Leaving the community

and there is the problem - can you really estimate or bound the error
from all the error sources (e.g., people not participating or
deliberately lying to the poll)?

Yes.

You cannot "bound" the error in an absolute sense, except to say that it's no bigger than the total population, which is useless. However, if a poll is done right, you can estimate the likely error. For example, "95% of the time, the error will be
less than 1%. 98% of the time, the error will be less than 5%" (I'm making these numbers up since they depend on how well the poll is conducted, and how big the sample size is, etc). This is where the standard deviation of the mean comes in as an
estimate of how good your measurement is.

Of course it cannot be used as a "backup" to voting. However, it can (and should) be used as a screening to indicate whether this particular situation warrents closer investigation. IF the actual voting disagrees with the exit poll by enough
(depending on how the poll is conducted), then there is a good chance (though not a certanty) that there is funny business going on somewhere. It could be that the poll is incorrectly reflecting the actual intended (by the voters) results. However,
it could also be that the election incorrectly reports the voters' choices.

Jose
--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On 11/6/04 10:35 PM, in article
, "Cecil Chapman"
wrote:

Sorry Cecil, I won't argue the amendment. I let it stand on it's own as
interpreted by the SC. But when someone tries to misinterpret the meaning
in
order to further their agenda, I speak up.


But Jeff,,, I have no agenda... There is no 'plot' against you,,,, no
'secret conspiracy' that I'm trying to pull on you. jeesh "paranoia WILL
destroy ya" grin. I'm just trying to approach the issue, logically.
Also, the Supreme Court upheld the right to bear arms but in their decision
it was not stated that the reason for supporting the right was to assure
that the citizens of the U.S. could overthrow the government. Goodness,
Jeff!

I wasn't really accusing *you* of having an agenda. You did not try to
change the meaning of the words in the 2nd Amendment. But you were defending
the position of the poster that was doing so. Argue the 2nd Amendment all
you wish. I merely stand as a watchdog to the original intent.


Change the Constitution if you can, but trying to alter the original views
of Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, et al, by incorrectly using their words
is
a sure way to invalidate your argument and doom your cause to failure.

I'm not trying to change the Constitution (unlike Bush and Ashcroft who have
tried to strip away the most basic guarantees with the 'Patriot' Act). I
haven't altered any original views, at all.

But,,,, and I'm asking you to be rational here; do you REALLY think the
reason for the second amendment was that the founding fathers wanted to
assure that the citizenry would have the ability to overthrow the new
government that they were working SO hard to put into place? Jeff?
Really??? Isn't a more likely explanation that they recognized that their
new country didn't have a lot of money to fund purchasing weapons for a
formal army and that they wanted to insure that its' citizens had weaponry
so that they could be called up to fight in the event the new country was
attacked? .. "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be
infringed"

I have issues just as you do with the Patriot Act. But that isn't the issue
under discussion.

As for your question, rationally yes, I do believe that is one of the
reasons. They stated as much in the Declaration of Independence: "When in
the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve
the political bands which have connected them with another..."
They were able to recognize that governments, even the one that they had
just created, might take a horrible change for the worse, and then: "...it
is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new
Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its
powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their
Safety and Happiness."

They were not so foolish that they did not realize that abolishing and
instituting a new government would involve at least a few exchanges of
gunfire.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino
Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 05:21:40 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
wrote:



Cecil Chapman wrote:

I go back to what I said before. The average citizen has NO need to have
armor piercing bullets (or rounds that will effectively do the same).

And they don't have any. The big problem is people like Boxer who label commonly used
ammunition "armor piercing" and play people like you for suckers.

You forgot the ones who call the ammo fired in a AK47 as high powered
when they are no more powerful than the low to medium powered
ammunition for deer hunting.


Any
cop-friend will tell you is to get a shotgun for home protection, you just
point in the 'general direction' and you'll hit the intruder.

Might scare 'em to death with the noise and muzzle flash indoors but
ya still gotta point the thing at what you want to hitsnicker

Bull****! A shotgun hits where you point it, and you'd better make damn sure you're
pointing it exactly where you want it to hit. The shot pattern from my 12 gauge will
be about 2" wide at 20'. Point that "in the general direction" of somebody, you're
just going to punch holes in the walls.

True, they don't stop 5 hours down the block but they sure are hard on
the plaster. 2 to 3 inches at 20 feet would be pretty much typical
for an open bore.

