Apr 30
MiscKitty commented on SL Letter of the Day: Kids Today.
DAD is "Desires Affectionate Daddy," another LW from the same column.
Apr 27
MiscKitty commented on Savage Love.
@ nocutename - Thanks very much. I haven't seen The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie but I plan to remedy that shortly. =)
Apr 27
MiscKitty commented on Savage Love.
@ vennominon - For the love of fluffy puppies, why do you have a 16 letter acronym? And what does it mean? And as a tangential aside, according to Urban Dictionary, LMB is short for Lick My Balls. I'm guessing that's not what you meant.
Apr 21
MiscKitty commented on Over 90% of the American People Support Universal Backgrounds Checks.
@ 46 - And now I've added Gunsmoke to my Netflix cue. So thanks for that, too. =)
Apr 21
MiscKitty commented on Over 90% of the American People Support Universal Backgrounds Checks.
@ 39 - Again, 1,000 people really isn't that small of a sample size. It's been a long time since I took a statistics class so I'm going to be pretty rusty but let me take a shot at explaining it anyway:
In statistics, you're dealing with diminishing returns. It's not feasible to poll the entire country so statisticians take a random sample of the population. By sampling more people, they can get closer to a truly representative number but would it be worth the cost? Say that by sampling 10,000 people rather than 1,000 people, their margin of error would drop from around 3% to around 1%. Is narrowing the margin of error by two points worth spending 10 times the resources?
So instead, a statistician might decide that they want a maximum of a 5% margin of error and that they want to be 95% sure that their margin of error is not more than 5%. They will use those numbers (plus the size of the population) to determine how big their random sample needs to be.
The catch is that the sample has to be truly random. If you want to know what brand of chocolate people prefer and the only people you ask are people standing in a Godiva store, your sample isn't really random. And I suspect that's what happens with political polls, probably sometimes unintentionally and probably sometimes on purpose.
More...
In statistics, you're dealing with diminishing returns. It's not feasible to poll the entire country so statisticians take a random sample of the population. By sampling more people, they can get closer to a truly representative number but would it be worth the cost? Say that by sampling 10,000 people rather than 1,000 people, their margin of error would drop from around 3% to around 1%. Is narrowing the margin of error by two points worth spending 10 times the resources?
So instead, a statistician might decide that they want a maximum of a 5% margin of error and that they want to be 95% sure that their margin of error is not more than 5%. They will use those numbers (plus the size of the population) to determine how big their random sample needs to be.
The catch is that the sample has to be truly random. If you want to know what brand of chocolate people prefer and the only people you ask are people standing in a Godiva store, your sample isn't really random. And I suspect that's what happens with political polls, probably sometimes unintentionally and probably sometimes on purpose.
Apr 21
MiscKitty commented on Over 90% of the American People Support Universal Backgrounds Checks.
@ 35 - Thanks. =) I didn't read all the way through the page linked to @ 8 like I should have. Mea culpa.
Apr 21
MiscKitty commented on Over 90% of the American People Support Universal Backgrounds Checks.
@ 32 - "Well regulated" doesn't seem to be the part people miss. The part they miss seems to be "militia" which was, at the time, "necessary to the security" of the state. In other words, to protect the country from an outside invading force, it was vital that a standing army wasn't the country's only line of defense.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
I strongly support gun regulation. However, as an American citizen I do respect the Second Amendment. As such, I strongly believe @ 25 has a right to his guns if he is a member of a well regulated militia. In modern terms, that would be the Reserves. So, if I may:
Join up or shut up.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
I strongly support gun regulation. However, as an American citizen I do respect the Second Amendment. As such, I strongly believe @ 25 has a right to his guns if he is a member of a well regulated militia. In modern terms, that would be the Reserves. So, if I may:
Join up or shut up.
Apr 21
MiscKitty commented on Over 90% of the American People Support Universal Backgrounds Checks.
@ 27 - Beat me to it. =)
@ 15 - With a sample size that large your margin of error is going to be around 3%. But here's a link that will do the calculation for you:
http://americanresearchgroup.com/moe.htm…
Or if you don't trust them, you can do the math yourself. Here's the formula:
E = zα/2/(2√ n)
@ 15 - With a sample size that large your margin of error is going to be around 3%. But here's a link that will do the calculation for you:
http://americanresearchgroup.com/moe.htm…
Or if you don't trust them, you can do the math yourself. Here's the formula:
E = zα/2/(2√ n)
Apr 12
MiscKitty commented on Another Teenage Girl Takes Her Own Life After Photos of Her Rape Are Distributed Online.
@ 63 - My numbers regarding the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 are from the ACLU.
My numbers regarding gun deaths are from the UNODC and the CDC.
And okay, let's talk about murders. The US (according to police statistics reported by UNODC) in 2010 had 4.8 murders per 100,000 inhabitants. The UK (according to Eurostat statistics reported by UNODC), on the other hand, had only 1.2 murders per 100,000 inhabitants. And Japan? According to CTS statistics reported by UNODC Japan had 0.4 murders per 100,000 inhabitants.
Somehow, I doubt either the UK or Japan would trade with us.
My numbers regarding gun deaths are from the UNODC and the CDC.
And okay, let's talk about murders. The US (according to police statistics reported by UNODC) in 2010 had 4.8 murders per 100,000 inhabitants. The UK (according to Eurostat statistics reported by UNODC), on the other hand, had only 1.2 murders per 100,000 inhabitants. And Japan? According to CTS statistics reported by UNODC Japan had 0.4 murders per 100,000 inhabitants.
Somehow, I doubt either the UK or Japan would trade with us.
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Hi there. I'm from Oklahoma City. Remember the fertilizer bomb that was set off outside our Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building? Remember how it was placed right outside the building's nursery to kill as many very small children as possible?
Remember this?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e…
I do. My class felt it when the bomb went off and our teacher told us it was probably a sonic boom. Despite the very small size of my elementary school, two of my classmates became orphans that day and a third lost her grandmother. The men who committed that atrocity were "good Christians."
So how DARE you look down your nose and target a group of people based on the nut jobs who share their beliefs when the nut jobs that share yours committed the second most destructive act of terrorism in US history? If blood is on their hands by association, it's on yours too.