Mafiascum.net

Yeah, if you took any 20 random high school students, even out of my resource room 9th grade world history classes, I'd expect at least one or two to get a perfect score on a test like that, and a few more 7's and 8's. There's no way that you get 0 out of 1000 on a fair assessment.

There are problems with the knowledge base in this country, and I don't know about the Oklahoma schools in particular, but I'm pretty sure that test is malarkey.

Yosarian2 wrote:Yeah, if you took any 20 random high school students, even out of my resource room 9th grade world history classes, I'd expect at least one or two to get a perfect score on a test like that, and a few more 7's and 8's. There's no way that you get 0 out of 1000 on a fair assessment.

There are problems with the knowledge base in this country, and I don't know about the Oklahoma schools in particular, but I'm pretty sure that test is malarkey.

If the world agreed with Yosarian 2, the world's problems would end.

Interestingly enough, I found this image originally on fivethirtyeight

Those are a comparison of the StrategicVision poll results and the actual answers given by actual students on the same test. FiveThirtyEight ripped the entire thing to shreds to the point that if anyone has any doubt that it's fake, I have some magic beans they might be interested in. And they did it months ago (like, in August), I'm not sure why you brought it up now?

- got a link, Dizzy?

This page has all the FiveThirtyEight posts on Strategic Vision, including the stuff on that poll. The fact that Nate Silver, who qualifies everything and is generally a cautious cat, was confident enough to outright call them "disreputable and fraudulent" is pretty damning, in my eyes.

I agree more jobs creation via public works programs would be helpful right about now.

Cobalt wrote:

That's some of the most horrid scales on a graph I've ever seen. Terrible representation of data.

Thesp wrote:

Cobalt wrote:

That's some of the most horrid scales on a graph I've ever seen. Terrible representation of data.

Lol, yeah.

Once you look at the numbers, what it actually says is that government employement is up by, what, 100 jobs?

It's in thousands, so that would be 100 thousand.

TheButtonmen wrote:It's in thousands, so that would be 100 thousand.

Yeah, you're right, and of course that makes a lot more sense.

I'm not really sure what "seasonally adjusted" means, though, in terms of public jobs.

Even government jobs have seasonal work. Landscapers, lifeguards, rec center staff...

[/bureaucrat]

Kinda old, but needs to be in this thread BBC's Newswipe on FOX.

Fox claims that other news channels are biased agianst them, so BBC makes ad hominem attacks on their hosts one by one to show how crazy they are. LoL irony?

I don't think you know what ad hominem attacks are.

They attack the hosts personally rather then the content of the news, that's Ad hominem. Also i feel like resorting to Ad hominem attacks vs Fox is lazy.

Nope! Ad hominem attacks involve actual logical fallacy and are a subset of personal attacks; "You fuck dogs" is a personal attack, whereas "Your economic theory is incorrect because you fuck dogs" is an ad hominem.

The Latin does sounds cooler, I know.

They were discrediting Fox News by attacking their hosts rather then their contents, so it was "Your news is baised because your crazies" not "Your news is baised because [Insert argument here]" hence Ad Homey

(It's "biased")

It's only an ad hominem if the thing being used to criticise is actually not relevant to the topic. I don't know how much control Fox hosts have over their scripts so I can't say for sure but I wouldn't normally call the integrity of the person delivering a message irrelevant to the quality/accuracy/objectivity of the message.

That guy's a douche.