For days Bush's top advisors argued over who was in charge.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Clearly some leadership from the top was needed, and didn't happen.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9179587/page/5/

[John Dibble]

I've already stated this in other threads, and I'll state it again - the federal government runs on cumbersome, innefiecient beauracracy, and the bigger and more powerful you want that government to be the bigger, slower, and more inefficient that beauracracy will become. This is just an example of that in action, it has nothing to do with Bush in particular as far as I'm concerned - just about any administration would suffer this given a disaster of this kind.

[J. J.]

Perhaps Jfern wishes a federal government that can sweep in and supersede the duties of state and local governments.  Maybe he favors new federal powers in such things as the Patriot Act to really strengthen the federal role!

[AuH2O]

If the troops would have gone in early, Bush would have been attacked as a "fascist." As it is, he was too slow.

What's dumb is that he can never make leftist loons like jfern happy, so he should have done the right thing: lead. He didn't do it, but jfern certainly has no credibility on the matter so he has no standing to cast stones.

I knew exactly what should have been done, before the storm and then with modifications once the levees broke. Martial law over the entire effected area, helicopter gunship patrols, amphibious assault vehicles and troop transports to rescue people, automatic death sentence for any serious felonious act (not based on survival needs)-- carried out by Cobras or Apaches if need be, special teams to move people in hospitals to military and civilian hospitals, commandeering buses of all kinds from the region to move people out of shelters, and so on.

Would have worked like a charm. But jfern would have whined about Bush being too heavy-handed in that case.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If the troops would have gone in early, Bush would have been attacked as a "fascist."

That's total 100% f**king bullsh**t, and you know it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Since when don't I have credibility? It doesn't matter how many times someone who thinks that 940 heads and 60 tails are not statistically singificant calls me JFraud, you have no reason to say I don't have credibility.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well the death sentence is a dumb idea.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Basically ok, except for the mandatory death sentence parts. However, you don't have a f**king leader in the White House, so forget about it. You want leadership, vote Democrat.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Perhaps Jfern wishes a federal government that can sweep in and supersede the duties of state and local governments.  Maybe he favors new federal powers in such things as the Patriot Act to really strengthen the federal role!

Hey, mindless Bush apoligist. the article was talking about Bush's advisors being idiots, not the state and local government. When will you Republicans ever take responsiblity for the ineptitude of the unmitigated disaster in the White House?

[AuH2O]

LOL please fool, try to convince the mentally retarded Clinton and Carter were leaders, not people with intelligence.

The problem with the whole process is that there is no order. Nurses and doctors have been attacked, the Superdome was out of control, etc. Shooting a few violent people would have saved lives, including possibly those of young girls raped and killed in the restrooms there.

Also: please stop with this coin nonsense. I have no idea what you're talking about, and frankly it makes you look stupid, because I'm not sure who else knows what you're talking about. It's another indication of your mental illness I guess, you're obsessed with coin flips because some Republican presumably made some comment you then distorted, in place of real debate.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

LOL please fool, try to convince the mentally retarded Clinton and Carter were leaders, not people with intelligence.

They were far greater leaders than the current sorry excuse for a President.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If we can take 1886 deaths, and 13877 causalities amoung US troops in a war started for no reason, we can have our troops deal with a few riff-raff in NOLA.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's an example of how Republicans like J.J live in a fantasy world. He disagrees with the 100% correct statement "A sample of 940 heads and 60 tails is statistically significantly different from that of a fair coin at the 95% confidence level", despite overwhemling evidence in favor of that 100% correct statement.

[J. J.]

Perhaps Jfern wishes a federal government that can sweep in and supersede the duties of state and local governments.  Maybe he favors new federal powers in such things as the Patriot Act to really strengthen the federal role!

Hey, mindless Bush apoligist. the article was talking about Bush's advisors being idiots, not the state and local government. When will you Republicans ever take responsiblity for the ineptitude of the unmitigated disaster in the White House?

