jcd11235

Mathematically, perhaps not. Conceptually, I'm quite satisfied with how it reads to me and (probably) the average person. And that's how common misconceptions are established. No, the evidence does not prove that to be true. A skydive, like a coin, has no memory of previous events. I read it differently because the data do not support that conclusion. Here's an illustrative example that highlights the faulty logic: Imagine a city in which there are 100,000 cars. All of the cars are one of two colors, red or black. Furthermore, all car accidents involve exactly two cars each. In that city, 90.25% of car accidents involve two black cars. 9.5% of accidents involve one black car and one red car. 0.25% of accidents involve two red cars. From the given information, can we conclude that a randomly selected black car is more likely than a randomly selected red car to be in an accident over the course of a day or the course of a year? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

No one had asserted anything differently. Right, but without knowing what proportion of skydives are made by people with more than 300 jumps, we cannot conclude that jumpers with more than 300 jumps are at a greater risk per jump than jumpers with fewer than 300 jumps. Agreed, but it does not logically follow that experienced jumpers are therefore at greater risk of a fatality on any given jump. That may or not be true, but the data you have provided do not justify that conclusion. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

There is a HUGE difference between saying that a fatality is more likely to involve a "reasonably" to "very" experienced jumper than a low experience jumper and saying that "reasonably" to "very" experienced jumpers are more likely to be involved in fatalities than low experienced jumpers. USPA's statistics bear out the former claim. They do not provide sufficient data to conclude the latter claim is true. From what data do you draw your previous conclusion that "the longer you're in the sport (more jumps), that risk increases?" Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

On yesterday's Weekend Edition Saturday on NPR, Scott Simon interviewed Senator Byron Dorgan, who foresaw the repercussions of repealing the Glass-Steagall Act with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Nearly a decade after GLB's passage, Dorgan's predictions seem to have turned out to be eerily accurate. An excerpt from the interview: SIMON: I wanted to give you the chance to say I told you so. We found a quote, 1999, from New York Times when you said, we will look back in 10 years' time and say we should not have done this - this was President Clinton's bank deregulation act - we should not have done this but we did because we forgot the lessons of the past, and that which is true in the 1930s is true in 2010. We have now decided in the name of modernization to forget the lessons of the past of safety and of soundness. Sen. DORGAN: Well, I mean, it does precious little to say I told you so, but this was 10 years ago on the floor of the U.S. Senate. At the time, I said I thought it was a huge mistake and, you know, I was critical of the Clinton administration and critical of the Republicans in Congress who were pushing it. But what I said is I think within a decade we're going to see massive taxpayer bailouts. I didn't necessarily know that for sure but it turns out my prognostication was a pretty expensive lesson. Because it made no sense that we should repeal Glass-Steagall and the protections that were put in place after the Great Depression. And the result of that, in my judgment, was to steer this economy into the ditch and cause a significant economic wreck that's going to take us some time to get out of. SIMON: The timing is something that intrigues me, 'cause you said this in 1999, whereas you note your party was in party. Sen. DORGAN: Uh-huh. Well, but let me just say to you that the legislation that was passed by the Congress was called Gramm-Leach-Bliley - all three Republicans. Phil Gramm - those three Republicans led the approach. It was Republican legislation but warmly embraced by President Clinton, Secretary of Treasury Rubin and so on. But I was one of eight U.S. senators that went to the floor of the Senate repeatedly in opposition to what they were doing. And, you know, as I said, I made some prognostications and say if we do this we're going to see massive taxpayer bailouts in the future. And unfortunately, that has been the case. Hopefully Congress will recognize their mistake and pass effective financial regulatory legislation to prevent future financial crises similar to the one we are experiencing and recovering from now. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

