. There is no absolute causality ensured by statistics; it is always a big guess.
It might be accurate: Take a large subset of a normal distribution and make sure that the distribution holds to normal parameters as best you can, then you'll get something representitive of the entire population.
The problems come in when the data selected represent the outliers within the entire population, but how can you tell without knowing how the entire population looks like?
You can't.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
So your saying, all I need is, 12,500 people in a random selection to make an accurate judgement of the current climate of the United States?
(average US family size is under 2.5, but I rounded up, so 2.5 * 5,000 = 12,500)
By climate I assume you mean the average living conditions, etc. And yes, that's right. If you used, as a stated earlier, the proper sampling method.
Clustering - Pop. of interest (US population) would be divided into groups of sub-pops (upper class, upper middle class, middle class, lower middle class, lower class, geographic location) and random samples would be drawn from each sub-group. If 12,500 is your number of choice, take a random sample of 12,500/21 for each group; the 21 being each class+their geographic location(east, central, west). Your magic number is 595 people from each of those very specific sub-groups. This gives you fairly generizable results.
https://easynulled.com/
Free porn videos, xxx porn videos
Onlyfans nudes
Onlyfans leaked
So your saying, all I need is, 12,500 people in a random selection to make an accurate judgement of the current climate of the United States?
(average US family size is under 2.5, but I rounded up, so 2.5 * 5,000 = 12,500)
By climate I assume you mean the average living conditions, etc. And yes, that's right. If you used, as a stated earlier, the proper sampling method.
Clustering - Pop. of interest (US population) would be divided into groups of sub-pops (upper class, upper middle class, middle class, lower middle class, lower class, geographic location) and random samples would be drawn from each sub-group. If 12,500 is your number of choice, take a random sample of 12,500/21 for each group; the 21 being each class+their geographic location(east, central, west). Your magic number is 595 people from each of those very specific sub-groups. This gives you fairly generizable results.
I'm going to have to take a Stats class (well to get my Social Science related degree I will have to take it eventually)...
So your saying it could be repeated multiple times and the results would not vary more then 5%? (It's probably a smaller percentage, I'm just going with 5% because I know that is the largest number you can have before there is a significant difference)
--When you resubscribe to SWG, an 18 yearold Stripper finds Jesus, gives up stripping, and moves with a rolex reverend to Hawaii.
--In MMORPG's l007 is the opiate of the masses.
--The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence!
--CCP could cut off an Eve player's fun bits, and that player would say that it was good CCP did that.
So your saying, all I need is, 12,500 people in a random selection to make an accurate judgement of the current climate of the United States?
(average US family size is under 2.5, but I rounded up, so 2.5 * 5,000 = 12,500)
By climate I assume you mean the average living conditions, etc. And yes, that's right. If you used, as a stated earlier, the proper sampling method.
Clustering - Pop. of interest (US population) would be divided into groups of sub-pops (upper class, upper middle class, middle class, lower middle class, lower class, geographic location) and random samples would be drawn from each sub-group. If 12,500 is your number of choice, take a random sample of 12,500/21 for each group; the 21 being each class+their geographic location(east, central, west). Your magic number is 595 people from each of those very specific sub-groups. This gives you fairly generizable results.
I'm going to have to take a Stats class (well to get my Social Science related degree I will have to take it eventually)...
So your saying it could be repeated multiple times and the results would not vary more then 5%? (It's probably a smaller percentage, I'm just going with 5% because I know that is the largest number you can have before there is a significant difference)
Oh lord, testing the details of my knowledge from two semester ago. Here goes nothing, and if someone knows better correct me if I'm wrong.
You would assign an alpha value to the experiment. I think we used .05 and .10 alot. After you run the experiment, you will get a level of signifgance value, which you compare to the alpha value. If your level of signifigance is below your alpha value, then the experiment is considered statistically valid. Now my head hurts, and you brought back haunting memories of the final in there. Thanks alot.
Spelling.
https://easynulled.com/
Free porn videos, xxx porn videos
Onlyfans nudes
Onlyfans leaked
So your saying, all I need is, 12,500 people in a random selection to make an accurate judgement of the current climate of the United States?
