Bungee Jumper

Given your complete ability to understand statistics, I doubt you can comprehend what the phrase "average five year old" even means. Christ, man...you start off over here with some Mickey Mouse BS eugenics theory based on your complete misunderstanding of statistics, you get called out on it, so you follow it up with a Mickey Mouse BS statistics example proving your complete misunderstanding of statistics, get called out on that...and it's blisteringly obvious to you that the problem is everyone else? Were you dropped on your head as a child or something?

Wow. That really hit me where it hurts. Here's a hint: make fun of my mental illness. I really hate that.

I haven't yet made a comment about your knowledge of statistics. You have none to comment on.

I think one time he said he was hungry. Admittedly, there is a chance he had no !@#$ing clue whether he was hungry or not, but I chose to give him the benefit of the doubt in that regard. My point still stands: if he ever makes a sane post, we can omit it from the sample. Hell, statistically he wasn't even hungry, since we can safely omit that post as well...

The answer, though, isn't to create new and arcane rules, it's to stop treating QBs like prima ballerinas, train the officials to not be so quick on the whistle, and let the teams play ball. How is it that the league hasn't yet noticed that every new rule introduced to fix a problem with the rules actually creates more problems?

And what's your justification for choosing the threshold? Is this another half-assed assumption that "must" be right because you say so? No, they're accusing you of being an idiot, because they omit the posts where you know what you're talking about (which, according to you, is statistically valid), and the rest prove your ignorance.

His mom, not his cousin. These southern family trees are so confusing...

Kids these days. You don't know anything about disturbing music, not until you've listened to Diana Ross and Lionel Richie singing "Endless Love"...

Like your bull sh-- interpretation of "statistics".

Yeah, I've heard that he prefers taking inconfident heterosexual's things more softly... Wait...what?

I'm pretty sure he was being sardonic. Though his post could have used more cowbell nonetheless.

The federal budget deficit is bad. So sayeth the idiots that created it.

In other words, the vast majority of Americans think it's a big problem, if somebody bothers to tell them it even exists. God, people are idiots.

Sounds like a 1 to me...

Have they retired Joe Montana's number yet? He did more for them than Moon did...

It may be annoying, but by your definition it's statistically valid.

I rate mine a 1...but if the chess club offered free snacks...

JP Losman's career QB rating against the bye week is 40.0. He sucks. Cut him.

Actually, he's pretty much right. I get in serious trouble all the time for doing things that are outside the scope of the contract, even if said things save time and money. And my employer's actually pretty lenient about such things - the worst case I know of is where a consulting firm was asked if they could transmit data via secure FTP instead of https, and responded "We'd need a contract mod to do it."

Well, if you assume I didn't answer, and assume I chickened out, and assume you asked a remotely valid question, and assume my objections were invalid, and assume I demonstrated any shortcomings...then your statements are just as informed as your statistical knowledge.

Sorry, I have to... Start by looking for someone over the age of 14...

Yeah, that's roughly the same.

VA has a Jackson-Lee day? Cool...

"Everyone's criticizing my knowledge of statistics, so I'm going to leave NO doubt that I don't know what I'm talking about!" HA is the quintessential example of how it's better to keep your mouth shut and let people wonder if you're an idiot rather than to open it and remove all doubt.

It's the American Way. Spending money on advanced technology to fix a fundamentally human problem - in this case, the fundamentally human problem of Florida's inability to define a "vote" coherently. Would have been a lot cheaper for every state to review their election laws and guidelines to make sure that a "vote" was concretely and coherently defined, rather than leave it to the vote counters to divine the "intent of the voter".