It doesn't matter. 1 jump or 10,000 jumps - the "likely" is the same. Are you suggesting that the probability of a single skydive resulting in death does not change as a jumper's experience and knowledge changes? I'm not sure I agree. While it's possible everything balances out, experience, judgement and equipment could all possibly affect the probability of any single jump for a particular skydiver resulting in a fatality. If you are just saying that the gambler's fallacy isn't accurate in skydiving, then I agree, but that's not what my post was getting at. The outcome of the previous jump doesn't affect the outcome of a particular jump, but something that was learned on previous jumps might affect the survival probability. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I've not seen evidence that they do (or do not). How are jump numbers distributed among actively jumping USPA members compared to how they are distributed among skydiving fatalities? Also, how are jump numbers distributed among total skydives made by USPA members compared to how they are distributed among skydiving fatalities? Are highly experienced jumpers actually more likely to die on any given jump or do they just jump more? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I know a couple people who put altimeters in their canopies. The disadvantage was fortunately limited to the resulting need to purchase a new altimeter. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Here is an article about a small study that suggests a correlation between the ability to lie and popularity (social popularity being reasonably, albeit not absolutely, synonymous with being a people person). I was looking for a more recent study that I read/heard about within the past couple of months but was unable to locate that one. Edit to add: Sorry about the double reply. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Nor am I. I could give many examples supporting my assertion, professional and social. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Give it time. It may well be one day. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I can relate. To which part? Being honest or having no people skills? The two are often highly correlated. nah....people with people skills just know when to stfu. I would argue that, in practice, honesty is not as highly regarded in our society as it is in theory. Many of the values we claim to hold in high regard in our society are often looked down upon in practice. Heller said it well: [Major Major] was polite to his elders, who disliked him. Whatever his elders told him to do, he did. They told him to look before he leaped, and he always looked before he leaped. They told him never to put off until the next day what he could do the day before, and he never did. He was told to honor his father and his mother, and he honored his father and his mother. He was told that he should not kill, and he did not kill, until he got into the Army. Then he was told to kill, and he killed. He turned the other cheek on every occasion and always did unto others exactly as he would have had others do unto him. When he gave to charity, his left hand never knew what his right hand was doing. He never once took the name of the Lord his God in vain, committed adultery or coveted his neighbor's ass. In fact, he loved his neighbor and never even bore false witness against him. Major Major's elders disliked him because he was such a flagrant nonconformist. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I can relate. To which part? Being honest or having no people skills? The two are often highly correlated. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I can relate. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Can you elaborate? I'm reading your statement as the skydiving version of the gambler's fallacy (e.g. if a fair roulette wheel comes up red nine times in a row, it is more likely to come up black next time). I readily acknowledge that I could be reading your statement differently than you intended. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Do you have a source for your quote? The way it reads, it appears to have been written in an effort to be intentionally misleading. It doesn't say that critical care will be denied under Medicare or Medicaid. It says that doctors won't be reimbursed for performing critical care procedures outside of hospitals. It could be that performing critical care procedures outside of hospitals saves money without adding risk. Or, it could be that such procedures taking place outside of hospitals are statistically more likely to result in complications or death of the patient. I haven't seen the data, so I can't say. What I don't see in your quoted material is any indication that the proposed legislation will result in "giving granny an aspirin instead of the angioplasty she needs." Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I'm fairly sure Kami-kaze's post was directed at the OP, despite clicking the reply button on your post.

The fact is, it doesn't matter how you or I interpret the Constitution. The only interpretation that matters is the interpretation of the judicial branch. Not even the Federalist Papers trump the SCOTUS' interpretations. From United States v. Butler: The Congress is expressly empowered to lay taxes to provide for the general welfare. Funds in the Treasury as a result of taxation may be expended only through appropriation. (Art. I, § 9, cl. 7.) They can never accomplish the objects for which they were collected unless the power to appropriate is as broad as the power to tax. The necessary implication from the terms of the grant is that the public funds may be appropriated "to provide for the general welfare of the United States." These words cannot be meaningless, else they would not have been used. The conclusion must be that they were intended to limit and define the granted power to raise and to expend money. How shall they be construed to effectuate the intent of the instrument? Since the foundation of the Nation, sharp differences of opinion have persisted as to the true interpretation of the phrase. Madison asserted it amounted to no more than a reference to the other powers enumerated in the subsequent clauses of the same section; that, as the United States is a government of limited and enumerated powers, the grant of power to tax and spend for the general national welfare must be confined to the enumerated legislative fields committed to the Congress. In this view, the phrase is mere tautology, for taxation and appropriation are, or may be, necessary incidents of the exercise of any of the enumerated legislative powers. Hamilton, on the other hand, maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. Each contention has had the support of those whose views are entitled to weight. This court has noticed the question, but has never found it necessary to decide which is the true construction. Mr. Justice Story, in his Commentaries, espouses the Hamiltonian position. We shall not review the writings of public men and commentators or discuss the legislative practice. Study of all these leads us to conclude that the reading advocated by Mr. Justice Story is the correct one. While, therefore, the power to tax is not unlimited, its confines are set in the clause which confers it, and not in those of § 8 which bestow and define the legislative powers of the Congress. It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution. If Congress so chooses to pass legislation to establish and fund via taxation a universal healthcare plan, they are within their Constitutional power to do so, under (at least) the general welfare clause. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; It seems pretty clear that Congress is within their Constitutional authority to establish universal healthcare should they decide to do so. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Sorry, I guess I missed the MS Paint version. In which post was it found? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Economic Mobility: Is the American Dream Alive and Well? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Thanks for attacking the poster instead of answering the questions that have been asked. It makes separating the noise from the signal in these forums that much easier and saves me time.

It certainly isn't data. I certainly wouldn't consider mises.org an unbiased, credible source. Ignoring that for a moment, the linked article lacks data to support its author's assertions. Thus far, the data suggests the CRA has been beneficial, despite the rhetoric stating otherwise. Once again, I'll ask: What specific criticisms do you have with the data from the fifteen largest US metropolitan areas? Why do you feel it is slanted? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

You lost my attention when you provided an anecdote when data was requested, because I try to disregard noise in favor of signal. We can find anecdotes to support whatever we assertions we want to support. That's not the same as using data to support those assertions. I'll ask again: Do you have any data to support your assertion? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

So, you're saying that, according to a much smaller pool of data, which you won't disclose, you've come to different conclusions. Forgive me if I place more faith in the analysis of the much larger pool of data. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

They are the tiny minority. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!