It preservers our air of mystery.
It makes everyone here hate them, frankly.
Mal: We're still flying. Simon: That's not much. Mal: It's enough.
'Serenity'
Natter 47: My Brilliance Is Wasted On You People
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.
sarameg - Oct 17, 2006 7:52:50 am PDT #3965 of 10001
Connie Neil - Oct 17, 2006 7:53:33 am PDT #3966 of 10001
brillig
It makes everyone here hate them, frankly.
Hate, fear, it's all the same to the techies.
§ ita § - Oct 17, 2006 7:53:52 am PDT #3967 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Unless that figure is counting all marriages, which includes widows remarrying.
Nope--it's age at first marriage.
Theodosia - Oct 17, 2006 7:57:19 am PDT #3968 of 10001
'we all walk this earth feeling we are frauds. The trick is to be grateful and hope the caper doesn't end any time soon"
Connie Neil - Oct 17, 2006 7:59:47 am PDT #3969 of 10001
brillig
"I'm very bendy."
Topic!Cindy - Oct 17, 2006 8:03:53 am PDT #3970 of 10001
What is even happening?
I'm very surprised that the median age for females getting married in 1890 is so high. In my genealogy, most of the girls at that time period were married before 20.
edit: Unless that figure is counting all marriages, which includes widows remarrying.
If you're talking about this chart [link] it says 'first marriage' so I don't think it does. I was surprised, too. I like (and think in) means more than medians, though. My maternal great grandmother was 14 when she got married (in the 1890s). Her daughter (my grandmother) was 17 when she got married in the 1920s. They were in Nova Scotia, though. It changed a lot in the next generation. Looks like my mom was nearly four years above the median, when she married at 24 in the 1960s. I was 3 years above the median, when I married at 27 in the 90s.
Stats people,
Is there a particular advantage to looking at the median, rather than the mean, in a table like the one linked above?
flea - Oct 17, 2006 8:05:41 am PDT #3971 of 10001
information libertarian
Question - does anybody know if there's a way to get TimesSelect coverage if you aren't an individual subscriber to the paper? We've (at work, in a library) found that Stanley Fish's columns, for example, aren't in the print edition, and don't make it into Lexis or Factiva. The library has a print subscription, but it's institutional and doesn't include TimesSelect (it's not an option).
bon bon - Oct 17, 2006 8:07:35 am PDT #3972 of 10001
It's five thousand for kissing, ten thousand for snuggling... End of list.
I'm not surprised about the median figure because there's a much larger group of marriageable people on the older side of 20 than the younger side.
Topic!Cindy - Oct 17, 2006 8:09:55 am PDT #3973 of 10001
What is even happening?
That's why I'm wondering if there's another reason they're using median instead of mean.
Tom Scola - Oct 17, 2006 8:10:12 am PDT #3974 of 10001
Remember that the frontier of the Rebellion is everywhere. And even the smallest act of insurrection pushes our lines forward.
Is there a particular advantage to looking at the median, rather than the mean, in a table like the one linked above?
The distribution isn't bell-curve shaped. There will be quite a few people getting married in their twenties, and it will tail off as people get older. While there may be only a few people getting married in their 90s, it will make the average much higher than the median, and misrepresent the data.