Bungee Jumper

What? That makes no sense. Why the hell am I even surprised by that? Of course it makes no sense...

Who's the !@#$ing heathen who compared Romo to Our Lord And Savior Tedy Bruschi?

Lead-based paint is bad for your health, you know.

No, because our justice system requires the prosecution to put their case in front of an impartial jury (yeah, impartiality is largely theoretical, particularly in this day, but the principle is still ther). Impeachment - particularly as espoused by molson here, and particularly as in this day of loyalty to the party above the country - is analogous to the prosecution putting the case in front of itself, since although impartiality in the jury system may exist more in principle than in fact, it doesn't exist at all in Congress. So...yes, in that case I guess molson is acting perfectly consistently with the system as it's set up, come to think of it. Doesn't make it right, any more than it did when Clinton was impeached.

Oh, okay. NOW it's clear.

Jauron-Ball: win the turnover battle, win the game. I've got to find the time this week to look up Dick Jauron's record as compared to turnovers per game. Yes, I know in general the team that's net positive in takeaways in a game is more likely to win that game...but I swear, Jauron's teams have an abnormally high correllation between takeaways differential and wins.

"He took three sacks instead of dumping the ball off. 144 net yards passing...and 77 of them don't count, since they came on one play to Evans, so he really had only 67 yards net, which is horrible. This win is the worst thing that's ever happened to the team since the last win." Have I covered all the counter-arguments from the window-lickers now? Anything I missed?

You just don't understand the statistical principle of "luck", is all.

And the SC rulings didn't apply retroactively. Things are legal until they aren't. If the population of a state democratically votes in favor of a given law via the process outlined in their state's articles of statehood (Charter, Constitution, whatever), it's legal. If the SC strikes it down later, or the US Congress enacts federal law contradicting it...then it becomes illegal. In the intervening time, it's legal. But something can't become illegal retroactively, nor can it realistically be called "illegal" in a time frame in which it is legal based on some future expectation of it being overturned. Just like segregation and Jim Crow - both of which were legal until they weren't.

Actually, in a democracy it does mean it's legally right.

Ed sold his car?

Then get him an eye exam and a mental health screening. Don't be an enabler...

So you already know what he did illegally, You've basically already impeached him, you just want the formality of an investigation to justify it ex post facto. sh-- like that is why no one takes you seriously.

What stuff?

No, I did mean to say that, because after the first test you simply don't know where that score falls with regards to the error. All you really know is that that score has a 95% chance of being within two standard deviations of error of the "zero error point". You don't know how much error is present, or in which direction the error applies. It's as though I was on your aforementioned product line, picking plastic widgets at random, with no foreknowledge of the expected properties of the widgets. I pick the first one, weigh it...and that gives me absolutely no insight as to whether the second one is heavier or lighter. It's a complete toss-up...the key reason being the italicized statement above. For you, it's not a 50/50 proposition, as you know the design specs of the widget. For me...I have a single data point, I can't make any predictions. Same thing with this IQ example. HA is saying that you can make some estimation as to the error and magnitude of the error in a single test based on that test and the population mean and standard deviation. You can't, they're two completely different things.

Why? Don't like your father-in-law?

Maybe his regression to the error is due to us being mean...

And once again, that proves nothing more than you don't know what error is. A person taking the test the second time around will tend to score (95% of the time, to be precise) within two standard deviations OF ERROR of their first score, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE POPULATION'S STATISTICAL DISTRIBUTION. In other words, any individual who scores an extreme score the first time stands a 50/50 chance of doing better vs. doing worse, BECAUSE THE VARIANCE IN THE POPULATION AND THE VARIANCE IN THE ERROR ARE TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT AND SEPARATE THINGS. Jesus Christ. How can you not possibly understand this by now.

Not necessarily. You are Italian...

Probably not. You're Canadian; I think she's only interested in men.

Is it just me, or does McKinney look like an extra on Fraggle Rock?

You should have looked again. The test would have regressed toward the regression if you remeasured it.

Wait...we're back to error causing regression toward the mean again? I thought he just said he didn't say that, after a couple hundred posts of saying it?

It's definitely too early to be drinking methanol... Should I be expecting to receive a call for boom from you soon?

They bring their own, or borrow Lana's?