Bungee Jumper

You're an idiot.

Hyperstats is an authoritative source. Hyperphysics is not. Get it?

Have you ever heard of a binomial expansion? Know what a binomial coefficient is?

Not coincidentally, the same gene has been linked to being a Bills fan...

Bull. If there's anything we learned from Bledsoe, it's that the QB's performance is the most important factor in how the line plays, not vice-versa. [/sarcasm]

No, I couldn't resist it because you consistently misuse and misunderstand words. I honestly read that and said "What the !@#$ is he saying now? An 'average' person doesn't regress toward the mean, they are the !@#$ing mean." This is entirely due to the fact that you are imprecise and completely confused - when not simply ignorant - in thought and word.

I've got to go with Dax, Holcomb's Arm, or Deluca.

Start using proper terminology, and I'll discuss it with you. The "average person" is, by definition, AT THE POPULATION MEAN, YOU MORON. THAT'S WHAT "AVERAGE" MEANS. It's impossible to discuss when you abuse the vocabulary.

No, some of those who were aggressors got their asses kicked. I'm talking in regards to doctrine (including, to a degree, C3I); in general, if you have better command, communications, intelligence, and can maintain a higher operational pace, you're fighting battles on your terms and not the enemy's, and you win. That's true on the offensive (Lee's "Seven Days" in the Peninsular Campaign in the Civil War - he actually lost every battle during the Seven Days, but greatly out-commanded and out-maneuvered McClellan, and won the campaign) as it is on the defensive (the Germans at Kharkov, 1942). Which is why I included the Graf Spee: German doctrine as represented by the pocket battleship, while transformational (though it was just a rehash of Napoleonic commerce raiding, it was transformational in that by 1915 the world navies had gotten away from commerce raiding in favor of the big fleet actions), could not ultimately dictate terms of battle to the British at an operational level. The disinformation that finally convinced Langsdorff to scuttle was - aside from a perfect example illustrating my point (the Germans couldn't dictate battle at the operational level in part because the commerce raiding doctrine left the raiders unsupported by such things as proper intelligence) - was just the final nail in the coffin that had been slowly nailed shut over the previous six weeks.

And again, for the millionth time, you're seeing the regression of the error towards the mean of the error. Which is not regression of the tested person to the population mean. One is not the other. One might look like the other...but only to a complete tool like yourself who doesn't know what he's talking about.

Juice was because of the heat under the stage lights (he said so in a later post). In which case...though I'd normally agree with you, I think he was right in this case. I think. I'm honestly not sure. But it's probably what I would have done.

God, why? They're probably right.

Well...okay then. I'll give the short version now, just who dictated the nature of the battle without going into the how and why of it; the long version will have to wait until later, because I work for idiots The Meuse, 1940: the Germans Desert Storm: the "Coalition" (really the US) Gkolki: Shaka. You probably haven't heard of Gkolki; it's the first major battle of the Zulu Civil War, which Shaka won. He won it in large part because he revolutionized Zulu doctrine. Jena-Auerstadt: Napoleon Malaysa/Singapore: the Japanese Moscow in 1941: the Germans The later Korean War: the Chinese The Battle of the River Plate (Graf Spee vs. Exeter et. al.): The Germans (though that's not quite accurate; the battle itself was just the culmination of a series of events that themselves demonstrated flaws in the German "crusier" doctrine) Midway: the Japanese I could go into detail...but like I said, I work for idiots, and don't have the time now.

Don't know. Talk to KRC.

Yeah, sure... Then how come you were never banned for your politics? Or Coli? Or Pasta Joe? Or Scraps? There is a difference between having unpopular political views and being a complete disruptive ass, you know.

And then, when people die from it (like misprescribed anti-depressants), let's blame the drugs and not the idiot doctors. The FDA should start putting warning labels on doctors: "Warning: this bozo may be too lazy to do his job properly."

Well...it was a very good stew...

I think it's funnier how you look dumb all on your own...

But - and here's the key point here - THAT'S NOT REGRESSION TOWARD THE MEAN. You keep insisting it is. This is because you can't distinguish between the error in the test and the normal distribution of the population. This is because you're a !@#$ing idiot.

It's 3.5. Check a die. But you won't see it. The die's wrong.

Kill Vick's career? It would kill Vick. Imagine Vick running straight ahead over guard and being hit behind a middle linebacker. It would also kill Schaub. Can anyone imagine Vick picking up a blitz?

No...but I'm going to call you a "fake liberal" from now on. Just for laughs...

It depends. It will, only because ADHD is very overdiagnosed nowadays. By which I mean: it will, in the numerous cases where ADHD is not actually ADHD. It's just too easy nowadays to want the "magic pill" that cures what ails you...particularly so when you're a teacher or school administrator that just wants the little brat to sit down and shut up, and it's so much easier to tell the parents "Your dear child needs Ritilan, sorry to say" than it is to deal with it with the meager tools at hand. ADHD is a real illness...but not all ADHD diagnoses are really ADHD.

Actually, if you think about it...it does. It's because of the completely arbitrary nature of the cut-off: picture the gaussian curve. Cut it sharply at 140 (hell - the three-sigma limit, let's keep it measurement-neutral). If you test that subset again, there will be SOME tests that are less than that arbitrary three-sigma limit, simply because of the natural distribution of error - the cut-off is no longer sharp, but tails off (very quickly, as it's dictated by the gaussian distribution of the error and not the population, but it does tail off). Therefore, the mean of EVERYONE who scores three sigmas or above does drop SLIGHTLY. HA's utter and complete stupidity...well, it exists on several levels: - he doesn't understand that there's NO earthly reason to even do anything like that. - He's so ignorant about basic math that it takes him several HUNDRED posts to get his point across, regardless of whether or not his point is correct or not. He doesn't have the vocabulary to discuss it intelligently. - he doesn't realize that, in the limit of the entire population, that tail-off is counter-balanced by a similar effect in the larger subset he's ignoring...so that the net effect over the population is zero. - he keeps vacillating on the parameters of the arbitrary cut-off ("Take everyone who scores 140...no, wait, take everyone who scores ABOVE 140...no, wait, I was right the first time.") - he can't distinguish between discrete and continuous variables. In particule, the numbskull keeps discussing IQ scores in increments of ten with errors of plus or minus ten. OF COURSE you're going to see some effect at that granularity. He keeps talking about scores of 130, 140, 150...what about the people at 134-146? Which brings us to: - he can't do simple math. He can do simple bull sh-- math, in increments of tens. Nothing more complex. - he can't distinguish between error and variance. Yes, I already said he doesn't have the vocabulary, but this is more basic: he can't differentiate between a normal population distribution and the normal distribution of error in a single test. Basically, he's equating the error in my taking an IQ test to everyone's error in every IQ test ever taken. And that's just the math errors. Never mind the topics of genetics and psychology.

$$$$$ The D was unquestionably a sweet plane...but don't kid yourself: the earlier versions were underpowered and somewhat (somewhat) lacking in maneuverability because of it. The Tomcat excelled in what it was designed for: winning the outer air battle of a CVBG with a big radar with lots of processing power and big-ass AAMs. It was also a one-trick pony (despite the Bombcats) and a maintenance hog (even early airframes, never mind the aged ones). And again: don't kid yourself. When you're in the middle of the Indian Ocean in the middle of a 12-month deployment flying support for NATO troops in Afghanistan 24-7, keeping planes flying is what matters. The greatest aircraft in the world doesn't do sh-- for you if it's breasts-up 60% of the time (typical for a Tomcat). The Rhino, on the other hand: you know it can be maintained, you know it'll fly, it'll use less fuel per mission, it'll take a wider variety of ordnance than the Tomcat (including buddy stores), it's got better low observability traits, it can (i.e. it's already been shown to be capable of) self-defend on strike missions (which means it's basically doing the job of two planes)...the Tomcat may be a better weapon than the F/A-18E...but a carrier battlegroup is a better weapon armed with F/A-18E's than with Tomcats.