@PolhomeEditor: BREAKING: Jeremy Corbyn spokesman suggests he will not share a pro-EU platform with Tony Blair either.
Well he only talks to the Morning Star and Press TV, because all the rest of the media are disgusting...so not surprised he is taking the same approach to platform sharing....SAFFFFEEEEE SPACCCEEEE.
As opposed to David Cameron who ruled out "blue on blue" debates or head-to-head debates at the last election, and who speaks only to vetted activists. Safe space?
Did anyone else notice this? I did. A total barefaced lie from Cameron, on last night's debate
@jdportes 15h15 hours ago Islington, London PM says again "people who come here and don't find a job in 6 months have to leave". This is simply untrue. Shocking PM continues saying this
Yes, he's said it many times. Except it's a right never tested - we don't know when people arrive, when they leave or when they have been employed. We deliberately don't link the pieces of info together so that we never get to the point where it is tested by the ECJ.
If anybody hasn't yet seen that Cameron is a habitual and inveterate liar, they want their own heads tested.
No doubt committed Leavers don't make this association, but I expect that it is one widely made.
Jesus. You're very thick for a supposedly bright bloke.
Most people won't have a clue about the derivation of "Little England", or its association with xenophobia or whatever. The phrase hasn't been widely used in 20 years.
All they will hear is the word "Little" attached to "England", and done in a sneering tone. It's a basic, silly error, of which REMAIN have made quite a few in recent weeks.
Cameron can lose England and win Britain by a narrow margin if he wins London and Scotland and Northern Ireland by big margins
You are aware that London is part of England right?
It's just completely bare-faced now, isn't it? All of them. They just lie. Cameron to Khan and beyond. Corbyn is no different, he's lying about the EU, he wants to LEAVE.
I know politicians always lie but it seems to me they're getting worse at it.
@rwainwright67: To be very clear: Mr Farage's claim on #itvdebate that I have said EU migration policy led to 5,000 jihadists coming to Europe is 100% false
@IanDunt: Last night Farage cited report showing "marginal loss" to UK economy from migration.It's nowhere to be seen https://t.co/KYqau9rt2d
Just watching the BBC News report about Hillary Clinton winning the Democrat nomination, with the subtitles on. The voice recognition software called her "killer Clinton". Awkward.
@faisalislam: Sky Exc: Electoral Commission is telling authorities to prepare for a Scottish Referendum level of turnout in the EU Referendum "around 80%"
Wow! Buy over 80% at 22 on Betfair. Buy 75-80% at 7
Electoral Commission are playing on the safe side to ensure they don't run dry of ballots at peak times at polling stations.
I doubt turnout will be above 80%.
Exactly.
Compare the level of ground activity in the SindyRef with EURef - the posters, the leaflets, the town centre stalls, and so on. There's no likeness. My own guess is that it'll be sub-60.
From Cameron's statement looks like anyone who registered last night or today they are trying to ensure get a vote . Don't know what the legalities of that will be?
I was wondering about that...
The government had better make sure this is legally water-tight because if there's a narrow win (on either side) you could see the whole thing ending up in the courts...
No doubt committed Leavers don't make this association, but I expect that it is one widely made.
Jesus. You're very thick for a supposedly bright bloke.
Most people won't have a clue about the derivation of "Little England", or its association with xenophobia or whatever. The phrase hasn't been widely used in 20 years.
All they will hear is the word "Little" attached to "England", and done in a sneering tone. It's a basic, silly error, of which REMAIN have made quite a few in recent weeks.
Cameron can lose England and win Britain by a narrow margin if he wins London and Scotland and Northern Ireland by big margins
You are aware that London is part of England right?
Yes, Remain could win London comfortably and still lose England so the point remains
No doubt committed Leavers don't make this association, but I expect that it is one widely made.
Jesus. You're very thick for a supposedly bright bloke.
Most people won't have a clue about the derivation of "Little England", or its association with xenophobia or whatever. The phrase hasn't been widely used in 20 years.