(average US family size is under 2.5, but I rounded up, so 2.5 * 5,000 = 12,500)
By climate I assume you mean the average living conditions, etc. And yes, that's right. If you used, as a stated earlier, the proper sampling method.
Clustering - Pop. of interest (US population) would be divided into groups of sub-pops (upper class, upper middle class, middle class, lower middle class, lower class, geographic location) and random samples would be drawn from each sub-group. If 12,500 is your number of choice, take a random sample of 12,500/21 for each group; the 21 being each class+their geographic location(east, central, west). Your magic number is 595 people from each of those very specific sub-groups. This gives you fairly generizable results.
I'm going to have to take a Stats class (well to get my Social Science related degree I will have to take it eventually)...
So your saying it could be repeated multiple times and the results would not vary more then 5%? (It's probably a smaller percentage, I'm just going with 5% because I know that is the largest number you can have before there is a significant difference)
Oh lord, testing the details of my knowledge from two semester ago. Here goes nothing, and if someone knows better correct me if I'm wrong.
Like Moo said above, you would assign an alpha value to the experiment. I think we used .05 and .10 alot. After you run the experiment, you will get a level of signifgance value, which you compare to the alpha value. If you level of signifigance is below your alpha value, then the eperiment is considered statistically valid. Now my head hurts, and you brought back haunting memories of the final in there. Thanks alot.
Thanks, sorry to bring back traumatic experiences
--When you resubscribe to SWG, an 18 yearold Stripper finds Jesus, gives up stripping, and moves with a rolex reverend to Hawaii.
--In MMORPG's l007 is the opiate of the masses.
--The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence!
--CCP could cut off an Eve player's fun bits, and that player would say that it was good CCP did that.
You're absolutely adorable! A majority of the senate approved the intial action in Iraq and quite few of them were DEMOCRATS! Fancy that! Don't believe me? The facts are there; at least when I took American Government in college my professor had presented us all with documents showing how a majority had approved the presiden't decision (at least half of the democratic senators, most of them republican.. the number of independents is trival). They were required to disclose the documents, btw: Go google them and then shoot yourself for being so stupid.
Ever consider corporations donating to political parties to lessen/abate restrictions? You don't see democratic leaders attacking pharmaceuticals and oil companies. The party stands for whoever lobbies the most; the whole ideology is just part of the scheme to get a majority of the votes. They do make their own salaries, ya know. People think Americans are so stupid, because of fundamentally naive people like yourself.
Yeah, unfortunately I'm in my senior year of college, so I guess I don't have a college diploma yet
I do have an associates degree though and scored in the 92nd percentile on the general GRE....
No, I'm not majoring in political science, but I am majoring in mathematics.
If you'd like to discuss the cardinality of the reals and the dubious existence of a well-ordering thereof, then I'm game... of course I'd probably make a fool out of you again.
You've made a fool of no one. Out here in the real world, we know exactly how much 2 year degrees and GRE scores mean, and we know that condescension will get our arguments nowhere.
As I said before, and put that impressive Associate's to use this time and read the text, both parties had war supporters, but the Democrats as a whole were more vocally opposed. Feel free to question that, but both sides will disagree with you for one reason or another. In addition, they aren't accusing "the right," since "the right" has many anti-war leaders within it. They're accusing people who are still in favor of the war after all it's put everyone through. In the future, anytime you feel the need to base an argument on "my professor told me," please think twice.
Just because you can throw your money at the nearest politician doesn't mean you should or will. These people may not be talking smack about pharmaceutical and oil companies, but they aren't singing their praises, either. Politicians, and especially Democrats, are famously reluctant to take a strong stance on most issues (with notable exceptions). But while they may keep silent, their constituents do not. Democrats at the civilian level can't go a day without bashing big business. I don't know about you, but if they elected me into office, I'd listen to them. Cause, yeah, I'd be making my own salary, but I wouldn't see Exxon cutting the check.
family work hard to make enough to get by and all of you play by all
the rules. As you're drifting off in your warm, comfortable bed, you
hear your front door kicked in. Apparently, the secret police have
found out you, God forbid, possibly spoke out against your current
president, and they are here to arrest you and your entire family.
