Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"The odds in favor of an event or a proposition are expressed as the ratio of a pair of integers such that the first represents the relative likelihood that the event will happen"
"Chance of dying" as derived from death rate: 10 of 100 people died. In this closed set, chances of dying are 1:10.
Note: the odds are (and only can be) calculated with two integers from the same set.
Example: one side of a dice from six possible sides of a dice (and not one side of a dice from the volume of the dice used).
Thus:
chances of dying in Iraq:
277:140'000 = 0.001978571 (277 of 140'00 soldiers have died)
chances of being murdered in California:
2004: 2392:35'842'038 = 0.000066737 (2392 of 35 million people murdered)
2005: 2503:36'154'147 = 0.000069231 (2503 of 36 million people murdered)
The chances of a person dying in Iraq are roughly 29 times higher than the chances of a person being murdered in California.
Territory size doesn't enter into "chances of dying/being murdered", these chances are exlusively calculated on the size of the sample population.
Fox might have been right with "more people are murdered per day in California than die in Iraq".
However, this statement is:
a) not really of value, since quantity of sample size influences quantity of probable events, and in probabilty, not sole quantity of events matter, but ratio of quantity of events to sample size.
b) they didn't even leave it at that (as flawed as a) is), but explicitly mentioned "chances of dying", which excludes territory size, murders per day, number of pelicans in area, and happy meals eaten by toddlers, all of which have nothing to do with it. Size of sample population matters.
I repeat, in the direct quote taken from your post, Fox lied when they claimed that the chances of dying in Iraq were less than being murdered in California.
I wonder if those figures take into account the abortion rate in Kaleefornia.
Now they are complaining that Obama is not "acting nice" with the Repubs? After 18 months of beating his head against a wall, why would anyone be surprised Obama is no longer "acting nice" with the Repubs?
Beck, "how the republic will win in the upcoming 2004 election" LMAO!
He must have been reading from an old Birch Society blurb and forgot to update the date.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
