Prev: Proposed Motion of No Confidence in URCM Moderation
Next: Ok cyclists - is this reasonable behaviour?
From: Roland Perry on 23 Apr 2010 12:47 In message <hqnjtt$9kc$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, at 20:33:07 on Wed, 21 Apr 2010, Nick Finnigan <nix(a)genie.co.uk> remarked: >> I did the Cambridge University Maths Faculty statistics course for a >>year (only the fresher year I'm afraid), but some of that has probably >>stuck. > > There is no such course. Tell that to my lecturers. -- Roland Perry
From: Roland Perry on 23 Apr 2010 12:50 In message <b261t5hiis5pm5qr8cn2rsmj6m9lmef4vg(a)4ax.com>, at 19:43:02 on Thu, 22 Apr 2010, JMS <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk> remarked: >Most people would just have said "I did maths in the first year at >Uni" That would not have been true. I did the first year Statistics course in the Maths Faculty, as a 1/3 of my third-year course in the Engineering department. As another 1/3 I did the entire freshers year economics course in their Faculty, and the remaining 1/3 was taught in the Engineering department. -- Roland Perry
From: Roland Perry on 21 Apr 2010 09:43 In message <gcjps51a9eh2blvr6q8mi0omat4ilfi9tm(a)4ax.com>, at 22:42:32 on Mon, 19 Apr 2010, JMS <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk> remarked: >as a matter of interest - what do you think is the difference between >having an actuarial background and being an actuary. > >Are you in either class? I did the Cambridge University Maths Faculty statistics course for a year (only the fresher year I'm afraid), but some of that has probably stuck. >>>(Have you found a suitable paper yet?) >> >>It was the papers that you are so fond of which would need this >>different kind of review. But seeing as you ask, please list some >>papers that support your view (and if possible the credentials of the >>reviewers). > >Ah yes - the good old prove the negative. I'm asking you to prove the positive assertions you make. -- Roland Perry
From: Roland Perry on 21 Apr 2010 09:44 In message <0nkps59eljjsuq9jnbhm3bcv9qirhsbpln(a)4ax.com>, at 23:03:00 on Mon, 19 Apr 2010, JMS <jmsmith2010(a)live.co.uk> remarked: >>Bigger head, more twisting leverage. > >Sorry - was that the report from a coroner's court or such like; >perhaps an autopsy? Even a cyclist with rose coloured specs can see that a helmet increases the effective radius of the head. The rest is O-Level physics. -- Roland Perry
From: JMS jmsmith2010 on 21 Apr 2010 12:15
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 14:43:22 +0100, Roland Perry <roland(a)perry.co.uk> wrote: >>Ah yes - the good old prove the negative. > >I'm asking you to prove the positive assertions you make. In particular? The usual "rule" is that someone states something is true - then it is up to them to back it up. Have you never come across this before? This started off with : "And there is some proof that Risk Compensation is applicable to cyclists wearing helmets somewhere is there?" You have yet to provide any proof that Risk Compensation is applicable to cyclists in *any* way; never mind that it will make any statistical difference to the occurrence of accidents. -- Many cyclists are proving the need for registration by their contempt for the Highway Code and laws. The answer: All cyclists over 16 to take compulsory test, have compulsory insurance, and be registered. Registration number to be clearly visible on the back of mandatory hi-viz vest. Habitual law breakers' cycles confiscated and crushed. (With thanks to KeithT for the idea) |