Note to self: The five year old standing behind you can read quite well, thank you very much.
Dawn ,'The Killer In Me'
Natter 39 and Holding
Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.
I got a another financial treat today. 50% return in 6 days. Plus the Delay news, cool.
<dances in the street>
Cashmere, say 'hi' to Mick Jagger and David Bowie.
Ha ... some one knew DH's birthday was soon... I sent him those two articles , but then I had to call him.
I am sure when I go outside I will see my cat cuddling with the squirrils - it feels like things have turned upside down.
So there's no basis to say, "may actually contribute to social problems," right?
Well, correllation is enough to say may cause, just not enough to say is the cause.
Well, correllation is enough to say may cause
That's what I'm wondering about. It seems to me that they shouldn't even say that - they should just stick to mentioning the correlation. If A and B have a positive correlation, that says nothing about whether A causes B, B causes A, or if one or more factors not A or B causes them both.
But then, I'm not 100% I'm right.
Tom Delay has been indicted
yessssss!
It seems to me that they shouldn't even say that - they should just stick to mentioning the correlation.
I agree. The word "may" covers their ass, but only just.
GOP congressional officials said Speaker Dennis Hastert will recommend that Rep. David Dreier of California step into the duties relinquished by DeLay.
Rumor has it that Dreier was picked because Delay expects to get the Majority Leader post back and Dreier would be an easier person to wrest it back from than other candidates.
If A and B have a positive correlation, that says nothing about whether A causes B, B causes A, or if one or more factors not A or B causes them both.
Right. Even a 1:1 correlation isn't causation -- you'd need a really well-designed experimental study, controlled for everything under the sun, to get causation, and even then someone in the world would think up a way that your study did not measure what you thought it was measuring.
"May be risk-factors for" would be better language for a serious study. Risk-factors are basically the attributes or conditions that have a high correlation with the outcome, with no judgement as to whether that attribute is causal of the outcome.