40% of Americans Want Muslims to have special ID

Polls are never accurate...

Grind said:
From Page 2 of this article:



More at link:

http://today.reuters.com/news/artic...EAR.xml&WTmodLoc=Home-C5-inDepthNews-2&rpc=92
Click to expand...


How can a poll be accurate when a sample of just 1000 out of some 300m is used as a marker...statistics 101 would put a damper on any poll taken with this marker...you would need at least 10% of the population to make a poll anywhere close to accurate...say 30m or so...not gonna happen so [polls are for the most part useless] As for the special ID for Muslims...what good would this do?
addendum: I read the link and know it was a joke/farce...however alot of people have expressed a interest in 'Special Id's...so I asked what good would this do!
 
Last edited:
k you haven't taken stats 101, that's for sure. All you need for an accurate poll with a small margin of error is a random sample size of around 300.
 
Not...!

Take the example of flipping a coin or buttered bread falling butter side up...a small sample of four or five times is not accurate...many many flips must be made...just a statistical fact...! And where did you get the figure 300...please post a link...;)
 
Battleborne said:
Take the example of flipping a coin or buttered bread falling butter side up...a small sample of four or five times is not accurate...many many flips must be made...just a statistical fact...! And where did you get the figure 300...please post a link...;)
Click to expand...
It's pretty early to be :clink: already. YOU were the one to use the figure, 300.:rolleyes:
 
No....

Runyon said:
It's pretty early to be :clink: already. YOU were the one to use the figure, 300.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...


You must be the one under the influence...I used the term 300m(as in million)
Grind said only 300 were needed for a accurate poll as in 300 not 300m:pke:
and the 300m was in reference to the US population and noted 10% or 30m would in my opinion be needed for a accurate marker...providing the questions asked were not biased! as in statistics the more the merrier for accurate results!
 
Last edited:
so 39% of America doesnt know anything about the constitution?

No wonder Bush voters are so stupid.
 
Say what....

Desh said:
so 39% of America doesnt know anything about the constitution?

No wonder Bush voters are so stupid.
Click to expand...


what the hell are you talking about...if you read the posted link it was a radio show farce...the 39% was from listeners from both sides of the aisle...:shock:
 
Battleborne said:
How can a poll be accurate when a sample of just 1000 out of some 300m is used as a marker...statistics 101 would put a damper on any poll taken with this marker...you would need at least 10% of the population to make a poll anywhere close to accurate...say 30m or so...not gonna happen so [polls are for the most part useless] As for the special ID for Muslims...what good would this do?
addendum: I read the link and know it was a joke/farce...however alot of people have expressed a interest in 'Special Id's...so I asked what good would this do!
Click to expand...
Sadly, you're incorrect. Sample size is largely irrelevant . . . which you would know if you'd ever taken Statistics 101. The things that matter are sampling technique and stratification.

A correctly derived sample of less than .0004 percent can indeed be valid. It's simply not in the interests of a conservative partisan to admit the validity of statistical analysis.
 
First they came for the Jews, but I did nothing because I'm not a Jew. Then they came for the socialists, but I did nothing because I'm not a socialist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I did nothing because I'm not a Catholic. Finally, they came for me, but by then there was no one left to help me. – Pastor Father Niemoller (1946)
 
Really....

OrnotBitwise said:
Sadly, you're incorrect. Sample size is largely irrelevant . . . which you would know if you'd ever taken Statistics 101. The things that matter are sampling technique and stratification.

A correctly derived sample of less than .0004 percent can indeed be valid. It's simply not in the interests of a conservative partisan to admit the validity of statistical analysis.
Click to expand...



I did take statistics 101...and found it to be rather boring...as I stated and was taught the more the merrier in numbers for a true accurate marker...providing the questions asked were not biased...sample size does have relevance...to say otherwise is disingenious...the smaller numbers are basically for monetary savings as higher numbers cost way more...finance 101..
sorry charlie ya go to school to take shortcuts to experience...yeah even math...what is lacking in universities today is to teach one to become a maverick and formulate their own theories...I do this daily...because I went to school when school really meant something!
 
Lol...

Damocles said:
First they came for the Jews, but I did nothing because I'm not a Jew. Then they came for the socialists, but I did nothing because I'm not a socialist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I did nothing because I'm not a Catholic. Finally, they came for me, but by then there was no one left to help me. – Pastor Father Niemoller (1946)
Click to expand...



But damo...ya forgot to mention that the 'Taliban' already came for Buddah...they blew up all his statues in Afghanistan before we got there!:eek:
 
Battleborne said:
I did take statistics 101...and found it to be rather boring...as I stated and was taught the more the merrier in numbers for a true accurate marker...providing the questions asked were not biased...sample size does have relevance...to say otherwise is disingenious...the smaller numbers are basically for monetary savings as higher numbers cost way more...finance 101..
sorry charlie ya go to school to take shortcuts to experience...yeah even math...what is lacking in universities today is to teach one to become a maverick and formulate their own theories...I do this daily...because I went to school when school really meant something!
Click to expand...
No, Beetle, that's not what school is for. That may be why you went to school -- to find an easy way out of something; it certainly fits with the lack of character you demonstrate here -- but it's not the function which higher education in general exists to serve.

Unless you're lazy, you go to college to learn things that can't be had in any other way. Unsupported by the framework of our collective wisdom, learning based on personal experience often twists and crawls into crevices of falsity and bad judgment.
 
Pfhhht...

OrnotBitwise said:
No, Beetle, that's not what school is for. That may be why you went to school -- to find an easy way out of something; it certainly fits with the lack of character you demonstrate here -- but it's not the function which higher education in general exists to serve.

Unless you're lazy, you go to college to learn things that can't be had in any other way. Unsupported by the framework of our collective wisdom, learning based on personal experience often twists and crawls into crevices of falsity and bad judgment.
Click to expand...



Whatever ya say professor...but ya forgot that Einstein failed algebra in Middle school...taught himself...and what about the Apple Computer geniouses who dropped outta school and used their own minds to develope the multi mega industry...ya are reaching the strawman argument once again...many more examples can be found...so as your avatar name says...'Bite me'...lol
 
OrnotBitwise said:
No, Beetle, that's not what school is for. That may be why you went to school -- to find an easy way out of something; it certainly fits with the lack of character you demonstrate here -- but it's not the function which higher education in general exists to serve.

Unless you're lazy, you go to college to learn things that can't be had in any other way. Unsupported by the framework of our collective wisdom, learning based on personal experience often twists and crawls into crevices of falsity and bad judgment.
Click to expand...

Still, it's interesting that he's "formulating new theories daily".

Do you think they will appear in bookform shortly?
 
Do these new theories have to do with throwing out all the collective research done in probability and statistics regarding sample size and margin of error?
 
Not that shallow...

maineman said:
Do these new theories have to do with throwing out all the collective research done in probability and statistics regarding sample size and margin of error?
Click to expand...


I am interested in many subjects and don't "throw" everything out just improve on existing theories...after all "Theory without fact is Hypothesis...fact without theory is chaos";)
 
the fact remains, that the sample size in question is statistically valid, whether you care to recognize it or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top