After being hooked up to a car battery and shocked for five hours
straight, the interrogators mercifully decide to shoot you in the head
with a 9 mm as your punishment for speaking your mind. But not before
your wife is forced into a room with soldiers and violated repeatedly
and your three children placed in jail until they become adults, after
which they must swear undying allegiance to the government.
This, of
course, does not happen here in the United States, and it never will.
Across the globe, somewhere between the 29th and 37th parallel, there
once existed a nation that was subjected to these and innumerous other
injustices - until recently. Iraq is now free, and so are its tens of
millions of people. The more opponents of the war claim that there were
no weapons of mass destruction, the easier it gets to justify the
liberation of the Iraqi people. The continuing fight in the Middle East
proves to me, every day, that we have freed an entire population from a
tyrannical reign that would only spiral the nation downward into an
inescapable abyss of oppression.
March 16, 1988. Saddam, unhappy with dissidents, detonated chemical
warheads in the Kurdish part of Iraq in the north. Sarin nerve gas was
released and killed over 5,000 Iraqi citizens, injured 7,000, and
caused the debilitating health effects to ripple through the area even
today. In the last 20 years, there have been 10 other recorded
incidents of Saddam using chemical weapons to pacify his own people, or
launch a military strike against his neighboring countries. Never mind
that the Geneva Convention prohibits all use of poisonous or
asphyxiating gases during combat. He committed acts of aggression so
often and so egregiously that he was a danger to not only the world,
but also to people in his own country.
The Bush administration never said it was only about the search for
weapons of mass destruction. They wanted Saddam removed for the good
and safety of the world, and to say that they lied about WMDs just to
go to war is ignorant. In Iraq, a dictator with a history of using
chemical weapons is told not to even make them anymore. After being
prohibited from the manufacturing of WMDs, as an agreement to a
ceasefire he signed, the dictator is subject to random searches of
weapons sites.
But lo and behold, he starts denying access to those
sites and expels the inspectors from the country. Doesn't that set off
any sort of warning light to the world? Are the countries that opposed
the war so blind that they need to see him use the finished product
before they say, "Wait, hold on, that's not right?" He violated a
cease-fire agreement, and unlike the precedent set in world history,
the world let him violate it for years afterward with 15 or so security
resolutions and countless inspector expulsions. In the past, once a
country violates an agreement like that, it's lights out. But we gave
him more than a decade to get his act together and prove he was a
relatively safe member of the international community. He proved
himself to be a selfish, murderous, decadent shell of a man.
The war in Iraq is a success, no doubt about it. We have established a
democracy where people's voices matter, captured the deposed dictator
and he will soon face the justice from his people that the world was
too feeble to deliver.
There are 4 Areas in the Chicago police department, that means 1/4'th of the City was under the command of a toturer...
--When you resubscribe to SWG, an 18 yearold Stripper finds Jesus, gives up stripping, and moves with a rolex reverend to Hawaii.
--In MMORPG's l007 is the opiate of the masses.
--The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence!
--CCP could cut off an Eve player's fun bits, and that player would say that it was good CCP did that.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
Yes! Yes! Yes! you are soooooooooo right! thank you!!! There are too many variables to consider. It is not like compairing apples and grapes. They do not have emotions that change on mood, climate, tv, papers and cute chicks on news shows.
I shoot for the curve... anything above that is gravy.
Lol dabble, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Inivitation is open.
https://easynulled.com/
Free porn videos, xxx porn videos
Onlyfans nudes
Onlyfans leaked
Lol dabble, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Inivitation is open.
67.19.104.12
Self Selecting Sample - The assumption that a group willing to take a survey represents a random
sample. The Hite report (1976) on female sexual attitudes was based on surveys of 3019 women, unfortunately
Shere Hite distributed over 100,000 surveys. All the report measured was the sexual attitudes of the 3% who were
willing to fill out the survey. Another example can be found with 900 number polls on TV shows. These are only
a representation of people who feel strongly enough to pay 75 cents a call and do not represent the real population.
From Glossary of Mathematical Mistakes.
Sample Trashing - Throwing out perfectly good data as "unreliable" because it goes
against what the statistics are trying to prove. Popular with ESP believers who point to a few studies with positive
results, and ignore the majority of the studies with negative results.
