- 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!
Collapse
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
- You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
- You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
- If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Logging in...
Previously on "If you're tall, feel your balls regularly"
Collapse
-
1 in 200 is still a lot though. The same affect isn't seen in tall women, except in 100m runners and shot-putters, often Russian.
-
Yes, we know, but you should never let facts get in the way of playing with your balls.Originally posted by MrRobin View PostStupid hacks sensationalising statistics that they don't understand!
Using the relative/proportional risk increase to illustrate the affect of x on incidence of disease y in these situations where the original risk is tiny is a nonsense.
For example, overall risk of developing disease is 1 in 210 or about 0.5%
Average height of US male = 5' 10''
Risk of developing disease of 6' male = 0.5%
6'2'' male = 0.6%
6'4'' male = 0.7%
i.e. still tiny.
Even if you're a 9' giant it's still only 1.7%
(assumes relative risk increases are not compounding)
Anyway, Spod's about 11 foot tall.
Leave a comment:
-
Stupid hacks sensationalising statistics that they don't understand!
Using the relative/proportional risk increase to illustrate the affect of x on incidence of disease y in these situations where the original risk is tiny is a nonsense.
For example, overall risk of developing disease is 1 in 210 or about 0.5%
Average height of US male = 5' 10''
Risk of developing disease of 6' male = 0.5%
6'2'' male = 0.6%
6'4'' male = 0.7%
i.e. still tiny.
Even if you're a 9' giant it's still only 1.7%
(assumes relative risk increases are not compounding)
Leave a comment:
-
That's the last time I shake her hand!Originally posted by DaveB View PostI have a reciprocal arrangement with MrsB.
She does my balls, I do her boobs
Leave a comment:
-
I have a reciprocal arrangement with MrsB.
She does my balls, I do her boobs
Leave a comment:
-
-
Were they feeling their balls at Wikileaks?Originally posted by TimberWolf View PostPull yer finger out Wikileaks.
Leave a comment:
-
If suitably anonymised data were publicly available these kinds of statistical relationships would likely be discovered quickly. Physical attributes, lifestyle, occupation, family history, disorders, etc. Pull yer finger out Wikileaks.
Leave a comment:
-
It might be because taller men are further away from their testicles, making self-checking slightly more difficult.
Leave a comment:
-
If you're tall, feel your balls regularly
Tags: None
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Andy Burnham's first 100 days: five things contractors need from the new PM Yesterday 00:53
- Starmer vs Burnham on housing: What their rival plans mean for your contractor mortgage Jul 22 00:59
- Burnham's housing vision vs. Starmer's home-buying reforms: what it means for your contractor mortgage Jul 22 00:59
- In Khalil v Innovate Transport, a limited company contractor wasn’t a worker and was on £2.30 — not £230 Jul 21 07:58
- Andy Burnham is PM: 5 new IT policies set to shape UK tech and its contractors Jul 20 06:29
- Taxed on money I haven't earned yet? Bold move, HMRC Jul 17 08:36
- The Fair Work Agency has got zero hours in its sights. Do you? Jul 16 08:44
- Cookie Policy Jul 15 11:50
- Cloned again: an umbrella company founder's warning on fraud, JSL and Companies House Jul 15 07:47
- How is JSL bedding in for contractor umbrella companies, 100 days in? Jul 14 07:45


Leave a comment: