cual equipo sta ganando?
Printable View
cual equipo sta ganando?
Kansas State: 12 - 10
Es la segundo cuarto lol
eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeejo.
WOOOO!
TOUCHDOWN! 17-12 Nebraska!
Por favor, me dices cuando mi espanol no es correcto.
hola sombra, como estas?
hola bebido! bien, y tu?
bueno pues antonio.
(dime=tell me.)
y aqui que esta pasando ?
todos estan hablando en espagnol :D .
acabo de ver la pelicula SAW , esta mejor la primera que la nueva que acaba de salir .
ay caramba habla espanol tu tambien!!!
pues si , yo vengo de Guatemala , tu eres Mexicana no Misombrita ?
I agree with this post.Quote:
Originally Posted by misombra
The research was made analysing statistical data based on life longevity of both "married" and "single" communities. The analysis show that on statistical level married couples demonstrated a higher potential for longer life span due to a number of factors (Such as better well being due to both partners looking after one another, better chance of spotting damaging health symproms and therefore get early treatment, better financial resources due to combined incomes etc...)
But I kind of expected there would be people saying things like. "Oh, but i know this guy who's old and single and he hasn't yet died, well that definetely proves the research is wrong". Or "Well, but if you are married you can still get hit by a trcuk or a plane can fall on your head or you can be attacked by a mad goat and die a horrible death..." What i'm not seeing is statistics and research and percentage of married people affected (e.g. The percentage of married people attacked by mad goats compared to single people) :D
I also think that the results apply to single (As in without a partner and not looking) and married (As in living together with a wife) people. I classify outgoing folks, with social lifestyles and good dating experience as a different category.
Great to see so many responses though :)
Way over my head.
Really? But all of your responses were very good :)Quote:
Originally Posted by whaywardj
I'm just trying to get a better argument backed up with something substantial from a couple of others...
I mean statistical analysis methodologies. I get MEGO (My Eyes Glaze Over). I take it, though, that the one method apprehends a pattern of events over time at the expense of identifying unique variables, while the other captures a pattern of unique varibale at the expense of a timeline. Like a snapshot versus a film. (?)
I don't think I agree with all that. Yeah they have done research on it and have things to prove their theories but, Like Ov said they don't have a diagnosis for for death caused by being single. Yes you have someone that will notice things before you and urge you into the doctor, But I cannot believe or agree that if your single and not looking you will die sooner than a married couple. I mean there could be so many other reasons for that happening to the people they studied. Depression has a major effect on lots of things and I think that will have something to do with it.
Uh uh uh. Not WILL. But, MORE LIKELY TO...Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosebud
Just like if you are a chain smoker, there is no proven fact which says that you WILL die sooner than a person who doesn't smoke. But you are MORE LIKELY TO due to statistics available of life spans of both chain smokers and non smokers, and percentage ratio comparissons of deaths from both groups.
This one is a similar analogy. Take statistical data of deaths ratios in equal amount of people from both communities (In the same living environment e.g. same suburbs) over a period of time up to a certain age and then comapre the ratio of deaths. The statistics in this research appear to show that "statistically" community made of individuals who are single have a 9% risk to die sooner than the individuals in the community of married people, therefore individuals who are married are MORE LIKELY TO live longer not withstanding in comparison to some special cases (E.g. to Very sociable, multi dating, single individuals etc...)
I mean, you can refuse to believe due to some personal predispositions and it will still hold true for some, but do you have a reasonable argument that persuades otherwise or tells the opposite? E.g. OV believes that even though you are married you can still get hit by a bus and therefore die. But in that case are we saying that the above research does not apply because some one who is married has more chances of being hit by a bus than someone who is single? Because if both have similar chances of being hit by a bus, that means the data above still holds true...
that would be a longitudinal study vs. cross-sectional. frizz committed the ecological fallacy. it has to do with mixing different levels of analysis, over- generalizing. just because a high divorce rate corresponds with suicide on an national level doesn't mean that one person is going to commit suicide if they're divorced. just because age of death corresponds with being single doesn't mean a person is going to die because they're single.Quote:
Originally Posted by whaywardj
Right. And just because you say all that doesn't mean I understand a word of it.
::appears a visit to the library is in order if I intend to have an intelligent conversation with any of THESE people. Friggin' eggheads.::
Thats right, they are just more likely too...Quote:
Originally Posted by misombra
Hayward, stop pretending you don't understand. I know you better than that :)
No. I shit you not. I can almost grasp the fundamentals. But when it comes applying the metrics, I'm like a crazy man in a kitchen banging pots and pans together.
THIS is PRECISELY one of the reasons, kids, YOU DON'T WANT TO QUIT HIGH-SCHOOL. Being an autodidact is all well and good, but you end having these HUGE gaps in your basic education the produce GIGANTIC blind spots in your understanding. They begin to annoy you so much, you end up going to libraries to learn what you COULD'VE learned way back when if only you hadn't been so busy being a know-it-all punk.
i quit high school.