From the same site as above...
I wasn't saying condescension is somehow not allowed. It makes for a nice little luxury when you clearly know what you're talking about. You, on the other hand, can barely make it through a sentence without a jab, which suggests you're aware of the weakness in your argument.
I won't attempt to lecture you about the role of GRE scores in getting into Grad School; you won't believe me until you do it.
No Democrat that loudly decried the war supported it with his vote. With the media breathing down everyone's neck, no one would dare. If anyone wavered under public opinion, it was the Republicans, because again, you're about the only one that actually thinks the Democrats were the ones to initially favor it more. Democrats will tell you they didn't because they like to tell everyone they're the good guys, and Republicans will tell you so because they (largely) think the Democrats were and are a bunch of pussy liberals. Both parties signed on to the war, but the Republicans, both in Washington and around the country, have had a lot more converts.
Who on Earth do you think gets any politician into office? And who keeps them there? Do you think any company will pay you because they like you? They pay you because you're in a position of power, and unless you stay there, the cash flow has to end sometime. Even if every Democrat were somehow in bed with big business (an idea most educated people will laugh at), it would be laregely irrelevant, because they'd still be doing exactly what they were elected to do. But that's not the case. The Democrats have a reputation as the friend of the middle class and the enemy of big business, and not just because they talk the talk. Whether or not you or I agree with that, it's true. If you're honestly implying that the aim of any and every politician, regardless of party, is to swindle his/her way into office and extort as much money as possible from every lobbyist in the area until the jig is up, then this debate is over, and was before it started.
we have shitty things like this in the UK the prise of oil never really made anyone happy or sad other then they guys selling it
We have this crazy idea in the west that if were out shopping were happy and that’s just not true. We fill our lives with trinkets to make up for not spending time with family and friends. It’s an instant feel good. What would really make us happy was if we had time to spend with family and friends spare cash in our pockets and a cupboard full of food in a house that was safe.
Instead we speed 40 hours a week slaving our bollocks off for little pay. Most working odd hours and having little time to there self or loved ones.
in truth if you were to go out and ask people if they are really happy most would say no. almost all would say content. (that’s not really happy though) what most people want is work life balance enough cash to live and time to spend how they choose. I bet cash not being an issue most would opt for flexible part time work (15-25 hours per week) what’s more I’d bet even people that love there job would rather spend more time at home than work.
Sadly an happy nation does not exist most are content but properly only 2-3% people (not governments or employers) would keep the status quo if money wernt an issue
Tin Foil hats dont work.. its all a conspiracy
Look let's be honest with eachother on this issue...
Americans are happy because we are a nation of anti-intellectuals. We like simple answers to complex questions.
The Iraq debate? Either you 'stay the course' or 'cut and run.'
You are either with the terrorists or you are with US.
The great achievement of the Conservative movement has been to discredit any sort of critical thought. Thinking too much is bad for your health. That is why George Dubya appeals to so many of us. He is one of US!! He is a good ole boy (even though he comes from an east coast elite society).
What helped Clinton get elected was his good ole boy accent, which helped to mask his great intellect (he was a Rhodes Scholar, rember).
The truth is, Democrats will never win any significant office ever again in this country until they can dumb down their postions with simple language (that is assuming that they actually have a position).
Who on Earth do you think gets any politician into office? And who keeps them there? Do you think any company will pay you because they like you? They pay you because you're in a position of power, and unless you stay there, the cash flow has to end sometime. Even if every Democrat were somehow in bed with big business (an idea most educated people will laugh at), it would be laregely irrelevant, because they'd still be doing exactly what they were elected to do. But that's not the case. The Democrats have a reputation as the friend of the middle class and the enemy of big business, and not just because they talk the talk. Whether or not you or I agree with that, it's true. If you're honestly implying that the aim of any and every politician, regardless of party, is to swindle his/her way into office and extort as much money as possible from every lobbyist in the area until the jig is up, then this debate is over, and was before it started.
Do you actually believe that Democrats are that virtuous? I’m not saying that all politicians are bad, or are in bed with big business, but many of them in both parties are. If it is not big business it is special interest. In the end it is the same, the pocketbook sways their votes.
I shoot for the curve... anything above that is gravy.