Bungee Jumper

Really? I've got two different books on my desk right now, both of which give a reasonably accurate outline of the different parties in conflict in Iraq, their methods (political or military...or both), their goals, and their backing. So is that "Impossible to count"? Or "Impossible for you to count"?

And again - in another attempt to futilely point out the blisteringly obvious for HA's benefit - that's variation in a single individual's scores, NOT variation in test scores throughout a normally distributed population. Not that he'll understand it this time, any more than he has the other fifty times I've said it...

I don't know if you mean me, or HA. Or both, honestly.

"Porn Star Week".

Actually, it is. That's one of the examples of the variability you're mistakenly claiming causes regression toward the mean. Which is why I felt the need to futilely add the caveat for you.

I called them curtains until about three hours ago, when I discovered it's much easier to shop for them online when you search for "window treatments". If it weren't for the intertubes, I'd still call them "curtains"...so it's Al Gore's fault...

Let me hasten to add, before HA drools all over your post, that the variation in accuracy of your measurement of a single item is completely different than the natural variation in a normally distributed population of multiple items. You measure your 36" item multiple times with your very strange set of micrometers, and the average of your measurements will be 36". If, on the other hand, you have a set of items with normally distributed lengths and an average length of 36", and measure all of them with your micrometers, you will not find that the inaccuracy of your micrometers causes everything to be measured as 36" over time. I know you know this, Wraith; I'm adding the clarification (such as it is, I'm afraid the above was unclear) for HA's benefit, as I'm pretty damned sure he'll fail to comprehend your post and insist it proves that regression in the error causes regression in the bulk population...

AmericanBlinds.com. You in the market for window treatments or something? Doesn't look like I did. Could they have turned the puck over any more? Three shots in the first period?

Tried one. Met a woman. Married her. I'm questioning the wisdom of that right now, considering that she's interrupted my hockey game to have me shop for !@#$ing window treatments online. But other than that, I'm generally happy with the result.

From biblical orthodoxy, yes. "Creationism", generally, is required, because by definition science can only describe what's observable, and there are practical limits to observation (at the very least, you can't observe beyond the point of the Big Bang...anything "before" or "outside" that is by definition a question of faith and not science.)

That's not true. They're turning over the puck quite a bit...

The same reason virtually every other operational doctrine was sh---canned post-WWII: "nuclear weapons made it irrelevent". It's the typical and common overreaction to new military technology; people think it makes the "old" obsolete. Usually it doesn't. The other reasons...pretty much minor. The Army never went much for amphibious tactics anyway (the Marines specialized in it, damn near invented the doctrine), Navy air support was somewhat of a non-issue, considering the Marine Corps have an organic air component (still do, have since the 1920'2, they largely invented the doctrine of close air support too). And a large part of it was budgetary: an independent, nuclear-armed Air Force can strike anywhere quick, an amphibious Marine Corps, not so much. Where are you going to put your money in the post-war budgetary draw-down? Most of Dougout Doug's troubles in Korea were brought on by budget issues (and issues of his own competence - not having a single combat-ready unit to deploy across the Sea of Japan was due in part to not having enough resources to outfit his units properly...and also in part to his gross dereliction of duty to his army occupying Japan in not keeping ANY of them combat-ready). MacArthur's problems in Korea, much like every other problem he ever ran into in his career, were largely of his own making; what problems weren't his were budgetary. Neither really had anything to do with Iwo Jima. No. Amphibious doctrine was alive and well, even in the immediate post-war period when the equipment and manpower was drawn down. Still is now, and it was during Vietnam. The reason North Vietnam was never invaded is the same reason Iraq is such a mess now - heavy conventional forces are handcuffed when fighting a non-war (i.e. "police action") against an insurgent force. Though it made pure military strategic sense, we couldn't invade North Vietnam to support the war in South Vietnam then anymore than we can realistically invade Iran to support operations in Iraq now. That, and air power is "cheaper"; the political leaders during Vietnam bought the story the Air Force has always tried to sell about air power being a war-winning force all on its own. The idea that the bloodletting at Iwo (and, perhaps, Okinawa - which had a much greater effect on Truman's decision to bomb Hiroshima than Iwo did) led to a shying away from amphibious doctrine in the Cold War is certainly interesting. Obviously, judging by my post, I don't believe it to be true. But it's an interesting enough idea that I'm going to look into it further, regardless of what I think.

It's a cultural thing. Same reason why The Brothers Karamazov is unreadable to a non-Russian, with Fyodor Pavlovich and Dmitri Fyodorovich and Ivan Fyodorovich and Alexei Fyodorovich and Pavel Fyodorovich...

Because it's worth it for gems like "measurement causes a rubber band to stretch".

The Arabs didn't keep very good records (again...tribal desert people. Didn't write much). A lot of the history comes from writings of the Abbasid Caliphite...who were Persian and pretty much hated the Arab Omayyid Caliphs (which is why they revolted and took over the Caliphite). So even the earliest written histories are understandably tainted. They're also tough to read. Omar's killing Ali, who killed Omar, who killed Ali al-Musaf, who killed Musaf al-Omar, which upset Omar al-Ali. It gets just a little monotonous after a while...

Not quite true. Sort of...but some important details are wrong (most particularly, you're neglecting the tribal considerations that came in to play; most of what determined who Mohammed fought with and against was based on tribal rather than religious considerations, including the Medina Jews, who just happened to align themselves with the wrong Meccans). I'll post more on it when I get home from work.

Yeah, Briere's a diver, too...

859959[/snapback] Read the WHOLE post, Poindexter.

That's because you're describing regression of the ERROR toward's the mean of the ERROR. You're just too much of an idiot to know that.

Uhhhh...he did.

Did you even read his posts?

Oh, I definitely dispute that it's measurement error. And those little details are important. Not the least of which because it shows you don't understand the first thing about it. The underlying phenomenon is there not because of luck, or measurement error, or statistics gnomes. The effect - specifically, regression toward the mean - exists because the probability of small variances from the mean is greater than the probability of large variances from the mean for independent measurements within a normal distribution.

I am absolutely disputing it, and I will continue to do so until you prove "luck" is a mathematically valid concept.

Okay...so you and hyperstats are right, and everyone else is wrong.

"True mean" OF THE ERROR, you nitwit. OF THE ERROR. Wraith capitalized it himself, I'm guessing because he knew you'd misunderstand. You measure the same item multiple times (or multiple identical items once each), to eliminate the error...which you can do because the error's normally distributed, and the variance in the weights allows you to calculate the weight where the MEAN ERROR is zero.