Send His Flatulence to jail

[whichphilosophy]

Less than 250 individuals responded (NOT "raised objection" - responded) how you claim... not KABILLIONS AND GILLIONS!!!one!11! rose up in defiance of the NFL.

But, you said "clearly" millions of people are on trumps side... actually you have accounted for 250 (giving you 1.5 for free)... just 999,750.00 to go until your point is made.

I'm not going to know about focusing on exact terms like "raising objection." I'll leave that to whichphilosophy.

As far as being on Trump's side of the issue, it's pretty obvious that there is going to be millions of white, right-wing Christians that agree with him.
You are the one who should provide a source of how you know that less that one percent of voters agree with Trump.

We should look to our own judgement. Some bible banging Christian fanatics may disagree with the protest and the message. I would say NFL should protest in unpaid time.

 

[Malintent]

I don't dispute the accepted margin of error calculations in statistics, generally. I dispute the validity of the testing procedure and assumptions therein. Confidence level is an important metric in calculating margin of error as well as sample and population sizes, and the assumption in their survey was that the confidence level was 95%. It is completely unfounded... one could just declare confidence at 10% and throw the whole thing out. Confidence was calculated by the number of "undecided" responses... as if the "undecideds" reflected upon the "decideds" in any way. If I say, "I don't know", what does that tell you about my neighbor? nothing.

people are not data points... they are nuanced and unpredictable. a 0.0003 sample size among unpredictable human beings used to determine opinion is not the same thing as a 0.0003% sample size of colored marbles in a well-mixed jar used to estimate color distribution. Yet, the assumptions in statistics are the same.

 

[ideologyhunter]

But how would Trump in jail play out? Just imagining....
1) He tries to pay off the biggest meanest muthas in the joint to be his bodyguards.
2) He corners the cigarette exchange economy, going through several cigarette bankruptcies in the process.
3) When he's in between bodyguards, he becomes a 71-year-old boy toy to the old-chicken hawks, who value his extremely soft skin and call him Creamsicle.
4) He hogs the camera when MSNBC comes to the joint to film Lockdown.
5) The other inmates can be heard saying "If you say FAKE NEWS one more time, I am going to lose my shit!!"
6) Demands that the Hispanic inmates be walled off in a separate cell block.
7) Conjugal visits don't happen because Melanoma (or whatever) is on shopping trips to Biarritz, St. Barts, and points east.
8) Gets a cellmate named Tariq and converts to Islam for the duration. Claims Allah is "yuge".
9) Runs a numbers racket with Bernie Madoff.
10) Is not allowed to Tweet or have a fidget spinner; becomes a compulsive self-abuser from 6 to 7 a.m.
11) Tries to get Outback steaks and "the biggest slice of chocolate cake you ever saw" brought in.
12) Gets sacks of fan mail from southern Ohio and other semi-literate regions.

 

[sharon45]

13. Screams "Attica, Attica" and "Kiss me," then wakes up in a sweat and urine soaked bed, not his own, by the way.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't dispute the accepted margin of error calculations in statistics, generally. I dispute the validity of the testing procedure and assumptions therein. Confidence level is an important metric in calculating margin of error as well as sample and population sizes, and the assumption in their survey was that the confidence level was 95%. It is completely unfounded... one could just declare confidence at 10% and throw the whole thing out. Confidence was calculated by the number of "undecided" responses... as if the "undecideds" reflected upon the "decideds" in any way. If I say, "I don't know", what does that tell you about my neighbor? nothing.

people are not data points... they are nuanced and unpredictable. a 0.0003 sample size among unpredictable human beings used to determine opinion is not the same thing as a 0.0003% sample size of colored marbles in a well-mixed jar used to estimate color distribution. Yet, the assumptions in statistics are the same.

What are you smoking??

Confidence interval has nothing to do with the number of undecideds.

When one talks about the 95% confidence interval one is saying that there's a 95% chance the true value is within the range you are specifying. This is the lowest level that's used in statistics.

And the marbles are no more predictable than the humans.

 

[Elixir]

When one talks about the 95% confidence interval one is saying that there's a calculable 95% chance the true value is within the range you are specifying.

FIFY
Malintent's point has to do with the method whereby a 95% confidence interval is determined estimated.

