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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
he didnt say PER POPULATION, he said PER GEOGRAPHIC AREA... The math is correct because you do the math based upon SQUARE MILES, NOT population.. Had fox said PER population they would be wrong, but they CLEARLY said "geographical SIZE"
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 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 can't believe you took all that time to explain something pgh already knew. He isn't that dense, he just believes a lot of the readers on this forum, are. It's very Republican of him.
Note: the odds are (and only can be) calculated with two integers from the same set.
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.
Do any of you Fox News students get this? Or do you have to have Glenn Beck approve it for you first?
I can't believe you took all that time to explain something pgh already knew. He isn't that dense, he just believes a lot of the readers on this forum, are. It's very Republican of him.
It's a question of principles.
If you let a ridiculous lie like this pass, you get others who mindlessly cheer for the perceived victory over the "*******s", and carry with them a false sense of entitlement (as seen in this thread).
Best to stifle this circus wherever the option presents itself.
And it's always funny to see neoconservative stalwarts on CDF run and hide when their allegations are proven wrong (such as the brave poster quoted in my previous post).
plus, I was mildly drunk and couldn't sleep, so there...
FOX just had a little piece about the Daily Show appearance. Although they covered nothing about the substance of what was on, they were somewhat kind in the treatment some of Stewart's zings.
They seem to be incessantly gloating on how badly the Dems are going to do on Tues. It could true, but what if not? How would they explain that? Oh, I forgot, they already have some explanations going on.
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.
