Orton's Arm

Yeah, I'd forgotten this was originally JSP's thread. As for admitting when you're wrong: you should have done that in our regression toward the mean discussion. I told you about the test/retest phenomenon, which you ridiculed. After 50+ pages of discussion, I found links from Stanford et al which supported what I'd been saying all along. In fact, the Stanford explanation was remarkably similar to an explanation of my own which you'd repeatedly ridiculed. So now you want me to admit that I was wrong? I'm sorry, Tom, but that's just insane.

I was lumping legal and illegal immigrants together into the same category.

If you want a highly intelligent and well thought-out response, try posting something intelligent. Oh, never mind. Asking you to post something intelligent or well-informed is like asking a rooster to lay eggs, or Tom to admit he's wrong about something, or the Bills to win the Super Bowl. BTW: why are we ruining this electric car thread?

Oh wow! You've just made up for hundreds of drool-ridden, intelligence-free, flat out stupid posts by creating that paragraph. Just kidding. You're still just as much of a stupid loser as always.

I never specified that the drivers I saw were illegal immigrants. I don't actually know how may of the drivers I saw were legal versus illegal. All I'm saying is that I've seen a wide spectrum of driving behaviors; most of which have been bad. Immigrant-heavy areas have been considerably worse than the norm, at least in my experience. And you know what? If I was to spend some time in Orange County, I'd probably conclude that the white/rich/spoiled drivers you've experienced are worse than the norm too.

Causation is one possible explanation for correlation. I'm willing to entertain other reasonable explanations. (Hint: coming up with "reasonable" explanations for anything isn't exactly your strong suit.)

It's amazing that anyone on these boards is stupid enough to take you seriously.

I didn't say I had proof; merely life experience. And based on what I've seen with my own two eyes, the quality of driving is worse in places with higher concentrations of immigrants. I'm not just talking about people colliding with each other because there are too many cars in too little space. I'm talking about turn signal use (or lack thereof), taking stupid, avoidable risks, or actions which demonstrate a general obliviousness or lack of safety awareness.

I addressed that issue earlier in this thread, but you're acting like the above concept is something new to me. Here's what I wrote earlier, before you graced us with your "wisdom."

Let me guess: you applied there and got rejected, right?

It was a while ago when I saw the movie, but I do vaguely remember them talking about non-GM electric cars. I'll have to see it again to be sure they mentioned Honda, but if I had to bet one way or the other, I'd bet that they did. I'm not saying that GM isn't money-motivated. Neither did the makers of the film. They felt that GM's focus on SUVs to the exclusion of electric cars was greedy, but in a short-sighted way that would ultimately harm the company. Given the way gas prices have gone up in the last few years, the filmmakers may well have a point. I see the California regulatory commission as long on good intentions, but short on wisdom, realism, or competence.

That was witty, I'll give you that. Totally unhelpful for understanding any of the concepts we've been debating, but that's true of all your other posts too. If you won't or can't produce anything enlightening, you may as well at least be witty.

Given your past track record, I simply don't believe the math you claim to be "doing" will ever result in actual numbers for the rest of us to see.

By "true average roll" I was referring to an underlying, theoretical average. That's not necessarily the same thing as the concept of an "average roll" averaged out across five or ten die rolls.

That's got to be the lamest excuse I've ever heard.

If you give me the data, I'll calculate a correlation for you. If you just sit there and pretend I don't know the meaning of some word you've picked out of a hat, then we'll get nowhere.

I think Molson's point was that the quality of driving varies from place to place, and that there's more at work than just population size. The data he's provided certainly support his point.

Given the appropriate data, of course I can calculate a correlation. That's not exactly brain surgery. So yeah, if you want to send me that spreadsheet, I'd be delighted.

Given that you got so very much wrong in your last post, I can't exactly blame you for using still more accusations to detract attention from your own egregious errors. But once again you're off the mark. Had I written that "every single last safe city was in the Midwest," your Bakersfield example would have been a good rebuttal. But I merely noted a tendency for the safer cities to be in the Midwest; and a tendency for cities with high immigrant populations to be in the lower, less-safe part of the list. Your statement that I "don't even know what a correlation is" is just stupid. But you've yet to contribute anything intelligent to this thread, so why start now?

Wow! Your errors to sentences ratio is higher than 1! That's an impressive ratio, even by your lofty standards. Let's start from the beginning, shall we? 1. A top 50 school isn't exactly Hamburger U. 2. The period at the end of your first sentence ought to have been inside the quotation marks. 3. Cornstalks and other plant waste represent a viable source of energy. 4. The electric grid can be expanded in part by adding more copper wire. 5. East German scientists were selected by merit, and not--as Bungee Jumper asserted--by political connections. 6. The average value of a die roll is 3.5. 7. There ought to have been an apostrophe in the word "theres [sic]." That's seven errors in the space of only three sentences! Congratulations.

And once again you made an idiot out of yourself. Because I'd been saying those exact same things for literally dozens of pages before I found those links from Stanford, Duke, et al. Oh, and by the way, you were ridiculing me for saying those things.

The movie "Who Killed the Electric Car?" was clear about the fact that all GM's EV1s were leased, not sold. People wanted to buy their cars at the end of the lease period, but GM refused the multi-million dollar check those people collectively offered. Instead it sent the vehicles to the crusher. Given GM's behavior--and its subsequent pursuit of an SUV-intensive strategy--a certain amount of suspicion is justified. The most sinister motive the movie attributed to GM involved regulation. Specifically, California had passed a law which mandated that, by a certain year, 1% of each car manufacturer's total vehicle sales had to be zero emissions. GM wanted to fight this law. According to the movie, GM saw the EV1 as an obstacle to the fight. If people are driving around in electric cars, it's harder for GM to claim the concept isn't viable. Given that I'd heard about the California law from other sources, the movie's take on the situation doesn't seem that far-fetched or propagandistic to me.

It's amazing to me that someone who can write as intelligently as you do about military matters can be this stupid when dealing with the subject of driving. You've managed to write a post in which almost every sentence is a major error. You: "No one said the study proved they're good drivers." Chef Jim: "Still haven't seen any proof of your cities with high levels of immigrants have poor auto safety records theory. Molson's Allstate stats proved otherwise actually." At least one poster felt those stats proved that immigrants are at least as good at driving as those born here. You: "You, however implied the study proved they're bad drivers." Me: "The apparent correlation between having lots of immigrants and worse driving doesn't prove my point. On the other hand, that correlation is completely consistent with my point." You: "Quoting something to support your position that doesn't actually say ANYTHING about the position you're using it to support is...well, par for the course for you, actually." Me: "What I found interesting about that link is that the safest drivers tend to be in Midwestern states such as Kansas or Iowa. Meanwhile, immigrant-heavy cities (such as Miami, other Florida cities, Texas cities, etc.) are correlated with worse driving records." Your crusade against me has severely clouded your judgment.

Now this is a post!

Ah, yes, your moronic claim that I "didn't understand" the websites from Stanford, despite the fact those sites said the exact same thing I'd been saying for the last 50 pages.