I watched, ok... shot with some officers using a double barrel 10Ga.
Even with #8 shot they never did hit a clay pigeon. Sure did make a
lot of noise though.


I've just been saying that Joe Bob down the street
doesn't need a shoulder fired missile, armor piercing bullets, automatic
weapons to defend his/her home.

And these are not available in the U.S. and have not been for many decades.

I remember an article in "Guns and Ammo" years back. They purchased a
20mm cannon, had it converted to a bolt action, added a "Hydrochoil
stock", and went plinking with HE ammo. It made that 50 cal sniper
rifle (forget the name of it now) look kinda puny. LOL They were
describing how far they were sliding from the recoil when shooting
prone.

But,,,, an AK-47???

They make a good hunting rifle although a bit bulky. I prefer my old
740 as it's lighter and more powerful. With the AK47 in Michigan you
just have to plug the magazine to 4 plus one in the chamber "as I
recall". You might have to explain to the DNR but it'd be legal. I
can just see a guy carrying one out in the woods with the big magazine
plugged to 4.


The semi-automatic version of the AK-47 is a fine weapon for hunting an animal that
weighs about 180 pounds, especially in brush. That's a deer, by the way.

Not much bigger than that though. OTOH a friend bagged a Kodiak with
his 44 mag hand gun in Alaska. It wasn't really by choice though.
The Kodiak was trying to remove him from his horse at the time and the
revolver was a whole lot handier than the big bore rifle which was
still in the scabbard. Made the Boon and Crocket records too.

I remember getting one of those deer "way back when". OTOH I bagged
two so far with my cars and one with the Deb. The Deb fared better
than the deer, but it was the biggest I've bagged between the cars,
airplane, and ought six! Even considering it cost over five grand to
replace the gear doors on the passenger side, it was probably a
quarter the cost per pound compared to the hunting:-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

I encourage you to re-examine your decision, David.

I assume that you occasionally have passengers who's lives depend on your
ability to make mature decisions. If a controller made you angry on IFR
final will you refuse to speak to him? If the weather makes you angry in
an emergency situation will you crawl into the back seat and refuse to fly
the plane? If the answer is no, then I recommend you use that same
discipline and professionalism in this news group and concentrate on the
aviation topics while ignoring that which makes you angry. In other words:
Fly the plane. Ignore the distractions.

If you are going to be a pilot then act like a good one.



Maule Driver wrote:
It is a sad day but it will look better tomorrow. And some of us try to
keep to the forum topic most of the time.

Welcome to feeling like a disenfrancised minority. But picking up your
marbles and going home really isn't a viable life strategy - especially
over
politics (or sex or race).

Get a good night's sleep or 5 and hope to see you again.

"David Brooks" wrote...
One thing - one of so very many things - I learned in my five years of
flying is that partisan politics does not fit into the cockpit. Most of
my
flight instructors have, I know, been to the right of me politically. I
had
a most enjoyable flight with CJ - although he has since earned my undying
enmity by unapologetically using the term "Final Solution" in connection
with me and people like me, an astonishing thought coming from an
avowedly
religious man, but telling and apt.

But now it seems the nation has, albeit by a slim margin, re-elected a
weak,
hypocritical, murderous coward. Three years ago, when some writers on the
left started talking about fascism, I thought that an absurd stretch. No
longer. The parallels are not precise - they never are - but the broad
sweep
and many of the components of a new fascist state are in place. The 48%
who
didn't vote for this disaster keep knocking on my consciousness, but they
are now feeble and impotent. The thugs are in charge.

That being so, and despite what should be an apolitical setting, I can no
longer in good faith keep company with a group of which the majority, I
know, has elected to deliver the country I love, and chose as my home
into
the hands of Bush and his repressive, regressive masters.

So long. Thanks for all the conversations. You guys have made me a better
pilot.

-- David Brooks

"David Brooks" wrote in message
...
One thing - one of so very many things - I learned in my five years of
flying is that partisan politics does not fit into the cockpit. Most of my
flight instructors have, I know, been to the right of me politically. I
had
a most enjoyable flight with CJ - although he has since earned my undying
enmity by unapologetically using the term "Final Solution" in connection
with me and people like me, an astonishing thought coming from an avowedly
religious man, but telling and apt.

It is too bad that Mr. Brooks took seriously what was an obvious parody. I
would never seriously advocate extermination of Democrats.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"David Brooks" wrote in message
...
One thing - one of so very many things - I learned in my five years of
flying is that partisan politics does not fit into the cockpit. Most of
my
flight instructors have, I know, been to the right of me politically. I
had
a most enjoyable flight with CJ - although he has since earned my
undying
enmity by unapologetically using the term "Final Solution" in connection
with me and people like me, an astonishing thought coming from an
avowedly
religious man, but telling and apt.

It is too bad that Mr. Brooks took seriously what was an obvious parody. I
would never seriously advocate extermination of Democrats.

However, he may have a point -- he may have taken me seriously because so
many others on these forums appear to genuinely believe that anyone who has
religious beliefs should at least be disenfranchised, if not eliminated
altogether. The advocacy of genocide is a modern liberal trait, but the
liberal reasons that if he thinks genocide is a viable option, then his
conservative opponents must, too. If liberals think that religion must be
exterminated, who can blame them for believing that their opponents think
like they do?

Even then, I did not advocate killing anyone. I suggested in that post that
they violate TFRs, similar to the joke that was making the rounds that
Republicans should drive at night with their lights on to show solidarity,
while Democrats should drive with their lights off. It is astonishing that
anyone claiming intelligence would take such a joke seriously, but it is
telling and apt that Mr. Brooks would.

In article ,
Jose wrote:

and there is the problem - can you really estimate or bound the error
from all the error sources (e.g., people not participating or
deliberately lying to the poll)?

Yes.

You cannot "bound" the error in an absolute sense, except to say that it's no
bigger than the total population, which is useless. However, if a poll is
done right, you can estimate the likely error. For example, "95% of the
time, the error will be
less than 1%. 98% of the time, the error will be less than 5%" (I'm making
these numbers up since they depend on how well the poll is conducted, and how
big the sample size is, etc). This is where the standard deviation of the
mean comes in as an
estimate of how good your measurement is.

This is true only if you know the distribution function.

--
Bob Noel

This [putting a bound on the likely error] is true
only if you know the distribution function.

One of course never =knows= the distribution function. However, one can make reasonable estimates ("guesses", if you will) based on ones sampling methods and experience with previous polls (comparing past polls with elections for example). True,
your guess of the distribution function might be off, but if you do things right, it's probably close. How close? Well, there's a distribution function to describe that too.

One doesn't even know the sun will come up the next day, but as a working theory it seems to be more than satisfactory. Statistics is not mumbo jumbo, although it is true that real mumbo jumbo can be disguised as statistics.

Jose
--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
(note to r.a.student: I only follow r.a.piloting and r.a.ifr, to which this is also posted)

I guess "off she went" is appropriate. She slid off a road and hit the end
of a concrete bridge. Yea, she left me, and a lot of other people who
loved
her.

Asshole.

Not likely, but a clever technique to use to turn the gist of a story,,,
almost believed you! Good try, though!

And Willie Brown dropped by your house how often? Just because you had a
black mayor doesn't mean you actually saw a black person. Or that your
conversation went beyond: "I'll have a Big Mac

You've NEVER been to the city for any appreciable time then or you would
know the demographics of our area - pretty racially mixed - check it out on
the U.S. census site.


And you didn't mention when your wife's coworker attended college. If it
was
1955 I wouldn't find it surprising. But the next door neighbor of one of
my
third cousin's best friends said it didn't happen anyway.

Nope,,, less than 11 years ago, she was working on a Masters degree.



And one funny: around the time that "gay" was beginning to "kick in", I
was
having a drink with a homosexual friend of mine.

YOU have a gay friend,,,,, snicker as if THAT would be very likely!


Child molesters were not part of my discussion, as that has nothing to do
with homosexuality.

You just had said, to leave our nine year old in the castro - your
presumption was that someone there would take advantage of him and that, as
far as I understand, would qualify as child molestation.


Research indicated that the molestation itself does not lead to
any mental health problems for the children.

Yep, right up there on the 'good ol' boy' list, that women really 'enjoy'
being raped. just shaking my head at you
You're either just plain hopeless or you are a troll,,,, I give up on you

bye bye....

You need to get a clue.

Naw,,, you just require a specialist to speak with regarding your paranoid
thoughts.

Get better soon!

--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil
PP-ASEL-IA
Student - CP-ASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -
"Richard Hertz" no one@no one.com wrote in message
. net...