Great. Now what are the kiddies supposed to think?
that dropping out is the cool thing to do.
jk.
no , its just that if you screw up at some point , you can always pick yourself up and manage to get a good path in life . it doesnt mean that you dont fit in the school system because your a "defect" in theyr world that your completely lost ... see things that dont work for society are CALLED "defects, failure , mentally insane or criminal " but it doesnt mean that your "labeled" this that it truly means you ARE one , this is just the names that they give to ppl that society doesnt know what to do with them because they dont make their "society , corrupted political , robot world" work in their convenient way .
i agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Late_vamp
______
That was the case in my situation, LV. I dropped out of HS after my first year not because I was a misfit, but because the system just wasn't meeting my needs as a student. Though a series of fortunate circumstances, I found myself in college at 16, despite not having a HS diploma or a GED, and did swimmingly...so long as I applied myself. The different educating contexts made all the difference. There are times, though, I wish I'd stuck HS out so I wouldn't have to so often be teaching myself now what, in a better HS surrounding, I could've learned then. My assumption being that HS's of today couldn't possibly be worse than what I abandoned back then. I could be very wrong on that point.
I have gone through HS and believe me , 80 % of the things they teach you there are pure useless garbage . have kind of experienced what my bro and sisters have had in their time in HS ( them being all around 10 to 13 y older than me )
we had the same books , can you believe that , the SAME books for 20 YEARS ... how can they teach you properly . HS is so over hyped . they empaphize on " on its SOOO important for the future " ... no its NOT . It was such a waste of time , 90 % of the time in HS i either slept in class/ goofed off with classmates AND teachers ( yes teachers) , or i just skipped class ( at least twice per week was mandatory for me ) ... and i always had grades about 60 to 80 % ... imagine i applied myself to it and actually would have done my homework and reserches ... i would have had 90 % and up all the time ...
they have dumb classes like sex ed for like 5 years ... who the heck needs to learn more about sex ed, one year is enough , then you have gym , running lapses of miles next to a damn cold lake . then PC classes , such waste of time , i knew so much in that class that i used to get 100 % by doing nothing and then the teacher would ask me something i would reply something completely killing the other classmates answers by far ... bahh , i was high and drunk 70 % of the time anyways . but now iv stopped . ummm , healthy .
Yup, that's an anti-social way of looking at things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Late_vamp
I like comparing society to a human body instead of "corrupted political robots". In a healthy society there is a lot of potential and growth. That, which contributes to society's health decline in the form of growing suicide rates or social unrest is examined, evaluated and resolved (By direct or indirect means). Some of the things you listed above like growing rate of criminal intent, violent behaviour, insanity are forms of symptoms for major disorders, which need to be treated before they explode into something serious. For example a person who has caused grevious bodily harm with conscious malicious intent has every right to be "Labeled" as a criminal by authorities and isolated from the rest of soicety until the threat from this individual to others is no longer present.
But i agree with comments in regards of the public education system such in High Schools. I think it needs some major reforms...
yes but we don't penalize a heart when it stops beating. we find more ways for it to work. and yes it's labeled, a coronary by-pass, helping it to function again properly. we don't just take it out and call it a bad heart, right? interesting analogy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mishanya
I think something like a heart failure should be compared to a Nuclear Holocoust, which anihilates all of social governance, recovery, resource, profit and spiritual facillities. It is possible to recover, but greater are the chances to be occupied and colonized by hostile forces and be completely absorbed (What happened to the Native Americans suddenly comes to mind).Quote:
Originally Posted by misombra
I would compare a homicidal criminal more to a cancer cell, which only causes harm and serves no purposes in your body...
I think the only people who will have a shorter life span are the people who actually believe in this crap. Their own stupidity will cave in on them and kill them. Don't even need to bring up all those fallacies with percentage statistics. Its obvious most are bogus. How many people did they ask and who? Did they ask all 6 billion people on their life style? Are married man more likely to fall down the stairs at night then single man? offcourse! they have to visit their crying baby....now who the hell would want to fall down the stairs? not me thats for sure.
LoL offcourse we have identical qualities. I am nothing but a monkey..the difference is I have a much greater sense of awarness of my serrounding and I can use logic. I have the ability to say " I am alone and fine"... while the monkies instincts just tell him that he will be screwed on his own. Free thought I meant. Philosophy. I know nothing matters and I will be perfectly healthy on my own. I dont need anyone to confide in...if I did have someone like that I still wouldnt.Quote:
Originally Posted by whaywardj
Ofcourse. All bogus! Every single one of them!!! Whats a number but some form of logical construct created by a human mind. How can anyone know anything without investigating every single atom in the universe? Is our existence interpretation of electrical signals by our brain, then whose to say we even exist?Quote:
Originally Posted by Only-virgins
Science, statistics, medical stuff, who needs all that when you can just be ignorant and pretend nothing happens outside of your own head Yeh, just live carefree and ignore everything... Ignorance is bliss! Right OV?
