|
|
#11
05-02-2005, 01:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Strange Days on Planet Earth w/ Edward Norton. Episode 2
http://www.pbs.org/strangedays/index_flash.html
At the top there is TV schedule. Click on that and it will tell you the times. It get's played all week (even in high def). You can also buy the DVD set. I'm sure there will be reruns of the first two episodes though. 
|
|
#12
05-02-2005, 01:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Strange Days on Planet Earth w/ Edward Norton. Episode 2
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] There is no way for them to accurately assess the # of large fish "missing" hahaha ur supposed to be a smart man...come on now pre-that many yrs ago we didnt even have the technology to keep up with what was in the ocean...and even know we cant get a solid count on whats there and whats not there...the ocean is a bit big and deep last time i checked [/ QUOTE ] It's called statistical sampling. Like the guy who runs the Nielsen ratings system said, if you don't believe in sampling, next time they take blood, tell them to take all of it. [/ QUOTE ] im aware of sampling....im in the psychology field...thx My point WAS that a sample does not represent a fact - and they are bent and misrepresented to suit peoples purposes, hopefully most of u would know this
|
|
#13
05-02-2005, 01:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Strange Days on Planet Earth w/ Edward Norton. Episode 2
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] It's called statistical sampling. Like the guy who runs the Nielsen ratings system said, if you don't believe in sampling, next time they take blood, tell them to take all of it. [/ QUOTE ] im aware of sampling....im in the psychology field...thx My point WAS that a sample does not represent a fact - and they are bent and misrepresented to suit peoples purposes, hopefully most of u would know this [/ QUOTE ] Holy cow peachy, what does it take to get you to actually read something before opening your mouth? Click on the first link and get back to us. Bent on misrepresenting???? The data is reproducable, hence the reason it was published in a peer review journal. The data has been reproduced over and over again. Hell even the fishing companies.... Why am I wasting my time? You have to be trolling, there is no way you can be that stupid and get into grad school. Back on ignore peachy. Do a search in the Journal Nature by Ransom Myers. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...e01610_fs.html http://fish.dal.ca/~myers/papers/Pap...ure01610_r.pdf
|
|
#14
05-02-2005, 02:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Strange Days on Planet Earth w/ Edward Norton. Episode 2
hahaha just because something is published in a journal doesnt make it a renowned fact...please. I do studies, but there are factors that can affect those studies: insufficent #s, outside variables, etc etc - endless things. The findings r "correct" in terms of using signficance, but the reasons why arent...so dont feed me this BS. I dont care how many times this is tested....unless its years and years of data and teams dedicated to this and massive tagging of fish and then more studies done by other groups simultaneously and after the data is not relavent. U can think what u want...and if u wanna be shocked and insipired by overall incorrect statistics then be my guest. Bottom line, no stat that comes out right or wrong is going to change the majority of the world...and it wont affect us (in a massive way)...just those after us....
if u wanna believe all stats thats ur choice...but this is how i feel about them...so dont start some dumb "im right and ur wrong" arguement and its funny how u SAY im on ignore but yet respond to me and then claim ur puttin me back on ignore....quite sad
|
|
#15
05-02-2005, 03:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Strange Days on Planet Earth w/ Edward Norton. Episode 2
[ QUOTE ]
hahaha just because something is published in a journal doesnt make it a renowned fact...please. I do studies, but there are factors that can affect those studies: insufficent #s, outside variables, etc etc - endless things. The findings r correct, but the reasons why arent...so dont feed me this BS. I dont care how many times this is tested....unless its years and years of data and teams dedicated to this and massive tagging of fish and then more studies done by other groups simultaneously and after the data is not relavent. U can think what u want...and if u wanna be shocked and insipired by overall incorrect statistics then be my guest. Bottom line, no stat that comes out right or wrong is going to change the majority of the world...and it wont affect us (in a massive way)...just those after us.... [/ QUOTE ] Ransom, WHOI, NOAA, Pelagic longlines, and many more have already done all of that as described in the links I provided. They have decades of data. Man you are a raging fucktard. Goodnight peachy, I need sleep.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