All they will hear is the word "Little" attached to "England", and done in a sneering tone. It's a basic, silly error, of which REMAIN have made quite a few in recent weeks.
Cameron can lose England and win Britain by a narrow margin if he wins London and Scotland and Northern Ireland by big margins
You are aware that London is part of England right?
Yes, Remain could win London comfortably and still lose England so the point remains
It's a tad redundant to include London in your post. That's like saying they can lose England and win Britain if he wins Liverpool, Manchester and Scotland and NI by big margins.
Liverpool and Manchester (like London) are entirely irrelevant to the point you were making. It is the non-English (ie Scots, NI and Gibraltans) that matter.
The government had better make sure this is legally water-tight because if there's a narrow win (on either side) you could see the whole thing ending up in the courts...
Preparing for defeat...
@KateEMcCann: Bernard Jenkin says Government fiasco over voter reg could prompt a "judicial review of the result", adds it is a "shambles".
Is this last minute registration designed to overload council checks and get invalid voters onto the register?
Someone learned from the £3ers, where there was a huge surge at the last moment from the trades unions that were impossible to check before the Labour leadership election...
@PolhomeEditor: BREAKING: Jeremy Corbyn spokesman suggests he will not share a pro-EU platform with Tony Blair either.
Well he only talks to the Morning Star and Press TV, because all the rest of the media are disgusting...so not surprised he is taking the same approach to platform sharing....SAFFFFEEEEE SPACCCEEEE.
As opposed to David Cameron who ruled out "blue on blue" debates or head-to-head debates at the last election, and who speaks only to vetted activists. Safe space?
Do you hear me saying anything positive about Cameron? I used to give credit to Cameron when he did those genuine Cameron Direct events, but he doesn't even do the monthly presser Q&A's that even Brown used to do, let alone anything unvetted.
From Cameron's statement looks like anyone who registered last night or today they are trying to ensure get a vote . Don't know what the legalities of that will be?
I was wondering about that...
The government had better make sure this is legally water-tight because if there's a narrow win (on either side) you could see the whole thing ending up in the courts...
I'm surprised if the law doesn't give the discretionary right to an extension in the event of technical problems.
However a court case would be doomed to failure and look absolutely terrible. "Yes we lost but we think these voters shouldn't have voted so should be discounted" is awful PR and never going to win.
'Nigel Farage's Little England' made it into PMQs.....this one will run & run.......
While Corbyn's strategy of pointing out Tory splits was sound - he sounded whiney as Cameron did his 'lets rise above this and see where there is consensus'.....
"Little England" may run and run but I doubt if it's the killer point that Cameron thinks it is.
You missed a bit:
Nigel Farage's Little England
Why did VoteLEAVE get upset when the ITV program was Cameron & Farage?
Because ITV had unilaterally invited someone who was not affiliated with the official campaign
@SeanT I gave the Wikipedia link precisely to illustrate that it is a normal understanding of the phrase.
I appreciate that those who want to puff out their chests, smear themselves in woad and ride chariots with blades mounted in the wheels won't care for the phrase. That is not the intended audience.
Small historical note: Woad and chariots with bladed wheels (though I don't think they did actually "blade" them), is surely evocative of Boudiccea (she of various spellings, but whose name best translates as "Victoria" - cf modern Welsh for "victory" buddugoliaeth ), who was a Celt of the Iceni tribe of present day Norfolk.
Thing is she almost certainly spoke Ancient British and so if she was anything that could be culturally laid claim to after 2000 odd years she's Welsh. I'm sure the old lass would've been livid at the thought of being called a "little Englander" not that the phrase would've meant anything to her given the entire concept of anybody being "englisc" lay at least 400 years in the future.
Retreats to pedant's corner.
Well said, Mr. Howl.
And just to be a little pedantic myself; one doesn't retreat to Pendant's Corner one should march proudly towards it with head held high, comfortable in the knowledge of a job well done. There to lurk ready leap out the next time one's services are needed.