OV finally got on your nerves did he, Mishanya? Seems to be his present raison d'etre. Appears as if he's against everything, but for nothing.
LoL Frenchy...Quote:
Originally Posted by whaywardj
Good point Hayward. I think it's very sad when people start using a subject such as philosophy which is a discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, as well as indepth insight into human nature, to justify their own ignorance. If "nothing is certain, why be certain in anything?" Or more importantly, "why should I listen to you and your research when my mind tells me I am right 100% of the time?"Quote:
Originally Posted by whaywardj
It's okay if someone disagrees with reaserch based on objective principles, with a proven hypothesis backed up by analyses and statistical data. But the one who disagrees should provide their own statistics and research to counter that argument or at least links to where these can be found. Simply saying "I disagree and therefore I am" is not enough to prove or disprove anything.
I don't take these findings to heart. I know a 9% risk is a small risk and 91% of people will probably be unaffected. However, I think people would have had a much different reaction had the reaserach goal been risk of death due to lung cancer in chain smokers. I wonder, would anyone disagree if the post stated that 9% of chain smokers die of lung cancer compared to non chain smokers, even if the research to arrive to that conclusion would have been followed using the same methodology?
But once again, it's good to see a diversiry of opinion :)
Who said to disagree is to disprove?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mishanya
You have to base your disagreement on facts. Otherwise there are no bases for the disagreement. ...And to have facts is to have proof.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frasbee
To bad that I am a science major. Your a flop. I love math and science. They are the answer to everything....how ever..what I said is that numerical statistics are NOT.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mishanya
Precisely. Now tell me what is a "fact" and tell me how single man dying quicker because of being single is a fact? Its not. Once the words "More likely" are inlcuded then whocares...says who that I am going to be the single guy who dies...pffft. If a group of research scientist came up to me and showed me hard evidence that being single causes some form of bodily failure or mental state leading to body failure then fine...but what we have here is a bunch of wannabe psychologists wasting room because they have no other story to right about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mishanya
You have this the wrong way. First some thing must be proven before I would ever eve attempt to disprove it. Think about that. I dont understand why so many people get worked up over religion for example. Religious people ask others to disprove god...fools they are..its up to them to prove him first because if not then they can try and disprove the green bean giant living in my closet....offcourse they can not trasspass on my property or the giant will get angry. I dont have to prove your statistical data wrong..I just have to provide the obvious fact that in general all statistical data taken on a servey bases is faulty and has a margin of error. Another funny thing is how something posted on the internet that is said to have statistical data can be taken so seriously by you people. What if its just some attention hungry journalist who asked 10 people ..or worse..just made the entire thing up?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mishanya
Its absolutly un-fair that you call me ignorant and say that I use philosophy to justify my ignorance. I for one love knowledge. I am just picky on what is factual and not.
Ok, I didn't read every single post in here and this article was done awhile ago, but I think it has something to do with what y'all are talking about. I don't know about being single being Worse than smoking and I haven't found any research about it effecting men, only this one on women. [url]http://www.apa.org/releases/maritalbenefit.html[/url]
What are these "single women" you speak of???
I thought they existed only in myth...
1. Statistics are numerical data used to justify and arrive to results in both Maths and Science. If you are a Science Major you should already know that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Only-virgins
2. "Fact - Knowledge or information based on real occurrences." What is "More Likely"??? It is a probability. Since you love Maths so much here is a little bit of information for you on how to calculate a probability [url]http://www.netnam.vn/unescocourse/statistics/46.htm[/url] . Educate yourself.
3. I am not wrong at all. The way i see it, the theory has already been proven. The research and numbers are available for calculation for anyone who wants to disprove this hypothesis. Here is a little bit more information for you on how proability is used in both maths and science and why it is an important feature of both [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability[/url]. Also, have a look here while you're at it [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics[/url]. You are saying you want a concrete proof to every single thing and even then it has to conform to your set of beliefs to justify its relevance. If yes, you are being ignorant. Let me tell you, there is no concrete proof I can give you such as if you smoke 5 packets per day there will be known the exact time and day when your death will occur. But I can give you a probabillity based on statistical data, which will give you the percentile chances of your departure from next year to 50 years from now.
4. I can understand your skeptisism about this being some journalist who doesn't know what he is doing, but you are wrong. If you weren't so ignorant to have a look at the links I provided you would see that the research was actually carried out by the university of Warwick. So you are not arguing with some poor journalist. You are arguing with University Proffesors and Scholars. And I tell, so far you are very far from winning.
5. I still think that you are being ignorant, just on the basis that you say that you love maths and science, are a science major and yet you can not comprehend one of the most important facillities/concepts used by both schools of thought. You tell me, this is not contradictory and ignorant???