Virginia Tech Massacre and Campus Security

Oliver Wong wrote:
"Clisby" wrote in message
ink.net...
nimue wrote:
Okay. I can't do math. I admit that. I mean I REALLY can't.
However, and
please feel free to break it down for me if I am wrong, it just
doesn't seem
like 1 in 50 people could have schizophrenia if 1% of a population
of 300
million people have schizophrenia.

You're right. It's 1 in 100. If 1% of people in a population
(regardless of the size of the population) have schizophrenia, then
1 in 100 has schizophrenia. That's what 1% means - 1 out of 100.
It doesn't matter whether the population is 300 or 300 million.

Clisby is correct.

Nimue, perhaps, as an English teacher, this explanation will be
more memorable to you. The "%" symbol is pronounced "percent", which
is actually two words joined together: "per", and "cent". "per" means
"for each", and "cent" means "one hundred", so "1 per cent" means "1
for each one hundred", or "1 out of 100". As Clisby pointed out, 1%
means 1 out of 100, regardless of the total size of the population
under consideration, which is consistent with the fact that the
phrase "one per cent" doesn't refer to the total size of the
population at all.

- Oliver

I think I love you. Do you want to come teach math at my school? The kids
could use you (and so could I).

--
nimue

"Let your freak-flag fly, and if someone doesn't get you, move on."
Drew Barrymore

On 3 Maj, 09:25, Terry Jones wrote:
On Wed, 02 May 2007 20:33:13 -0400, Bob LeChevalier

wrote:
Not detract from your excellent comments, you did omit a key
origin/purpose factor that drives many of the "gun nuts". The
shooting war in the Revolution started when the British went to
confiscate the guns of the militia. The fear was that the Federal
government might indeed set up a standing army and remove the power of
the people and the states to resist Federal tyranny (which resistance
was played out in the civil war, of course).

As you say, this happened anyway - *And* they're paying a lot more
taxes to their "own" government than they ever were to the Brits

There is still some node of an idea that the purpose of the 2nd
amendment is allow the people the means needed to resist their own
government, and even if necessary to try to overthrow that government.

Ethically, I'm all in favour of *selective* "culling" of politicians
and bureaucrats, for as long as they abuse their powers to evade the
same degree of legally enforceable responsibilities and accountability
they deem appropriate for "ordinary" citizens.

But in practice the relatively small number of policrats that an
individual can shoot / have shot or otherwise killed, doesn't seem to
have had any positive effect on policy (though it may have lead to
increases in the mechanisms designed to protect the policrats
themselves).

Even the organised *armies* of the South were unable to succeed.

(Though those were very different times and circumstances - modern
government is even more entrenched and pervasive, and has greater
resources at its' command - though there are new vulnerabilities too,
I doubt that they outweigh the other factors.)

But weren't those organised armies of the South just controlled by
other politicians and bureaucrats (President Davis among them)?

On 12 May 2007 05:24:41 -0700, HGJ wrote:

Even the organised *armies* of the South were unable to succeed.

(Though those were very different times and circumstances - modern
government is even more entrenched and pervasive, and has greater
resources at its' command - though there are new vulnerabilities too,
I doubt that they outweigh the other factors.)

But weren't those organised armies of the South just controlled by
other politicians and bureaucrats (President Davis among them)?

True, but my point was their relative numbers compared to those one
might reasonable expect to take part in a civilian uprising.

OTOH the French Revolution was successful (at least in terms of
changing government), but circumstances were rather different than
they are nowadays. The Viet Cong might be a better contemporary
example.

--

Terry

On Sat, 12 May 2007 07:33:20 -0400, "nimue"
wrote:

I gave my school as an example (and it's a high school, so we have kids as
old as 20), but I am also talking about life. I just don't think 1 out of
every 50 people I know or have ever known have schizophrenia. One of the
people I know who did developed it in high school when she was about 15 and
the person who has it now is the same age.

Based on personal observation, it seems quite common (at least in the
UK) for people to try and keep such information private, or to
downgrade their description - for both social and work related
reasons.

--

Terry

nimue wrote:
Oliver Wong wrote:

"Clisby" wrote in message
hlink.net...

nimue wrote:

Okay. I can't do math. I admit that. I mean I REALLY can't.
However, and
please feel free to break it down for me if I am wrong, it just
doesn't seem
like 1 in 50 people could have schizophrenia if 1% of a population
of 300
million people have schizophrenia.

You're right. It's 1 in 100. If 1% of people in a population
(regardless of the size of the population) have schizophrenia, then
1 in 100 has schizophrenia. That's what 1% means - 1 out of 100.
It doesn't matter whether the population is 300 or 300 million.

Clisby is correct.

Nimue, perhaps, as an English teacher, this explanation will be
more memorable to you. The "%" symbol is pronounced "percent", which
is actually two words joined together: "per", and "cent". "per" means
"for each", and "cent" means "one hundred", so "1 per cent" means "1
for each one hundred", or "1 out of 100". As Clisby pointed out, 1%
means 1 out of 100, regardless of the total size of the population
under consideration, which is consistent with the fact that the
phrase "one per cent" doesn't refer to the total size of the
population at all.

- Oliver


I think I love you. Do you want to come teach math at my school? The kids
could use you (and so could I).


I think he needs to teach math in whatever elementary school these kids
are coming from.

Clisby

"nimue" wrote in message
...
Oliver Wong wrote:

Nimue, perhaps, as an English teacher, this explanation will be
more memorable to you. The "%" symbol is pronounced "percent", which
is actually two words joined together: "per", and "cent". "per" means
"for each", and "cent" means "one hundred", so "1 per cent" means "1
for each one hundred", or "1 out of 100". As Clisby pointed out, 1%
means 1 out of 100, regardless of the total size of the population
under consideration, which is consistent with the fact that the
phrase "one per cent" doesn't refer to the total size of the
population at all.


I think I love you. Do you want to come teach math at my school? The
kids
could use you (and so could I).

I'm flattered, but I'll have to decline: I'm currently trying to
further my career as a computer programmer.

- Oliver

In article .com,
HGJ wrote:

I admit to having lost my way in reading this thread, but I think the 1
out of 50 was based on 1% being schizophrenic and 1% being bipolar (or
something else?). If that's true, and you lump schizophrenia and
bipolar together, you get 2 out of 100 or 1 out of 50.

That presupposes that there is no overlap between schizophrenia and
bipolar (i.e. that there is no one who has both).

Correct. I know there are a small number of people who have both illnesses,
so I said "about 1 in 50", not "1 in 50".

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may
start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled."
Kerry Cue