Just watching the BBC News report about Hillary Clinton winning the Democrat nomination, with the subtitles on. The voice recognition software called her "killer Clinton". Awkward.
Last night my other half misheard a news report as "Hillary Clinton is the WORST woman to be nominated as the presidential candidate" (or words similar) rather than "first woman".
No doubt committed Leavers don't make this association, but I expect that it is one widely made.
Jesus. You're very thick for a supposedly bright bloke.
Most people won't have a clue about the derivation of "Little England", or its association with xenophobia or whatever. The phrase hasn't been widely used in 20 years.
All they will hear is the word "Little" attached to "England", and done in a sneering tone. It's a basic, silly error, of which REMAIN have made quite a few in recent weeks.
Cameron can lose England and win Britain by a narrow margin if he wins London and Scotland and Northern Ireland by big margins
You are aware that London is part of England right?
Yes, Remain could win London comfortably and still lose England so the point remains
It's a tad redundant to include London in your post. That's like saying they can lose England and win Britain if he wins Liverpool, Manchester and Scotland and NI by big margins.
Liverpool and Manchester (like London) are entirely irrelevant to the point you were making. It is the non-English (ie Scots, NI and Gibraltans) that matter.
Liverpool. Manchester and Scotland combined have a lower population than London, it is London which makes it possible to win Britain without England, if London did not exist and it was just provincial England that would not be the case, however London + the Celtic fringe does equal a UK wide majority if there are big majorities there for one side and a small majority in provincial England for the other
You said "...if i have a standard deviation of 45ml/L that is a large standard deviation but what does it actually mean? What does a large standard deviation show?..."
You have a thing with a value. That value is mostly stable. Mostly it varies by a little, sometimes it varies by a lot, and in exceptional circumstances it varies by a big lot. The thing we use to measure this variation is called "variance" (because statisticians have no imagination), though sometimes we use the square root because it makes the maths easier. That square root is called the "standard deviation"
Anyhoo, the variation forms a pattern. If that pattern is symmetrical and looks like a camel's hump (ish), then we can tell things about it and, since many things *do* have that pattern, we use it rather a lot.
So. If your thing has that pattern (it's called the "normal distribution") , an average value, and a standard deviation of 45 then we can say that:
* 68% of the time your thing will be within +/- 45 of the average * 95% of the time your thing will be within +/- 90 of the average * 99.7% of the time your thing will be within +/- 135 of the average
No doubt committed Leavers don't make this association, but I expect that it is one widely made.
Jesus. You're very thick for a supposedly bright bloke.
Most people won't have a clue about the derivation of "Little England", or its association with xenophobia or whatever. The phrase hasn't been widely used in 20 years.
All they will hear is the word "Little" attached to "England", and done in a sneering tone. It's a basic, silly error, of which REMAIN have made quite a few in recent weeks.
Cameron can lose England and win Britain by a narrow margin if he wins London and Scotland and Northern Ireland by big margins
'Nigel Farage's Little England' made it into PMQs.....this one will run & run.......
While Corbyn's strategy of pointing out Tory splits was sound - he sounded whiney as Cameron did his 'lets rise above this and see where there is consensus'.....
"Little England" may run and run but I doubt if it's the killer point that Cameron thinks it is.
You missed a bit:
Nigel Farage's Little England
Why did VoteLEAVE get upset when the ITV program was Cameron & Farage?
Because ITV had unilaterally invited someone who was not affiliated with the official campaign
No, they got upset because it was Farage - the rotters at ITV were chasing ratings, the scoundrels.
a) I toss a coin 100 times. I find that the longest run of tails is six. Is there anything I can conclude about whether the coin is unbiased or not?
b) I toss a coin a million times. What is the longest run of tails for me to conclude the coin is biased towards tails (or heads)?
You can guess if you like..."
Any more guesses?