It seems that you are ignorant, shall we say "wilfully ignorant," of the American constitutional system as of history, climatolgy, statistics, and the calendar.  Troops can't be sent in until requested.  It also isn't a paticularly good idea to send people into the path of a hurricane.  I doubt if you can comprehend that.

[AuH2O]

What kind of coin lands 940 times on one side? It's statistically significant in theory but it means it's not a real coin flip, which assumes a 50/50 chance, though of course there is some chance it would happen even in that scenario (if you were flipping quarters and that was the result, no one would seriously think you had a magic quarter-- they would blame your methodology or attribute it to extreme chance).

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

What kind of coin lands 940 times on one side? It's statistically significant in theory but it means it's not a real coin flip, which assumes a 50/50 chance, though of course there is some chance it would happen even in that scenario (if you were flipping quarters and that was the result, no one would seriously think you had a magic quarter-- they would blame your methodology or attribute it to extreme chance).

The point is that the sample is outside of the 95% confidence interval for a fair coin, and so it is statistically significantly different from that of a fair coin at the 95% confidence level. Note that 5% of the time a fair coin will be outside of the 95% confidence interval.

[12th Doctor]

Clearly some leadership from the top was needed, and didn't happen.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9179587/page/5/

So?  WHAT IS YOUR POINT?  Gridlock in the system.  Slowness to respond.  Questions about power.  These are all part of our Federalist system and the seperation of powers and they always have been.  Yeah, sometimes it's a bitch, but the founders set it up that way to insure that no one could consolidate power, and to assure that the government could not be too quick to act against people's liberties.

For Christ's sake, you really have lost it if you are going to hold up things that have always been taken for granted as part of the system and blame them on Bush.

[AuH2O]

Yeah but statistically significant results can plainly be wrong.

In fact, depending on the type of experiment, different levels of confidence are required.  .01 is really preferred in most cases, unless the study is analyzing a fairly weak relationship.

No one of course would ever study flipping coins a thousand times, and actually it's not significant in the sense there is no relationship to be analyzed (though you could make one up, i.e. the type of coin vs. the height in the air or something).

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Clearly some leadership from the top was needed, and didn't happen.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9179587/page/5/

So?  WHAT IS YOUR POINT?  Gridlock in the system.  Slowness to respond.  Questions about power.  These are all part of our Federalist system and the seperation of powers and they always have been.  Yeah, sometimes it's a bitch, but the founders set it up that way to insure that no one could consolidate power, and to assure that the government could not be too quick to act against people's liberties.

For Christ's sake, you really have lost it if you are going to hold up things that have always been taken for granted as part of the system and blame them on Bush.

No, I will not accept Bush's inability to lead as normal.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Yeah but statistically significant results can plainly be wrong.

In fact, depending on the type of experiment, different levels of confidence are required.  .01 is really preferred in most cases, unless the study is analyzing a fairly weak relationship.

No one of course would ever study flipping coins a thousand times, and actually it's not significant in the sense there is no relationship to be analyzed (though you could make one up, i.e. the type of coin vs. the height in the air or something).

Well, the question was is it statistically significant at the 95% confidence level (p=5%). However, it's also statistically significant at the p=0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001% level.

[J. J.]

Yeah but statistically significant results can plainly be wrong.

In fact, depending on the type of experiment, different levels of confidence are required.  .01 is really preferred in most cases, unless the study is analyzing a fairly weak relationship.

No one of course would ever study flipping coins a thousand times, and actually it's not significant in the sense there is no relationship to be analyzed (though you could make one up, i.e. the type of coin vs. the height in the air or something).

Well, the question was is it statistically significant at the 95% confidence level (p=5%). However, it's also statistically significant at the p=0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001% level.

As soon as discuss probabilities, you lose the argument.  As soon as you bring the subject up, you lose the argument.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Yeah but statistically significant results can plainly be wrong.

