Bungee Jumper

Friendly fire happens. Don't like it? Don't fight.

I believe it's rated "T-Bone"...

Burkas and car bombers common in Kuwait? Seriously...(half-serious with the car bomber question). Honestly, I'm never sure whether to defer to your opinion of Arabs because you have lived among them, or to question it as biased by the types of Arabs you lived among. My biggest concern, though, would be that you don't seem to ask that question yourself; you seem to simply assume that the Arabs you were familiar with were representative of Arabs as a whole.

They were Saudis though, weren't they? I'd hardly consider Saudis "average" Arab Muslims. That's almost like calling David Koresh an "average" American.

I was going to say you, but then I though "Nah...I haven't picked on Ed in almost an hour..."

If you ask him nicely, Ed can probably help with that...

CNN et al.'s bias is covert: when so many of your senior people share the same beliefs (something like 80%+ are registered Democrat), you've basically set up an environment where said set of beliefs is "natural", and no one within the organization ever thinks to qualify them (which is why Jesse Jackson is "Reverend Jesse Jackson" but Pat Robertson is "The Right-Wing Christian Reverend Pat Robertson) or question whether they're widely held outside the organization. Fox Snooze, on the other hand, is overtly biased. It was started by Rupert Murdoch with the explicitly stated intent of creating a media outlet with an explicit right-wing bias. That's why it's characterized differently. Because it pretty much is different.

Why? He is a retard.

No, if you take the IQ test the first time and score 190, and your "real IQ" is 180, and the error is +/- 10, you have to score lower the second time. The real question then becomes: how do you determine your "real IQ"? I'm sure the answer will be something like "Your real IQ is the number it regresses to after successive testing." Which just demonstrates my initial point: he's measuring the wrong !@#$ing thing! The IQ measurement isn't what's regressing, the error is regressing toward the mean error of zero.

If it prevents posters like you, I'm all for it.

My statistical physics?

And here's where I start laughing my ass off. How does the error just go away the second time around? If the take the test again, you still have 10 people with a "real IQ" (which is a total bull sh-- term, by the way ) of 190 taking the same test with the same error...which means you get 2 people scoring 200, and your distribution's the same. You can't just magically eliminate the error. Well, you can, apparently. But people with a modicum of common sense and bound by reality can't...

Gifted is 1 SD. Genius is 2 SD. Average is just error. And yes, he's picking numbers out of his...ass. I'm convinced he hit on a reasonably correct 1.5 standard deviations off the mean simply by accident, as there's no WAY he used any sort of discretion or judgement in choosing it.

I understand, too. I understood from the very beginning, when I called him an idiot. It's a common - and incredibly stupid - misconception that "general welfare" is identical to the sum of every individual's welfare, and that if you've taken care of every individual and protected them from harm, you've protected the general welfare. Any public health professional can tell you that the general welfare of the public is NOT the quantitative sum of the welfare of individuals. Ditto national defense. Ditto law enforcement. Ditto the economy. "Promoting the general welfare" and protecting people are two vastly different things.

In his defense (don't ask me why I'm defending him, I don't !@#$ing know), 115 would be 1.5 standard deviations away from the mean, which would mean he's safely selecting from within the "gifted" category. Which doesn't explain why he picked a standard deviation of 10 and a selection criteria of 115 out of his ass, rather than go with the standard 30 and 145 in a normal IQ measure. It's not really material to the math, since a gaussian's a gaussian's a gaussian...but it's pretty funny that, when attempting to measure something related to IQ, he can't even pick the correct numbers to describe it.

Which is different from "taking care of us".

That makes no sense. I'm not surprised, because it's you after all. But it makes no sense. You're using a defined normally distributed error to prove the error's not normally distributed. That is all kinds of !@#$ing stupid.

You're going to have a REALLY healthy marriage. God help the woman that marries you...

Is it just me, or does this pathetic excuse for a team deserve it?

They're kids who're really fast in wet conditions... ...oh no, wait, that's muddering children. My bad.

Technically the water killed her. He only wrecked the car.

"Seeking". Of all people...you know better, Panda Diddler...

What does it really mean> It means he broke a rib, dumbass.

Because...because...because they're imitating studdering (sic) children.

It's more important that it be based in fact and not anecdote.