Quote: Originally Posted by Goober
And Chretien was a Saint - Bless him.
Not really. He just did what Clinton did, which was stop the decline and hold things at that level while the middle-class got used to its new lower-level, but he and Clinton never reversed anything.
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington
Do you know what this graph is showing?
It is not showing the suicide rate in Canada, it is showing a google timeline result, which looks at the dates of news articles, and other publications which contain the words used in the search, and compiles them by date. The histogram you end up with is a result that shows how popular certain words are in documents available to the google spiders.
As an example, check this one out:
Google (external - login to view)
It's a google timeline result for "smallpox rate Canada history".
Smallpox does not exist anymore, eradicated by 1979. Obviously the spike in the histogram in 2002 is not the highest recorded rate of small pox in Canada.
If you want to see what the suicide rate in Canada looks like, follow this link:
www.who.int/mental_health/media/en/293.pdf (external - login to view)
Finally. Someone who gets it.
Sorry if that's too much of an ad-hominum reaction. It's just that I never found stuff like linear regression or Chi squares or factor analysis very hard toget a grip on, but to be fair, I do recall how those used to twist the brains of some classmates right out of shape, such that they ended up hating statistics, without seeing what power of insight it enables when used correctly.
In particular, I couldn't *believe* what can be learned about a situation from orthogonal factor analysis using the technique for finding what they call the "hidden effects".
I wonder how many people know that if you're a statistician, there's a healthy little sideline in taking the data that other people have applied false statistical tests to in order to create a lie, and running that data through tests that are valid, in order to see what the data is *really* saying.
Anyway, back to the topic of the thread... the long gun registry...
What do people think about the idea of being able to tag each gun with a RFID chip that identifies each gun uniquely (model, make, year of manufacture) which then gets recorded in a database that contains extra information recording who the current owner is.
I like the idea because, among other things, it means I can get my weapons back if stolen, and it simplifies things a bit for the cops, in that if they find an un-chipped weapons (after a proper period of time for people to get their weapons chipped), they can confiscate it without question. which they can effectively do *now*, with or without a registry, which means with a chip-identification, it can put some breaks on the cops' authority to confiscate guns.
Is that still too Big-Brother?
Last edited by Omicron; Aug 31st, 2010 at 07:25 PM..