I toss an unbiased head/tail coin in an unbiased way 100 times and it comes up heads each time. I toss it again. What is the probability that it comes up heads again?
a) > 50% a momentum argument b) exactly 50% it is an unbiased coin with no memory c) < 50% a reversion to the mean argument
The problem with that is if you'd tossed your coin once a second, every second, since the beginning of the Universe, you still wouldn't expect to get a run of 100 heads (either in the total, or treating each batch of 100 as a separate trial).
Are you sure the coin is unbiased? (^_-)
A more reasonable and true example is as follows, however...
One night in 1913, at the roulette wheel in Monte Carlo, black came up 26 times in a row. The house won millions with punters betting on red [argument c)], and maybe a few betting on black for the 27th spin [argument a)].
26 blacks in a row! About 68,411,591 to 1 against. Impossible, or at least highly unlikely.
Yes, for that particular table.
However, when all spins on all roulette wheels in the history of the world are considered, it's entirely unremarkable. You would only need about 500 million spins to have heard on one such run of 26 blacks, and I don't think we've heard of another...
68m to 1 is roughly the odds of the Euromillions, and people win that often enough.
Correctly calling a coin toss 100 times in a row is about the same odds as buying one Euromillions ticket per draw and winning four draws running.
No doubt committed Leavers don't make this association, but I expect that it is one widely made.
Jesus. You're very thick for a supposedly bright bloke.
Most people won't have a clue about the derivation of "Little England", or its association with xenophobia or whatever. The phrase hasn't been widely used in 20 years.
All they will hear is the word "Little" attached to "England", and done in a sneering tone. It's a basic, silly error, of which REMAIN have made quite a few in recent weeks.
Cameron can lose England and win Britain by a narrow margin if he wins London and Scotland and Northern Ireland by big margins
You are aware that London is part of England right?
Yes, Remain could win London comfortably and still lose England so the point remains
It's a tad redundant to include London in your post. That's like saying they can lose England and win Britain if he wins Liverpool, Manchester and Scotland and NI by big margins.
Liverpool and Manchester (like London) are entirely irrelevant to the point you were making. It is the non-English (ie Scots, NI and Gibraltans) that matter.
Liverpool. Manchester and Scotland combined have a lower population than London, it is London which makes it possible to win Britain without England, if London did not exist and it was just provincial England that would not be the case, however London + the Celtic fringe does equal a UK wide majority if there are big majorities there for one side and a small majority in provincial England for the other
No it is not f***ing possible for London to make it possible to win Britain without England as London is part of England. It is included in the English tally!
London is just a part and parcel of England, no more no less.
@SeanT I gave the Wikipedia link precisely to illustrate that it is a normal understanding of the phrase.
I appreciate that those who want to puff out their chests, smear themselves in woad and ride chariots with blades mounted in the wheels won't care for the phrase. That is not the intended audience.
Small historical note: Woad and chariots with bladed wheels (though I don't think they did actually "blade" them), is surely evocative of Boudiccea (she of various spellings, but whose name best translates as "Victoria" - cf modern Welsh for "victory" buddugoliaeth ), who was a Celt of the Iceni tribe of present day Norfolk.
Thing is she almost certainly spoke Ancient British and so if she was anything that could be culturally laid claim to after 2000 odd years she's Welsh. I'm sure the old lass would've been livid at the thought of being called a "little Englander" not that the phrase would've meant anything to her given the entire concept of anybody being "englisc" lay at least 400 years in the future.
Retreats to pedant's corner.
Well said, Mr. Howl.
And just to be a little pedantic myself; one doesn't retreat to Pendant's Corner one should march proudly towards it with head held high, comfortable in the knowledge of a job well done. There to lurk ready leap out the next time one's services are needed.
From Cameron's statement looks like anyone who registered last night or today they are trying to ensure get a vote . Don't know what the legalities of that will be?
I was wondering about that...
The government had better make sure this is legally water-tight because if there's a narrow win (on either side) you could see the whole thing ending up in the courts...
I'm surprised if the law doesn't give the discretionary right to an extension in the event of technical problems.
I don't know... On Newsnight last night they were pretty unequivocal that it's "illegal" to extend voter registration beyond the cut off time... Maybe they were wrong though?
