If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#341
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#342
|
|||
|
|||
Virginia Tech Massacre and Campus Security
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)? |
#343
|
|||
|
|||
Virginia Tech Massacre and Campus Security
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 |
#344
|
|||
|
|||
Virginia Tech Massacre and Campus Security
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 |
#345
|
|||
|
|||
Virginia Tech Massacre and Campus Security
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 |
#346
|
|||
|
|||
Virginia Tech Massacre and Campus Security
"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 |
#347
|
|||
|
|||
Virginia Tech Massacre and Campus Security
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Virginia Tech | Chookie | General | 4 | April 17th 07 01:50 AM |
Ritalin on campus a growing problem | Jan Drew | Kids Health | 0 | December 11th 06 10:58 AM |
VIRGINIA: Virginia State Bar DISMISSES Complaint Against Virginia's DCSE | [email protected] | Child Support | 2 | February 16th 06 02:38 PM |
Virginia Circuit Court Judge: Virginia DCSE's Paternity Testing Lab's "perrformance was shoddy" | [email protected] | Child Support | 8 | August 29th 05 09:10 PM |
Review: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (*) | Steve Rhodes | General | 0 | October 23rd 03 07:49 PM |