In fact, depending on the type of experiment, different levels of confidence are required.  .01 is really preferred in most cases, unless the study is analyzing a fairly weak relationship.

No one of course would ever study flipping coins a thousand times, and actually it's not significant in the sense there is no relationship to be analyzed (though you could make one up, i.e. the type of coin vs. the height in the air or something).

Well, the question was is it statistically significant at the 95% confidence level (p=5%). However, it's also statistically significant at the p=0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001% level.

As soon as discuss probabilities, you lose the argument.  As soon as you bring the subject up, you lose the argument.

Statistical significance is all about cumulative tail probabilities.

[J. J.]

Statistical significance is about the number of times a given theory accurately predicts a result. 

Gee, over 70% (at last count) are saying that you are a "partisan a**."  By your standard, that would prove that you are.  ;-)

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Statistical significance is about the number of times a given theory accurately predicts a result. 

"Accurately predicts" would be the wrong way to word that.

[J. J.]

Statistical significance is about the number of times a given theory accurately predicts a result. 

"Accurately predicts" would be the wrong way to word that.

No, actually it wouldn't.  That's the part you don't understand.

If you want to discuss statistics, start a new thread.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Statistical significance is about the number of times a given theory accurately predicts a result. 

"Accurately predicts" would be the wrong way to word that.

No, actually it wouldn't.  That's the part you don't understand.

If you want to discuss statistics, start a new thread.

The correct way to word it is that the critical-p value is probability that the null hypothesis results in you being at least that far off (from the null hypothesis).

[J. J.]

Statistical significance is about the number of times a given theory accurately predicts a result. 

"Accurately predicts" would be the wrong way to word that.

No, actually it wouldn't.  That's the part you don't understand.

If you want to discuss statistics, start a new thread.

The correct way to word it is that the critical-p value is probability that the null hypothesis results in you being at least that far off (from the null hypothesis).

You are not looking for p values.  Start another thread, you've already lost on most all the ones you've posted here.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Statistical significance is about the number of times a given theory accurately predicts a result. 

"Accurately predicts" would be the wrong way to word that.

No, actually it wouldn't.  That's the part you don't understand.

If you want to discuss statistics, start a new thread.

The correct way to word it is that the critical-p value is probability that the null hypothesis results in you being at least that far off (from the null hypothesis).

You are not looking for p values.  Start another thread, you've already lost on most all the ones you've posted here.

In the 2 tail case, the critical p-value is probability that you are outside of the confidence level. What part of that don't you understand?

[J. J.]

Statistical significance is about the number of times a given theory accurately predicts a result. 

"Accurately predicts" would be the wrong way to word that.

No, actually it wouldn't.  That's the part you don't understand.

If you want to discuss statistics, start a new thread.

The correct way to word it is that the critical-p value is probability that the null hypothesis results in you being at least that far off (from the null hypothesis).

You are not looking for p values.  Start another thread, you've already lost on most all the ones you've posted here.

In the 2 tail case, the critical p-value is probability that you are outside of the confidence level. What part of that don't you understand?

Start a new thread unless you are to big a coward to lose again.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Statistical significance is about the number of times a given theory accurately predicts a result. 

"Accurately predicts" would be the wrong way to word that.

No, actually it wouldn't.  That's the part you don't understand.

If you want to discuss statistics, start a new thread.

The correct way to word it is that the critical-p value is probability that the null hypothesis results in you being at least that far off (from the null hypothesis).

You are not looking for p values.  Start another thread, you've already lost on most all the ones you've posted here.

In the 2 tail case, the critical p-value is probability that you are outside of the confidence level. What part of that don't you understand?

Start a new thread unless you are to big a coward to lose again.

Why bother? You still won't admit defeat after 8 months of overwhelming evidence that: 940 heads and 60 tails is statistically significantly different from that of a fair coin at the 95% confidence level.