jcd11235

Does anyone know what percentage of married POW's get divorced after returning home? I suspect the number is extremely high. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

The only thing Reagan did very well as President was act presidential. In reality, he was a lousy POTUS. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

No. Nor do I think the job of POTUS offers only the average amount of stress. If elected, I think he would die faster than the average American 72 year old male. But that doesn't change the fact that, statistically, a 72 year old American male will live another 12.01 years. For the record, I do not support McCain/Palin. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I wasn't clear. Generally, after each year of life, the expected length of the remainder of an American's life (most likely anyone's life, but the data I have at the moment only addresses Americans) decreases by less than one year. In other words, while the average newborn male will die at 74.83 years of age, the average 1 year old male will die at 75.40 years of age. It makes sense, if you think about it (I'm not in any way implying that you didn't think, Quade). Since people who die between birth and their first birthday are not calculated into the average age of death for those who do live to see their first birthday. But by this "logic" a person at 80 should then have a MUCH better chance of living to 100 and once he gets there it should be an almost sure thing that he lives to 120 . . . and so on? No. But he average male in America that lives to their 100th birthday will live for another 2.02 years. Source Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Then tell us, counselor, what is the precedent? And you seem to be missing the point that we don't need to know all the variables to understand that humans are a significant one. It's simply not statistically necessary. Are you suggesting that it is more important for attorney's to be honest than it is for them to give their clients the very best legal representation they are able to give? Attorney's never lie on behalf of their clients? If that were the case, there would be no need for attorney client privilege. Perhaps you will enlighten us with the all important rate of temperature change then compared to now. No one has said the earth's temperatures don't naturally fluctuate. Localized temperatures do not equate to average temperatures. Then what's the precedent? Without a known example of increases in average temperature equal to or greater than what we see now, there is no precedent. With respect to the historical data available, what we see is unprecedented. If you're waiting until we know every single possible variable that could possibly influence global temperatures, then you'll wait forever. Fortunately, it is not necessary to know all those variables to draw valid conclusions with very high levels of confidence. Yep, a ludicrous thought. As you know, we have to be aware of something occurring previously before that something can be considered a precedent. The best analysis of available data suggests that what we are seeing is unprecedented. Excellent straw man, although I'm sure it was unintentional. Those are not the claims being made by scientists. Generally speaking, outside of Mathematics, proof is an illusion. It doesn't exist. Instead, we have conclusions that have very high probabilities of being correct. Again, what is the precedent? I'm sure climatologists would love for you to share your infinite wisdom regarding their area of expertise. Maybe they could give you some pointers with the law. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I don't think anyone holding the office of POTUS can be considered "average." The job is just too stressful. I just wanted to point out that the longer one lives, the older they are likely to be when they die. For example, at thirty-five, there is a 50% probability that I live to be about 77. On the other hand, the average sixty year old can expect to live another twenty years. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

To be fair, the average 72 year old (U.S.) male will die at age 84. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

That the data doesn't support social programs reducing crime? Quelle surprise. He said that he didn't think the data supported his wish - I merely provided a measure of proof for him. No, you didn't. You provided data supporting the possibility that Lucky's assertion that social welfare programs decrease crime. If the assertion is true, we would expect to see the highest crime rates in areas with people most likely to benefit from social welfare programs. Your data supports that. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

No one is suggesting that humans are the only cause of global warming. Data and observations suggest that humans play a significant role in the global warming we see today, warming that is occurring at an unprecedented rate. Nor have scientists ruled other factors out of the causal chain. Are you suggesting that, given a function of multiple variables, we cannot determine how any one of those variables affects the value of the function? There is little similarity between an attorney's job and a scientist's job. An attorney has an obligation to his client, regardless of the facts of the case. A scientist has an obligation to the truth, regardless of who might find the truth unpalatable. Exactly what contrary evidence is being overlooked? What historical data is being minimized? Please, enlighten us. What facts about global warming did you learn in law school (or practice) to which climatologists or not privy? When they misrepresent the position of scientists, and then base their disagreements wholly on those misrepresentations, as you did in your post, then yes, they will likely be called on it. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Please cite a peer reviewed study that concludes that global warming does not have a significant anthropogenic component. Yes, but in this instance, there is, in fact, a consensus among those who are knowledgeable of the topic. Not necessarily true. Many of the predictions made by GW models have matched data actually observed. We can't know for certain that the sun will not explode within the next 24 hours until those 24 hours pass, but the probability of such an explosion is so low, we can confidently predict that it will not occur. Nope, but that doesn't mean that it cannot be modeled on order to calculate, with reasonable accuracy, the probability of such an attempt being successful, given certain criteria. Whether anyone would want to go through the trouble of developing such a model is a completely different issue. Strictly speaking, no. Predictions might be made based on a hypothesis (or based on a well tested theory, such as Newton's Laws of Motion), but the predictions aren't the hypothesis. The hypothesis is the theoretical model being tested. Agreed Good science doesn't prove hypotheses to be true. It can only show consistency between predictions based on hypotheses and actual observations. Good science can, however, disprove a hypothesis. It does indicate your hypothesis needs to be modified. Right, there could be other variables. However, since scientists are generally not claiming that global warming has only an anthropogenic component, such new variables would be extremely unlikely to cause the current well tested hypothesis, i.e. that global warming has a significant anthropogenic component, to be rejected. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