No doubt committed Leavers don't make this association, but I expect that it is one widely made.
Jesus. You're very thick for a supposedly bright bloke.
Most people won't have a clue about the derivation of "Little England", or its association with xenophobia or whatever. The phrase hasn't been widely used in 20 years.
All they will hear is the word "Little" attached to "England", and done in a sneering tone. It's a basic, silly error, of which REMAIN have made quite a few in recent weeks.
Cameron can lose England and win Britain by a narrow margin if he wins London and Scotland and Northern Ireland by big margins
You are aware that London is part of England right?
Yes, Remain could win London comfortably and still lose England so the point remains
It's a tad redundant to include London in your post. That's like saying they can lose England and win Britain if he wins Liverpool, Manchester and Scotland and NI by big margins.
Liverpool and Manchester (like London) are entirely irrelevant to the point you were making. It is the non-English (ie Scots, NI and Gibraltans) that matter.
Liverpool. Manchester and Scotland combined have a lower population than London, it is London which makes it possible to win Britain without England, if London did not exist and it was just provincial England that would not be the case, however London + the Celtic fringe does equal a UK wide majority if there are big majorities there for one side and a small majority in provincial England for the other
No it is not f***ing possible for London to make it possible to win Britain without England as London is part of England. It is included in the English tally!
London is just a part and parcel of England, no more no less.
Hypothetically it is, as if London did not exist but the rest of England did then in this referendum the Leave vote in England would be much stronger and the Celtic fringe would have no hope of overturning it. It is the 8 million votes in London which will weaken the Leave vote in England and give the Celtic fringe and NI the chance to overturn it if it votes Remain by a big majority
Is this last minute registration designed to overload council checks and get invalid voters onto the register?
Almost certainly not, though it might have that effect. The system was designed to make it harder to register for the young and mobile, who were suspected of Labour leanings. Trouble is, for current purposes, they are also thought to favour Remain, hence the current panic.
a) It turns out that the expected value for the run of tails for any number of tosses n is ROUND(log2(n) -1). In the case of 100 that would be six. So we certainly cannot conclude the coin is biased.
b) Applying the above formula we find the expected value is 19. But how far from this would we have to be to be suspicious. This is where it gets interesting...
It turns out the 95% confidence interval is [-3,+3] around this value, and for large n >=50, this range is independent of n. It never changes! The 99% confidence interval is [-3,+6] for any large n.
So depending on your view, a run of 26 tails in 1,000,000 tosses would be very unlikely. But so would a maximum run of only 15!
Addressing Robert's final point. We might have the sequence HT repeated 500,000 times. The coin is clearly unbiased between heads and tails, but there is definitely something wrong with it!
Apparently, this technique can be used in forensic accountancy, and also to identify ballot fraud [too many consecutive ballots]
No doubt committed Leavers don't make this association, but I expect that it is one widely made.
Jesus. You're very thick for a supposedly bright bloke.
Most people won't have a clue about the derivation of "Little England", or its association with xenophobia or whatever. The phrase hasn't been widely used in 20 years.
All they will hear is the word "Little" attached to "England", and done in a sneering tone. It's a basic, silly error, of which REMAIN have made quite a few in recent weeks.
Cameron can lose England and win Britain by a narrow margin if he wins London and Scotland and Northern Ireland by big margins
I think the Remain strategy is quite clear now.
