Remember this about the human race:

Hope you were just pretending to be dum, coz the above statement is obviously not true for reasons that need no further clarification and have everything to do with common sense.
Click to expand...


this is going to be funny

edit: I knew it :)
 
Kavalam Narayana Panicker said:
Hope you were just pretending to be dum, coz the above statement is obviously not true for reasons that need no further clarification and have everything to do with common sense.
Click to expand...

When discussing such a large proportion of samples, averages tend to be based upon a wide spectrum that points average to be the middle populus of the represenative samples.

In other words, it's not too bright to come onto my forum and decide to be a smart-ass because you want to be overly technical about what might amount to a matter of a few thousand at any given point in time, in a state of flux to which most staticians would agree that average is a populate median. I could have stated all sorts of quantifiers, but for brevity's sake I used the acceptable means.

So half, including you, are obviously below average for any given state of "average", given upon any number of conditions we could pull out of our ass for the next week or so.

Thank you for helping provide this object lesson for today.

Class dismissed.
 
Ok. Let me see if I got this right: if half the population is of below average intelligence (like I am, for example) and the other half is of above average intelligence, then just how many are there of average intelligence?
 
Kavalam Narayana Panicker said:
Ok. Let me see if I got this right: if half the population is of below average intelligence (like I am, for example) and the other half is of above average intelligence, then just how many are there of average intelligence?
Click to expand...

Welcome to the numeric impossibilities and degrees of "average", which again are in flux, as nobody is truly "average". There is only a "concept" of "average", to which people are measured to in abstract relation to, because there is no precise measurement with that many samples that will lead to one person being the personification of average, much less enough to require plurity. There will be more that will hover around that range, but the number dead on would be exponentially insignificant the more precise you make the measure of average.

If you were to use a crude numbering system with only a narrow range of measurement, of course you're going to get many that will be on or close to "average". Once you widen the range to make the samples more defined, with each on a notable difference between others even remotely close by - you will still be lucky to have ONE that is perfectly "average" in that numbering range.

Hey, did you also happen to realize that you're talking to a programmer?
 
Jackass wannabe's...

oh well, i hope his balls are totally scorched so that he can no longer contaminate the world with any offspring.
 
There's a scene in BUMFIGHTS 3, even the producers said, it's the most idiotic thing ever sent in:

2 guys on a rooftop.
A table on the ground.
Pilediver or so (i'm not that much into wrestling)
Both guy injured. (broken pelvic bone, etc.)

I just don't know how to cut videos, otherwise I'd cut it out and upload it somewhere.
If someone couls help me, I'd highly appreciate that. (I just need a FREE video editing tool that doesn't suck ass.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top