You would think it would make sense, but it doesn't and data seems to support the exact opposite (much more crime in large cities). And see, you not only misunderstand my point, but make the same fatal error in logic that I was stating I wouldn't. I wasn't referring to geographic areas, as most crime is inner-city, I was referring to crime in general and it's relation to the amount of welfare programs available, that is, non-corporate welfare. During the Clinton admin it was very low, then it raised and lowered when Bush was in, then raised again. I don't have a crime rate chart and don't care to look one up, but in general, there is no constant correlation between crime rate and welfare programs. That's honest, I would like to say that there is a correlation that repeats itself, but just as I can't say there is, you cannot say there isn't. The physical geographical part of the city is irrelevant, I was talking overall crime rate and its correlation to welfare, so your assertion isn't in accord with my point. I would say that inner-city crime is higher than suburban crime on a constant basis as an assumption, but have never looked up the numbers. I understood your point just fine, thank you. There may have been a fatal error in logic, but it wasn't mine. Several studies have shown welfare concentration in inner-cities. I've also posted an article talking about corroboration between welfare recipients and crime. Quoted from the article: Don't look now, but your offering correlations consistent with Lucky's assertions. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Disregarding a mountain of peer reviewed scientific studies in favor of non-peer reviewed, non-science based opinion pieces on the scientific topic is not critical thought. It's the antithesis of critical thought. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Do you really believe that a democratically elected legislature has the power to cut off funding for deployed military? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Well I can, if your democrat controlled congress has been in power for two years then why the fuck have you not ended the war and brought our brave home? You might ant to double check the Constitution to see which branch of the federal government has command of the US armed forces. (Hint: It's not the legislative branch or the judicial branch.) Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I guess life has led me to that conclusion. When military strength is abused far more often than it is used wisely and judiciously, as has been the case with the US armed forces during at least the last half century, those who wear the uniform are not without blame. They don't deserve all of the blame or even close to it, but they are not blameless. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I served in both regular Army and Army Reserves. I don't see anything about military service worthy of pride. I used to believe my service was something to be proud of, but the older I get, the better I understand why it wasn't. Of all the jobs I've held in life, soldiering was the least honorable, IMO. I don't hold military service against people, but I don't think it merits any extra respect or appreciation, either. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

When I was twenty-one, I was serving in the (U.S.) military, admittedly nothing to be proud of. As such, I'm willing to cut Michelle Obama a bit of slack for writing a passage that could be so easily quoted out of context as it has been in this thread. She could have chosen her words more carefully, just as I could have chosen a more honorable profession. Such are the mistakes of youth. We live; we learn. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I damn sure better be held accountable if I were going to be in the white house. As I said before, if Michelle’s thesis was the only thing then maybe I could buy it, but with the "I am finally proud to be an American" and going to Rev. Wright's church for 20 years, it only reinforces my concern. Absolutely, as I have said in other post the thought of Obama as our commander in chief scares the hell out of me. Please let us know if you find something worthy of concern when taken in context. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

It didn't. Clinton oversaw a budget surplus* for FY1998-FY2000 (and signed a budget that offered a surplus in FY 2001), not a debt reduction. The national debt increased every year of his presidency. * There was only an on budget and off budget surplus in FY1999 and FY2000. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Do a search. It has been discussed several times, and Clinton's budget surplus was, in fact, very real. When are you going to pay me the money you owe me? What happened to personal responsibility? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

According to many, it appears to be only "non-religious" people have the rigtht to impose their viewpoints. Thanks to the first amendment.

What was it nerdgirl said? Oh yeah, "Concisely: Yes, anthropogenic climate change is occurring." I said she nailed what science is. I did not say I agreed with her conclusion now did I? Marg once hypothesized that she is incorrect from time to time. Since that time, data has suggested that her hypothesis was very probably erroneous, and should be rejected. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I had to stop reading when Crichton screwed up the explanation of the Drake equation (including, arguably, the equation itself). If he doesn't even understand the starting point of his argument, how can he expect anyone to take his argument seriously. I think he falls in the "I don't understand the science behind global warming, so it must be a hoax perpetrated by consensus of climate scientists" category, like so many others. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

What was it nerdgirl said? Oh yeah, "Concisely: Yes, anthropogenic climate change is occurring." Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

We eagerly await the details of your rigorous analysis of that data. Can you tell us in which peer reviewed scientific journal your groundbreaking research will be published? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!