Unless there are thousands of similar surveys with thousands of recorded levels of accuracy after the fact, there is no way such a confidence interval can be reliably applied.

 

[bilby]

people are not data points... they are nuanced and unpredictable.

Lots of people believe that; But observation shows that they are wrong. Statistical sampling predicts actual behaviours very well indeed - People en masse are not particularly nuanced, and are almost completely predictable.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QereR0CViMY[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Loren Pechtel]

When one talks about the 95% confidence interval one is saying that there's a calculable 95% chance the true value is within the range you are specifying.

FIFY
Malintent's point has to do with the method whereby a 95% confidence interval is determined estimated.

Unless there are thousands of similar surveys with thousands of recorded levels of accuracy after the fact, there is no way such a confidence interval can be reliably applied.

The confidence interval applies to the statistical calculation. There's no need to thousands of surveys to figure this out. The confidence interval doesn't try to address sampling errors and there's no practical procedure to catch them.

 

[whichphilosophy]

But how would Trump in jail play out? Just imagining....
1) He tries to pay off the biggest meanest muthas in the joint to be his bodyguards.
2) He corners the cigarette exchange economy, going through several cigarette bankruptcies in the process.
3) When he's in between bodyguards, he becomes a 71-year-old boy toy to the old-chicken hawks, who value his extremely soft skin and call him Creamsicle.
4) He hogs the camera when MSNBC comes to the joint to film Lockdown.
5) The other inmates can be heard saying "If you say FAKE NEWS one more time, I am going to lose my shit!!"
6) Demands that the Hispanic inmates be walled off in a separate cell block.
7) Conjugal visits don't happen because Melanoma (or whatever) is on shopping trips to Biarritz, St. Barts, and points east.
8) Gets a cellmate named Tariq and converts to Islam for the duration. Claims Allah is "yuge".
9) Runs a numbers racket with Bernie Madoff.
10) Is not allowed to Tweet or have a fidget spinner; becomes a compulsive self-abuser from 6 to 7 a.m.
11) Tries to get Outback steaks and "the biggest slice of chocolate cake you ever saw" brought in.
12) Gets sacks of fan mail from southern Ohio and other semi-literate regions.

If he did go to jail it would not be due to the subject of this thread as he did nothing illegal as also inferred in case law.

 

[Elixir]

FIFY
Malintent's point has to do with the method whereby a 95% confidence interval is determined estimated.

Unless there are thousands of similar surveys with thousands of recorded levels of accuracy after the fact, there is no way such a confidence interval can be reliably applied.

The confidence interval applies to the statistical calculation. There's no need to thousands of surveys to figure this out. The confidence interval doesn't try to address sampling errors and there's no practical procedure to catch them.

You can't calculate a confidence interval without knowing the standard deviation - and if you have no points (sample size = n) from which you can determine a standard deviation, a confidence interval is nothing more than a random guess.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The confidence interval applies to the statistical calculation. There's no need to thousands of surveys to figure this out. The confidence interval doesn't try to address sampling errors and there's no practical procedure to catch them.

You can't calculate a confidence interval without knowing the standard deviation - and if you have no points (sample size = n) from which you can determine a standard deviation, a confidence interval is nothing more than a random guess.

No. In a case like this you can monte-carlo to get that standard deviation as it's a sampling problem. In practice that means it's built into the equations.

You need many measurements to get a standard deviation when it's a measuring problem.

 

[Elixir]

You can't calculate a confidence interval without knowing the standard deviation - and if you have no points (sample size = n) from which you can determine a standard deviation, a confidence interval is nothing more than a random guess.

No. In a case like this you can monte-carlo to get that standard deviation as it's a sampling problem. In practice that means it's built into the equations.

You need many measurements to get a standard deviation when it's a measuring problem.

That renders it meaningless IMHO. When you assign a confidence interval on a single sample, what meaning can it hold?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No. In a case like this you can monte-carlo to get that standard deviation as it's a sampling problem. In practice that means it's built into the equations.

You need many measurements to get a standard deviation when it's a measuring problem.

That renders it meaningless IMHO. When you assign a confidence interval on a single sample, what meaning can it hold?

The meaning is how accurately the sample portrays the entire group.