Bungee Jumper

I've heard worse homers, though. Actually, I think the Bruins' announcers are the best thing about New England sports. Of course, I hold NE sports in generally low regard anyway... But really...during the game, they seem to me to talk hockey first, and Bruins hockey second. If they're not even-handed with their praise, they tend to be with their analysis.

I'm a Republican today?

"Promotor" (sic)? Sounds more like "ass hole", actually.

No, it's valid. It introduces error, sure...but that's just regression toward the mean anyway.

Oh, in that case, I'm all for it. Larouche supporters deserve to be pummelled by us "pagan followers of Isaac Newton" on sight, just as a general principle. I'm pretty sure Franken still hits like a girl, though.

I told some guys at work today "The Sabres can beat the Bruins in their sleep." Well...apparently I was wrong. They have to be awake for the last ten minutes.

Good girl. And nice avatar, too.

You know, it's not like it matters. For a while now, I've been vacillating between fearing what would happen if the Republicans kept Congress ("more of the same"), and if the Democrats won Congress (you think the Clinton impeachment was a circus, wait 'til a Democratic House and Senate tee off on Bush). But then I realized that, no matter who controls Congress, the administration is going to continue to do what it's done for the past six years: ignore Congress and do whatever the hell it wants. So who cares who wins? They're all money-grubbing leeches, anyway. The American public takes it up the ass no matter who wins.

Thanks for clarifying that when you said "regression toward the mean" and "error" were the same thing, you actually meant that "regression toward the mean" and "error" are the same thing. Although this explanation does further clarify that you do not, in fact, know what you're talking about. That's not an example of error causing regression toward the mean. That's an example of error causing error. It's an even better example of error causing error causing error - because that is the worst example of the evolution of a statistical distribution I've ever seen. You really suck as a statistician. Seriously. You're horrible. You have the math skills of a mollusk. My fingernail clippings have a better knowledge of genetics than you do. You can't even distinguish between the mean of a distribution and a discrete value, you don't know the difference between error and regression, you think "heritability" as "inheritability" are the same damn thing. Your only source is an egregiously unscientific paper on the career choices of East German children which is so incomplete that even the author of the paper admits it. And yet, you still insist that you're right and the entire !@#$ing scientific world is wrong. I pity you.

Maybe in Castro...

All the qualities the Corps looks for...

Billy Ray Cyrus procreated?

They were only Gods in their own minds, anyway. And the Sabres shattered that illusion when they beat 'em 9-1.

I think...oooh, a shiny object! I like cheese. What?

Maybe he was adopted by smart parents. Because the correlation between the intelligence of parents and their adopted kids is zero, so that must mean that adopted kids with smart parents are really really dumb, since the intelligence isn't "heritable" (sic) with a correlation factor of zero... You know, it's actually a lot harder to string that gibberish together when you know you're abusing the terminology...

I support his right to freedom of expression. I supported it yesterday. I support it today. If he wants to wear his costume tomorrow, I'll support it tomorrow. Which is not to say the kid isn't a !@#$ing idiot. The kid is, in fact, a !@#$ing idiot. I just support his right to demonstrate it to everyone.

You're only laughing because you have anger issues.

Why? I'm sure it'll be fair and unbiased. It'll be completely !@#$ing wrong. But it'll be fair and unbiased.

Has anyone called you a right-wing apologist in this thread yet?

"Regression toward the mean" and "error" are TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS, YOU MORON!!! Where the hell is the "error" in that equation? Point to it. You can't. Because it's not there. Because in the bulk limit, as the sample size goes to infinity, the cumulative error averages to precisely zero. Which is why I did the math in the bulk limit (i.e. a gaussian distribution.) In fact, I even explicitly added an error term to it just now, just for kicks. Want to know what happened? Not regression toward the mean...the results diverge wildly from the mean, as the overall error rapidly overwhelms the other terms in the equation. Like I said: Do the math. Don't tell me what the math means, until you do the math.

Of course it is. Al Franken hits like a girl.

But neither irony, sarcasm, nor hyperbole are elements of Nazi Party philosophy...

No, I'm not confused. I've published peer-reviewed papers on this sh--. Take your equation, and instead of pretending it applies to discrete individuals, calculate it with an x-bar of exp((x-10)^2)/1800), and (m+f)/2 of whatever gaussian distribution you care to use (I used exp((x^2-110)/200) - a breeding population with an IQ of 110, with a standard deviation of 10). That is the bulk limit of the system, you dimwit. Do the calculation - do it yourself, like I did, don't come back with "someone else says your wrong" if you won't do the math yourself - and tell me what happens.

No, it doesn't. It deals with the statistical variance of intelligence through generations. It is a feature of the equation itself that, when taken in the bulk limit (any bulk limit you care to analyze it in - I just did it for an extreme example of your eugenics program, where the general population has a specific mean and standard deviation, but the breeding population has a different one, with higher mean and smaller deviation) there is a regression to the mean. That's not "measurement error". That's math. It's Statistics 101; it's something you should have learned in your "statistics classes". The rest of your post is horseshit, because it stems from the above incorrect assumption that you know what you're talking about. If you weren't too stupid and lazy to do the math yourself, you could easily prove to yourself that you're wrong. And you're still defining heritability wrong. You can find the correct definition in this article, you !@#$ing bozo.

But...but...but...George Soros!