Posted on 09/22/2004 11:19:11 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
New math?
Thanks
No, that would be your field. I made it through Calculus with an A- average. Clean your shoes boy.
Still waiting for your source for your 70% assertion.
I'm sure you are. Just as I'm waiting for you still to deal with the ethical considerations. Guess we'll both be waiting, huh.
No, real dollars means adjusted for inflation.
Because you're showing total growth - including that of the men at the top who now make 311 times what the average worker does. What happens to the numbers if you lop off the rich who got richer while the data from census shows middle class incomes dropping.
Well, since we're talking about median income, lopping off the rich would have a very small effect.
Suppose it might parallel the trend? I'm a math major.
Words almost fail me. You're more a comic than a math major.
I do understand how you can fudge numbers by diluting sample. You poll 9 guys who make 10 bucks an hour and your average is 10 bucks an hour. But if you bring in Bill gates to stand next to them, they suddenly have an average income in the billions. Amazing, huh.
Actually, Bill Gates has never probably never had an income in the billions. His money is all capital gains.
Making a profit is not unethical. You're not a liberation theologist? Right.
Game, set, match!!! Could it be that math major is unemployed because he has a penchant for overlooking critical details.
Null hypothesis: Havoc is equivalent to an intelligent human being
Alternate hypothesis: Havoc is not equivalent to an intelligent human being
Critical value: .01
Student t-score: 117
P-value: 0.000
Decision: Reject the null hypothesis
Conclusion: Within 99% certainty, there is not sufficient evidence to support the claim that Havoc is indeed equivalent to an intelligent human being.
No, we just went through this earlier. What is the range shown for said graph?
Sure! Speaking of calculus, it appears that the derivative of your opinion accuracy in relation to time is quite a bit less that zero.
Would that mean something to the effect like: increasing the size of government in order to alter market outcomes and establishing welfare effects (through government tariff revenue) that don't nearly cover the total deadweight losses imposed by the tax? Just checking if this is what you mean by ethical.
UnEthical - you playing robin hood with people's jobs. And doing it in wartime = Treason.
Ethical - not intervening in the market to do the unethical or treasonous above for profit.
-
And an update.
http://www.send2press.com/PRnetwire/pr04_071602-bhcareers.shtml 71% concerned for their jobs.
http://inhome.rediff.com/money/2004/mar/17bpo1.htm 61% in march
http://www.elecdesign.com/Articles/ArticleID/7994/7994.html here's Harris saying 64% against in May
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=453 Harris saying 68% against
Havoc is a man of many contradictions.
A math major who doesn't know the difference between mean and median.
A conservative Republican who wants larger government.
He'll be back. Nothing stops these people. Nothing.
Thanks!
As far as those links that you posted...good job, it was about time! And, I've responded to those on this post in another thread. I link to them so that anyone can see the crux of the problem.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.