Taro T

24% turnout. Wow, that's almost 1/2 of a majority of them.

That's possible, but I just get the feeling that Nancy and Harry are going to want to take their new toys out for a ride and with Conyers riding shotgun, things could get interesting early. If the dems are smart, it'll play out as you have predicted. We shall see. Bummer, now I'm gonna have to waste some prime hockey watching time on Fox News and MSNBC. They don't even show those 2 in HiDef.

Actually, there were plenty of screw ups to go around. It appears Abramoff gave Montana to the Dems. Various other scandals took others down. As long as we are set in the 2 party system, I don't mind seeing the Dems in the House of Reps. I can't say I'm thrilled at the thought of the Dems controlling the Senate (judicial nominees and treaty ratification and all), but think it will be interesting to see where/when Lieberman breaks ranks with the D's and puts the deciding vote on Chaney's plate. Hopefully the Dems will do better than I expect that they will. If they do, '08 will be very interesting. If not, the Senate goes back to red and Hill stays out of the big mansion and we hear all the post election charges of voter fraud. It will be an interesting 2 years.

I thought he COULD hold. The problem is, he's Robert Royal CANTCATCH.

Agreed. At a minimum, it would be nice to see them not project winners in a particular state until after the polls have closed in the entire state.

While I did do my tilting at windmills, it really doesn't matter how big the turnout will be. There's only 2 statewide positions that are in doubt (comptroller and AG). It will be interesting to see what happens in Reynolds' and Kuhl's districts. They are the only two Congresscritters in WNY that seem to be in jeopardy. The REALLY unusual thing about the Reynolds/Davis race is that the D&C supports Reynolds. This is the 1st year I've been living near Ra-cha-cha and I can recall the D&C endorsing a Republican in a tight race (and they did it 2 other times). They also appear to finally be doing what they said they'd do about 8 years ago and aren't endorsing Susan John.

Pretty muchly.

Yes, I voted in this poll. Oh, wait, that's not what you meant is it?

Actually, as you admit, your example is extremely simplified. But as BJ points out, you have essentially set up your example so that the result you desire is what you will get out of your experiment. The model you put forth will not necessarily tell you anything about how children's IQ's are effected by their parents IQ's, nor will it tell you how much deviation in IQ from 1 to the other are due measurement of error or other sources and factors.

Actually, giving a particular individual a 2nd (or additional) IQ test isn't the functional equivalent of giving their child an IQ test. If that was anything more than a typo on your part, you are far more confused about this issue than BJ/Raimus give you credit for.

As opposed to a smart idiot like yourself. Right?

Jim, you'll have to use smaller words when you ask him questions. His reading comprehension appears to be roughly equivalent to BF's.

Thank you for answering my questions. I guess next time I ask you questions I'll have to use REALLY small words.

Wow, you truly are a piece of work. It's truly heartening to see that for a cause you feel so strongly about, you don't pony up a single dime directly out of your own pocket. Where exactly do you expect "your" government to get the money to pay for this research that you want to see happen? You do realize that every single penny the government spends has come from either a tax already collected or one to be collected in the future? What exactly do you consider "fully fund(ing)" cancer research? Does the US government need to spend $100B, $200B, $1T? Should the US be paying for French and Japanese researchers working outside the US in order to "fully fund" the research. Why shouldn't private money be involved? Is it because the government is so successful at efficiently providing funding to other industries, that they should be expected to solely pick the "winners" in medical advances as well?

They did look better in the 3rd than in the 2nd, but their powerplay was horribly out of sync. That was enough for me to say they never got their game back after TO broke it open, especially when you consider how many powerplays the Sabres had in the 3rd.

I disagree with that. They played a good 1st. The 1st 20 minutes were very entertaining hockey as both teams were flying and hitting. After the 5 on 3, the Sabres never competed again. So, I'd say they were prepared to play, they just lost their focus, edge, skating, etc. and never recovered it. Not certain how much, if any, losing Max affected their play.

HA, I now understand why you think that error could cause regression to the mean, but unfortunately your assumptions and understanding are not well founded. Using additional sources besides Wiki might help you in your search for an improved understanding of statistics.

The intrigue as to how the NHL replaced the NHA would explain TO not taking credit for a 14th SC. But I'm still not certain why you are claiming the 11 TML SC's and not the 1 won as the Arenas (or new Blues, or whatever moniker you'd prefer) nor the 1 won as the St. Pats. By my count your team is at 13, not 11.

OK Junior, Let's look at the head to head record of the teams in your lifetime. The Sabres record vs the Loafs starting in '86-'87, one of only 3 years from then 'til now that the Loafs didn't lose to the Sabres (the other 2 being '95 and '04-'05) I might add, is 35-18-10-2. The Sabres have won nearly 2/3's of the games between the 2. No wonders you are whining about how the series between the 2 is irrelevant. The Sabres have kicked your beloved Laffs bippies up and down the ice for basically forever (at least your personal version of it). OK, now is the time that you come back with "well the Laffs won a Stanley Cup nearly 20 years before I was born, but I'm still very proud of that accomplishment even though it wasn't until this year that you could go back within twice my lifetime and been able to witness it."

Grant, since it seems Junior is unwilling or unable to answer my question, maybe you can enlighten me. Why don't TO fans count the SC won by the Arenas and the one won by the St. Pats in their W totals? IF the Sabres were to win one and then 5 years later start calling themselves the "Paychecks" or the "Diving Mullets" I would still say THAT team had won a Stanley Cup. Also, I agree with you that the animosity between the 2 fan bases is one sided, but it runs the other way. Wear Sabres colors in TO and wear a Sundin in Buffalo and see where you will catch more crud walking down the street. (Not heading to a game, just minding your own business.) I GUARANTEE you, the people on Younge Street will give you more flack than the ones on Pearl. (Now if you wore a Marino shirt on Pearl Street, that would be a different story.)

Not really, because then you can go back to the '20's and '30's and find teams with better win %ages than either of those 2. For whatever reason, way back when, hockey chose to go with a team points, not a winning percentage (which convey the exact same thing) and I don't see them ever switching systems.

They only did that in '99-'00. Even after the RT was changed to an OTL and wasn't included in the L column, people still complained about it.

You still haven't answered my question why you don't consider the SC that the Arenas won, nor why you don't consider the SC that the St. Pats won in your beloved team's total.

Out of curiosity, have the Loafs won a championship in YOUR lifetime?

Which great Blackhawks team are you referring to? The '37-'38 squad that won the Stanley Cup with a losing record? Their other 2 SC winners that were not more than 5 games over 0.500. That '61 team that won the SC was good but not great. Or any of their other teams prior to '67, which was the 1st year they actually had very good teams. Trouble is, none of those very good teams has had any more success than Buffalo or Toronto (i.e., they haven't brought home a SC either).