• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Greed is Good!

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by Bunk View Post
    Because the 50 countries are not a population, they're a sample. All the countries in the world is the population. I think that's what Sas was trying to tell you. Not knowing those terms indicates that maybe you actually do need a bit more statistical expertise.
    I'm sure I do need more statistical expertise. I was just trying to ask a question and make a point.

    The 196 countries are a population.

    We spoke about a sample of that small population.

    Even if you looked at all 196 and tried to draw such a conclusion from them (like my US presidents analogy) very little would make sense because its too small a population to ask anything so general about except proven facts.

    So in my Presidents Analogy 100% have been Male, 2.3% have been visibly Black but I'm not sure how you demonstrate that their attitude to X has affected Y as a whole without studying each individually and adding corrections for salient facts such as social mores at the time.

    If people believe that you can do so then please explain why.

    As I said more data would make it better.

    appreciate your comments though my use of non specific words incorrectly could well have confused the congregation.
    Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much.

    Comment


      Originally posted by vetran View Post
      I'm sure I do need more statistical expertise. I was just trying to ask a question and make a point.

      The 196 countries are a population.

      We spoke about a sample of that small population.

      Even if you looked at all 196 and tried to draw such a conclusion from them (like my US presidents analogy) very little would make sense because its too small a population to ask anything so general about except proven facts.

      So in my Presidents Analogy 100% have been Male, 2.3% have been visibly Black but I'm not sure how you demonstrate that their attitude to X has affected Y as a whole without studying each individually and adding corrections for salient facts such as social mores at the time.

      If people believe that you can do so then please explain why.

      As I said more data would make it better.

      appreciate your comments though my use of non specific words incorrectly could well have confused the congregation.

      Feck me it's even worse than I thought.
      You're a prime example of why immigration is completely and utterly necessary.
      Hard Brexit now!
      #prayfornodeal

      Comment


        Originally posted by sasguru View Post

        Feck me it's even worse than I thought.
        You're a prime example of why emigration is completely and utterly necessary.
        FTFY

        Comment


          Originally posted by Old Greg View Post
          FTFY
          Well, it worked with Scooper

          Comment


            Originally posted by Old Greg View Post
            It is entirely logically possible for everyone to be equal to each other in terms of their worth as human beings. You may or may not agree that this is in fact the case.

            If you mean that it is not logically possible for everyone to have an equal economic outcome, you are right. But nobody on the left has been aiming for that since utopian socialism went out of fashion in about 1830. KEEP UP!
            Yeah I think he was going on about not just economic outcome but also social standing..since so much more of how people are measured is now coming down to wealth. Like "Sure he was a fine statesman, but he died penniless. So how good could he really have been? Oh god, and he lived in that tiny one room flat as well. tsk tsk tsk"
            McCoy: "Medical men are trained in logic."
            Spock: "Trained? Judging from you, I would have guessed it was trial and error."

            Comment


              25 pages and you can't decide if greed is good or not?

              I hope the suggestion that Boris is a cretin will stay unchallenged.

              Comment


                Originally posted by vetran View Post
                All I said was that

                1. Correlation does not mean causation. If I wear a hat it doesn't mean its cold, it could be another reason such as fashion or I have lost my hair.
                So below subsitence level poverty causing crime is justifiable. But he has more than me so I rob him probably means a poor justice system.
                If correlation doesn't mean causation how does - "But he has more than me so I rob him probably means a poor justice system"?

                There are other factors at play here.
                "You’re just a bad memory who doesn’t know when to go away" JR

                Comment


                  Originally posted by AtW View Post
                  25 pages and you can't decide if greed is good or not?

                  I hope the suggestion that Boris is a cretin will stay unchallenged.
                  Why? What's he said now?

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by SueEllen View Post
                    If correlation doesn't mean causation how does - "But he has more than me so I rob him probably means a poor justice system"?

                    There are other factors at play here.
                    Don't do it, SueEllen.

                    Comment


                      This is fun:

                      Boris Johnson fails live 'IQ test' | Politics | theguardian.com

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X