Reverend_Hellh0und

Adding on to that let me give you an example. Suppose we believe that diabetes reduces life expectancy - diabetics don't live as long and non-diabetics and we want to do a study to see if the data support this hypothesis. In research, they always set up a study by stating the "null hypothesis" of no relationship and then collect some data hoping that this null hypothesis can be rejected, thus supporting the alternative hypothesis that diabetes is related to longevity.

1. The primary null hypothesis (hypothesis of no relationship) is:

Ho: Diabetic lifespan = Non-diabetic lifespan

2. The model specification, however, takes the form of the alternative hypothesis (Ha):

Model: Diabetic Avg Lifespan < Non-diabetic Lifespan

3. If they collect some data on when diabetics and non-diabetics croak, They then compute an "average" for both groups. They also compute a "standard deviation" for the base group (non-diabetics), and then a "confidence interval" surrounding the average of the base group. A 95% confidence interval (2-tailed) for the base group would be:

-1.96*(s/sqrt(N)) < Avg Lifespan of Non-diabetics < 1.96*(s/sqrt(N))

where s = the sample standard deviation for the non-diabetic group and N is the number of cases in the non-diabetic group.

If the average lifespan for the diabetics falls within this 95% confidence interval, they must accept Ho (the null hypothesis); otherwise they can accept Ha (the model specification, assuming the mean for diabetics is less than the mean for non-diabetics), which is what they/we wanted to show.



This is not getting to complicated for you is it?

__________________
كافر
Caith siar é agus ná lig anair á

MSgt

I don't know what your talking about. Kelzie's been promoted to General under my roof. And a good Marine follows his orders.

__________________

MSgt
Semper Fidelis
USMC

MSgt

The is exactly the case. I would absolutely love to be able to state that the absence of war at any cost was only a Cold War attitude, but it would be erroneous.

- Our attitudes after World War II was criminal. We condemned and abandoned Poland behind a wall of oppression for fifty years simply because the prospect of further war to free those we sought to free from a fascist empire in the first place was too much to bear.

- Throughout the Cold War we offered support towards some dictators just to deny their allegiance to the Soviet Union. We also allied with religious warriors simply to deny the Soviet Union their bold entrance into the Middle East. Along the way, we tried to hold true to our values by attempting to be-friend the players on both sides of the modern day Arab crusade in the desert while our red counterparts sought only to introduce turmoil and descension in order to give themselves the edge.

- In Vietnam, we fought for the Vietnamese against their northern communist oppressors without any consideration of the corrupt and useless government we were defending in the south.

And then came the period of history where we became really confused about our role in this world. We encountered a situation that was a first. When the Kremlin fell, the world saw for the first time a truly global domination by one nation. We had truly become the indispensable country (better us than somebody else). All three President's ever since has struggled to define our role. And they have had so much trouble because they are dealing with outdated customs and expired notions of organization at every level in our government and in the international organizations. The first President Bush showed how to unite the world against a tyrant, but failed to push the world beyond their intellectual thinking that had provided Saddam Hussein his magic carpet ride back to Baghdad to continue his local terror unmolested. President Clinton provided the world with the rhetoric of a new world order of humanitarianism and good will, but failed to come through on his promises as terror went unchallenged and endeavors half-assed. The current President Bush finally took steps to act on our values, but failed to understand the local cultures or the concept of values that the world has created for themselves. The concept of "good" as defined by taking out a tyrant that we (all the world) relied upon for our sense of "peace and stability" was trumped by a concept of "good" that has been defined by obeying UN rules that protect the dictator.

We continue to struggle with those words "stability and peace." Stability does not mean peace, but true peace will always mean stability. And this is what we have to start understanding. We have to start acknowledging that supporting the dictators (and standing by as they terrorize is supporting them) only ever offerred us temporary stability against a larger threat. In the end we have turned an already backwards, volatile, and religiously radical civilization towards us instead of towards their own governments and culture or towards those outside nations that truly sought to oppress them.

Considered "an eminent representative of the liberal political tradition, "Alexis de Tocqueville once wrote that "America is great because she is good, but if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great." But what defines "good?" The support of the dicatator or the denial of him? The oppression of millions or their freedom? Somehow, "good" for many has been defined as simply obeying an organization largely made up of oppressors, abusers, and dictators. Somehow, nations like China and Russia are supposed to have an equal vote into what free nations decide is best for the world. And somehow, free people in our free nations have offerred them total adherence simply to cling to their notion of what we are supposed to do. By the way, Tocqueville wrote this about America in 1835 when America was celebrating slavery and oppression within its borders. His idea of "good" continues to plague the international community as they pervert their values and jeer us when we attempt to break from their traditional thought.

If taking out a dictator is considered wrong then what exactly does that mean for nations who fought us diplomatically to preserve him? And what does that say about the people who thought the same? They are wrong and they are the plague. I would argue that it is our own backwards intellectual habits of thought that are the true threat to "peace."

__________________

MSgt
Semper Fidelis
USMC

Reverend_Hellh0und

No truer words have been spoken. excellent post all around brother.

__________________
كافر
Caith siar é agus ná lig anair á