Yes, it does look like it is now writing off non-metropolitan England
Hurst Llama you asked me a question the other day about small arms calibres. My PC died as I was sending t so I'll try a reprise:
Think of small arms calibre names as brand names. The market is terribly crowded around the popular bore sizes. There are so many .30 calibre (imperial) calibres that they can't all call themselves '.30 calibre'. So...most are purely nominal. It's also vital to remember that rifles are rifled. Duh! They have grooves and lands. The groove to groove diameter is bigger than the land to land diameter - and different calibre 'brand names' refer to different diameters - groove, land or actual bullet. Some stick to calibre but differentiate themselves on other things. So, for example, a Falklands War vintage SLR is a 7.62 and so is an AK47, but the SLR is 7.62 x 51 NATO whereas the AK round is 7.62 x 39 Russian (the other number in this case referring to case length). The nominal rounds are the most confusing as they are just that - nominal. A '.303 British' bullet is actually .312 inches across! A 7.92mm bullet is 8.22mm across. In both cases these were driven partly by Groove to groove approximations as the 'brand name' was selected. My advice is, as I said, think of calibres as brands and try to remember the technical specs for each as you need them.
a) It turns out that the expected value for the run of tails for any number of tosses n is ROUND(log2(n) -1). In the case of 100 that would be six. So we certainly cannot conclude the coin is biased.
b) Applying the above formula we find the expected value is 19. But how far from this would we have to be to be suspicious. This is where it gets interesting...
It turns out the 95% confidence interval is [-3,+3] around this value, and for large n >=50, this range is independent of n. It never changes! The 99% confidence interval is [-3,+6] for any large n.
So depending on your view, a run of 26 tails in 1,000,000 tosses would be very unlikely. But so would a maximum run of only 15!
Addressing Robert's final point. We might have the sequence HT repeated 500,000 times. The coin is clearly unbiased between heads and tails, but there is definitely something wrong with it!
Apparently, this technique can be used in forensic accountancy, and also to identify ballot fraud [too many consecutive ballots]
I've just been out on my bike and was thinking about this again.
a) There is a (1/2)^6 = 1/64 chance of each of the first 94 coins being the first of a run of 6 or more heads (and no chance of the last 6 coins being such). So there's a 63/64 chance of each of the first 94 coins not being the first of a run of 6 or more heads. So the total chance of none of the coins being the first of a run of 6 is (63/64)^94 = 0.228. So the chance of there being a run 6 or more heads is 1 - 0.228 = 0.772. So the chance is significantly greater than evens that at least one run of at least 6 coins will appear when using an unbiased coin. So, no, you can't conclude anything about the bias of the coin.
Generalising, the probability of at least one run of r or more heads in a sequence of n tosses is then 1 - [1-(1/2)^r]^(n-r). For 100 tosses this gives the following values:
r = 1: ~ 1 - 1.6 * 10^-30 r = 2: ~ 1 - 5.7 * 10^-13 r = 3: 0.9999976 r = 4: 0.9980 r = 5: 0.9510 r = 6: 0.7724 r = 7: 0.5178 r = 8: 0.3024 r = 9: 0.1630
etc, etc, which I think agrees with the formula you quoted (since the gap is biggest between r = 6 and r = 7).
So, developing a previous post on how Euro 2016 (just wrt England for the current post) will look over the referendum, FWIW:
England's group fate will be known on Monday evening England's opponent is very likely not to be known until Wednesday night due to both 3rd place qualification table and group F being decided on that night So, will be very little time for debate of the aspects relevant to a known opponent, though the range of likely opponents will narrow down and perhaps allow some discussion beforehand.
Looking at the various odds, implied possible opponents for England are as follows. Match expected to follow on Saturday unless stated. As might be expected it's all a bit pinsticker-y:
12% - None / England fail to qualify from group 10% - Romania 8% - Austria (Mon) 7% - Albania, Croatia, Turkey, Czech Republic, Switzerland 6% - Portugal, Iceland (both Mon) 5% - Hungary (Mon), Germany (likely Sun, poss Sat), Spain 3% - Ukraine, Poland (likely Sat, poss Sun) 1% - France, Northern Ireland
By EU status:
Eastern European EU member (inc Croatia) - 32% Western European EU member - 26% Accession talks state - 14% EEA and/or EFTA - 13% DNQ - 12% Non EU member - 3%
The mathematics is all very well but I am horrified to find that people on this site of all places are talking about Roulette as if it is fair game of chance. It can be but it is also possible for a skilled croupier to significantly effect the outcome, not only as regards red and black but towards a block of numbers on the wheel. They cannot actually rig the roll, on a fair table, but the can shift the odds quite dramatically. Roulette tables on cruise ships are particularly prone to this problem.
