Bungee Jumper

Which is an embarrassment to the American public, if their opinions are so shallow that four days of empty rhetoric can cause such a swing. American society is SO screwed...

Weiss himself didn't think so! He said so in the damn study, fool.

That can actually happen, when neither person involved is actually being a !@#$tard. It's rare...usually because we only get people like catchescannonballs or Joey Balls over here. But it does happen.

I'm pretty sure you don't speak for mainstream science. And considering I'm published, I'm damn sure I'm more qualified to speak for mainstream science than you are. And mainstream science laughs at you.

Ah, the heirs of Jack Kennedy...

Am I the only one that heard Fred Sanford's voice when I read that? "JP, you big dummy! Ooooh...this is the big one, I'm comin' Elizabeth!"

No, it's everyone else's fault. Just like it's everyone else that doesn't understand statistics. We're all just a bunch of stastically challenged bullies regressing toward the mean...

That's because the Bills got the turnovers. Jauron-ball works if the opponent coughs it up more than you do. Which is pretty much synonymous to "the team you are playing is crapper than you", of course...

I believe that's the game, yes. That was possibly the worst effort by a winning Bills QB I can recall in recent memory. That includes yesterday's putrid effort by Losman.

Particularly with Dick Jauron as your coach. Yesterday was a perfect example of Jauron-ball. Protect the football, keep the opponent out of the end zone, and get turnovers. It'll win games, but it's not the most thrilling football on the planet... ...which is part of the problem here. If it isn't the K-Gun, it's sh-- to most younger Bills fans, it seems.

That would require, though, that said demographics act as unified bodies. It's not accurate, for example, to say that "Shiites" are sick of daily violence...clearly some aren't, since Shiite death squads are running around. So the real question then becomes: how much of a violence-committing minority does it take to completely !@#$ things up? Sadly, I think you'll find it only requires a very small minority (Castro at one point was down to five people)...and if they're supported from outside in the manner I outlined earlier, they become very hard to combat. And all this is still oversimplifying things. The moderate Sunnis, for example, are still politically weaker than they otherwise would be because of their own short-sighted tactics (specifically: boycotting the parlimentary elections a year-plus back and ensuring their own lack of participation in the government.) So are Sunni "insurgents" (sic) true political insurgents, sectarian death squads, or moderate Sunnis desperately playing catch-up for their short-sighted earlier policies? The bottom line, though, is that no matter what, outside forces (specifically, Iran, Syria, and radical Islamists of the al-Qaeda sort) will always court the fringe groups no matter how well you get the moderates to agree, and the fringe groups will always achieve a minimum level of effectiveness (i.e. simple existence) because of the outside support.

What you have going on here is what was best expressed by Wolfgang Pauli: "That's not right, that's not even wrong!" What he meant was, when it comes to science, it's possible to be right, it's possible to be wrong, or it's possible to be such an ineffable idiot that you haven't even achieved anything resembling science. An excellent example of this is pretending the number "130" is an acceptable substitute for a gaussian distribution. You're not right, you're not even wrong. I'm going to say this again: DO THE MATH. The actual math. Demonstrate this with a normal distribution. Do not demonstrate it with "130", because "130" IS NOT A NORMAL DISTRIBUTION.

But it will make it average, hence true, as the repeated error causes it to regress towards the mean...

I was being vague, though, in lumping all the violence under the umbrella term "insurgency". It's not literally correct...but literally, all the vioilence can be lumped under the term "asymmetric warfare", so my analysis still holds for the factional violence. I highly doubt the Sunni and/or Shi'ia death squads are operating in a vacuum; someone on the outside has to be supporting them. Which just illustrates another fallacy of the occupation: simply occupying Iraq is a joke of a plan at this point (not that it ever wasn't...but that's outside the scope of our discussion). If outside forces are fostering internal instability, it's no longer intranational, but a regional issue, and you'd have to work out the issues to the satisfaction of THOSE parties as well. Considering that one of those parties is a country we're trying to force sanctions on for their nuclear pursuits...good luck with that. In fact, actively supporting ANY insurgents (i.e. asymmetric fighters) in Iraq is good strategic sense for Iran: it's virtually the only means they have of strategically projecting power against the US, and probably does more to shield their nuke program from US interference than anything else they could manage.

In other words, the Wikipedia article's equation was using the term in exactly the right way. 827046[/snapback] And you're basing that all on the h being lower case? I don't suppose you can define "variance", can you?

STOP PICKING ON HIM! YOU JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW ERROR CAUSES REGRESSION TOWARD THE MEAN! Of course, neither does he...

Jesus Christ. You're so !@#$ing dumb, you can't even define "average" properly. And you got it backwards. Your example would illustrate deviation AWAY FROM the mean.

Except BF pretty much knew he was an ignorant ass. He didn't try to hide it like Holcomb's Arm.

It's true. He keeps it in a jar in his locker.

The Russians provided everyone with arms; they needed the currency. More to the point, though, is that asymmetric warfare (i.e. insurgents) requires a secure geographical region out of which the insurgency can be supported. If they have a place of relative security to run to (e.g. the Afghani Mujahadeen and Pakistan, Castro and the Sierra Maestra mountains, Russian partisans in WWII and the Polesi'ia, the Viet Cong and...everywhere outside South Vietnam, really), it's very hard for insurgents to lose an insurgency campaign. Conversely, you'd be hard-pressed to think of any successful asymmetrical campaign that didn't feature a secure geographical base. The Serbs never really had that. Even if they had moral and financial support, they didn't have a secure geographical base and were organizationally vulnerable. The Iraqi insurgents...a good number of fighters have always come from Syria or Iran (in the invasion itself, a huge chunk of the "Fedayeen" were Syrian nationals looking to fight The Great Satan.); right now, it's probably less warm bodies coming over the border than organizational support.

You might be right...but I do remember this level of despair after Flutie stunk it up against Baltimore, for example. Since then...it's been a long, slow slide down into football retardia...

That would be mine, too. Saw that last week. I'm still not sure it wasn't satire...

"Some more"? You never did any before this. Still haven't; "answer.com" isn't research. Go to a !@#$ing library No, I'm using the first definition, ignoring the second, and you're making up a third. Nothing in there matches your fantastical little idiot-definition. 826977[/snapback] Your half-assed ignorant misunderstanding is what happens when you cherry-pick things out of context that you think support your case. READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE, YOU !@#$ING MORON!

I can. Back in the RJ/DF days. "The Bills won with the wrong guy at QB. Life sucks."

But you can't omit it, because it's heritable...