![]() |
|
|
#2 (permalink) |
|
Spice Master
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,969
Internets: 284106
|
4% - about 350 MB out of 7.5GB. 700 emails in my inbox -- I try to go through and delete every couple of months and clean up, but it's so easy to let it slide.
|
|
Psychedelics are illegal not because a loving government is concerned that you may jump out of a third story window. Psychedelics are illegal because they dissolve opinion structures and culturally laid down models of behavior and information processing.
― Terence McKenna |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#14 (permalink) |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 549
Internets: 5464
|
Your normal distribution is extremely leptokurtic. What this means is that there are more extreme values (e.g. Mr. Blondes) in your sample. What this really means is that by trying to prove your point you only disproved your point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 (permalink) |
|
Emperor Meow
|
I'm sorry, it's pretty clear you have no idea what you are talking about.
There may "more extreme values," as you put it, but fewer people under them. The area under the curve where Blonde is located relative to the mean is very, very small. I'm not surprised its hard for you to understand how to read a graph, considering it's taking you about 10 years to get your bachelors degree. |
|
#YOLO
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 (permalink) |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 549
Internets: 5464
|
Actually it's you who doesn't know what you're talking about. Your distribution has excess kurtosis, which implies fatter tails, and greater probability of extreme values (more area under the tails, dipshit). If, in fact, you contend that your distribution does not have fatter tails, then I'm afraid it's not normally distributed. You'll need to standardize your random variable. Good luck to you.
|
|
Last edited by Der Fuhrer; 10-09-2010 at 02:46 PM. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#19 (permalink) |
|
Bokononist
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 2,595
Internets: 11801
|
Anytime I check my email, I usually delete the bullshit. Which means I only do so about once a month. Then again, I have a throwaway email account that receives most spam, but not all of it (I think that by having an email address, it seems you're pretty much guaranteed spam). For overly repetitive bullshit, I even 'report as spam'.
I'm where Blonde is. My Gmail is the only email account I really use, so I like to keep a relatively clean house. My Hotmail account, on the other hand, can keep growing exponentially because I don't give a shit about anything it receives. |
|
"Those who believe in telekinetics, raise my hand." |vonnegut
|
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Answer Me This | Ugly Bastard | The Confessional/Advice Line | 4 | 06-25-2010 01:47 AM |
| Answer in real life to nubblies name | Beebs | General Chat | 28 | 04-14-2005 08:05 PM |
| Answer with songs--Pretty fun | Constance | The Games | 15 | 02-20-2004 03:21 PM |