Honest casinos put a lot of effort into detecting such practices, but it is a very difficult thing to do.
Hurst Llama you asked me a question the other day about small arms calibres. My PC died as I was sending t so I'll try a reprise:
Think of small arms calibre names as brand names. The market is terribly crowded around the popular bore sizes. There are so many .30 calibre (imperial) calibres that they can't all call themselves '.30 calibre'. So...most are purely nominal. It's also vital to remember that rifles are rifled. Duh! They have grooves and lands. The groove to groove diameter is bigger than the land to land diameter - and different calibre 'brand names' refer to different diameters - groove, land or actual bullet. Some stick to calibre but differentiate themselves on other things. So, for example, a Falklands War vintage SLR is a 7.62 and so is an AK47, but the SLR is 7.62 x 51 NATO whereas the AK round is 7.62 x 39 Russian (the other number in this case referring to case length). The nominal rounds are the most confusing as they are just that - nominal. A '.303 British' bullet is actually .312 inches across! A 7.92mm bullet is 8.22mm across. In both cases these were driven partly by Groove to groove approximations as the 'brand name' was selected. My advice is, as I said, think of calibres as brands and try to remember the technical specs for each as you need them.
Mr. Patrick, thank you very much for that. Really most helpful.
I remember the SLR with its 7.62x51 NATO standard round with the utmost affection, a lovely weapon and in good hands (which we were trained to be) very effective even with iron sights. My elder brother, who was serving at the time of the transformation from .303, reckons to this day that the SLR was an abomination, unnecessary and unfit for a British infantryman. We are both agreed that the move to 5.56mm was absurd and the family of weapons it produced dreadful (though some of those have been sorted out in recent years).
So thinking of calibres as brands seems to be very good advice. We get comfortable with our brand and don't like to switch. Of course, experience in Afghanistan suggests that the 5.56 is not ideal for all situations. One things of the reintroduction of the, marvellous, GPMG at section level and "marksman rifles" also at the section level, both 7.62 NATO standard.
Comments
https://www.facebook.com/TELEGRAPH.CO.UK/videos/10154353962094749/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/isis-up-to-5000-jihadists-in-europe-after-returning-from-terror-training-camps-daesh-islamic-state-a6885961.html
Remind me again, who's that Tony?
http://openeurope.org.uk/intelligence/britain-and-the-eu/what-if-there-were-a-brexit/
Compare the level of ground activity in the SindyRef with EURef - the posters, the leaflets, the town centre stalls, and so on. There's no likeness. My own guess is that it'll be sub-60.
The government had better make sure this is legally water-tight because if there's a narrow win (on either side) you could see the whole thing ending up in the courts...
Liverpool and Manchester (like London) are entirely irrelevant to the point you were making. It is the non-English (ie Scots, NI and Gibraltans) that matter.
@KateEMcCann: Bernard Jenkin says Government fiasco over voter reg could prompt a "judicial review of the result", adds it is a "shambles".
However a court case would be doomed to failure and look absolutely terrible. "Yes we lost but we think these voters shouldn't have voted so should be discounted" is awful PR and never going to win.
And just to be a little pedantic myself; one doesn't retreat to Pendant's Corner one should march proudly towards it with head held high, comfortable in the knowledge of a job well done. There to lurk ready leap out the next time one's services are needed.
You said "...if i have a standard deviation of 45ml/L that is a large standard deviation but what does it actually mean? What does a large standard deviation show?..."
You have a thing with a value. That value is mostly stable. Mostly it varies by a little, sometimes it varies by a lot, and in exceptional circumstances it varies by a big lot. The thing we use to measure this variation is called "variance" (because statisticians have no imagination), though sometimes we use the square root because it makes the maths easier. That square root is called the "standard deviation"
Anyhoo, the variation forms a pattern. If that pattern is symmetrical and looks like a camel's hump (ish), then we can tell things about it and, since many things *do* have that pattern, we use it rather a lot.
So. If your thing has that pattern (it's called the "normal distribution") , an average value, and a standard deviation of 45 then we can say that:
* 68% of the time your thing will be within +/- 45 of the average
* 95% of the time your thing will be within +/- 90 of the average
* 99.7% of the time your thing will be within +/- 135 of the average
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/68–95–99.7_rule
Looks like it worked....
Correctly calling a coin toss 100 times in a row is about the same odds as buying one Euromillions ticket per draw and winning four draws running.
London is just a part and parcel of England, no more no less.
NEW THREAD NEW THREAD
*marches to corner*
new thread
Think of small arms calibre names as brand names. The market is terribly crowded around the popular bore sizes. There are so many .30 calibre (imperial) calibres that they can't all call themselves '.30 calibre'. So...most are purely nominal. It's also vital to remember that rifles are rifled. Duh! They have grooves and lands. The groove to groove diameter is bigger than the land to land diameter - and different calibre 'brand names' refer to different diameters - groove, land or actual bullet. Some stick to calibre but differentiate themselves on other things. So, for example, a Falklands War vintage SLR is a 7.62 and so is an AK47, but the SLR is 7.62 x 51 NATO whereas the AK round is 7.62 x 39 Russian (the other number in this case referring to case length). The nominal rounds are the most confusing as they are just that - nominal. A '.303 British' bullet is actually .312 inches across! A 7.92mm bullet is 8.22mm across. In both cases these were driven partly by Groove to groove approximations as the 'brand name' was selected. My advice is, as I said, think of calibres as brands and try to remember the technical specs for each as you need them.
England's group fate will be known on Monday evening
England's opponent is very likely not to be known until Wednesday night due to both 3rd place qualification table and group F being decided on that night
So, will be very little time for debate of the aspects relevant to a known opponent, though the range of likely opponents will narrow down and perhaps allow some discussion beforehand.
Looking at the various odds, implied possible opponents for England are as follows. Match expected to follow on Saturday unless stated. As might be expected it's all a bit pinsticker-y:
12% - None / England fail to qualify from group
10% - Romania
8% - Austria (Mon)
7% - Albania, Croatia, Turkey, Czech Republic, Switzerland
6% - Portugal, Iceland (both Mon)
5% - Hungary (Mon), Germany (likely Sun, poss Sat), Spain
3% - Ukraine, Poland (likely Sat, poss Sun)
1% - France, Northern Ireland
By EU status:
Eastern European EU member (inc Croatia) - 32%
Western European EU member - 26%
Accession talks state - 14%
EEA and/or EFTA - 13%
DNQ - 12%
Non EU member - 3%
The mathematics is all very well but I am horrified to find that people on this site of all places are talking about Roulette as if it is fair game of chance. It can be but it is also possible for a skilled croupier to significantly effect the outcome, not only as regards red and black but towards a block of numbers on the wheel. They cannot actually rig the roll, on a fair table, but the can shift the odds quite dramatically. Roulette tables on cruise ships are particularly prone to this problem.
Honest casinos put a lot of effort into detecting such practices, but it is a very difficult thing to do.
Playing roulette is a mug's game.
Good times.
I remember the SLR with its 7.62x51 NATO standard round with the utmost affection, a lovely weapon and in good hands (which we were trained to be) very effective even with iron sights. My elder brother, who was serving at the time of the transformation from .303, reckons to this day that the SLR was an abomination, unnecessary and unfit for a British infantryman. We are both agreed that the move to 5.56mm was absurd and the family of weapons it produced dreadful (though some of those have been sorted out in recent years).
So thinking of calibres as brands seems to be very good advice. We get comfortable with our brand and don't like to switch. Of course, experience in Afghanistan suggests that the 5.56 is not ideal for all situations. One things of the reintroduction of the, marvellous, GPMG at section level and "marksman rifles" also at the section level, both 7.62 NATO standard.