Kasz216 said:
Which is... impossible. You can't make a ranking system between 1 and whatever if your trying to measure multiple different variables. It's statistical stupidtity. Anyone who's had a class in statistics can tell you that. You need to keep what your measuring simple... and it being one measurement. It's likely why the WHO doesn't do it anymore. |
Are you seriously trying to claim that it is impossible to do a legitimate statistical analysis when you consider more than one factor? And that it isn't at all relevant to look at the effect multiple factors have?
That's like saying that because GM's workers are paid well that the company is successful. It makes absolutely no sense.
We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls. The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke
It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...." Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson
