|
Deaths in Iraq., vs Deaths in Los Angeles by Elonka at 11:54 am EST, Jan 27, 2004 |
Thrynn writes: Ok. I haven't talked about Iraq in a while so here's some interesting data to chew on: Murder numbers: ] [Chicago] ended 2002 with 646 murders, second to Los ] Angeles, which had 653. New York was third with 580. According to: http://lunaville.org/warcasualties/Summary.aspx The total number of U.S. soldier fatalities stands at 512. This is 11 months of data. 512 killed in a WAR, compared to a 643 in L.A. Just some food for thought. |
|
RE: Deaths in Iraq., vs Deaths in Los Angeles by Acidus at 4:02 pm EST, Jan 27, 2004 |
] 512 killed in a WAR, compared to a 643 in L.A. But we know what they are killing for in LA: Hoes, weed, and hoods. Why are we in Iraq again? oh thats right Oil! Maybe I should get a solar power car and go to Compton. :-) |
|
|
RE: Deaths in Iraq., vs Deaths in Los Angeles by jlang at 6:31 pm EST, Jan 27, 2004 |
Elonka wrote: ] Thrynn writes: ] ] Ok. I haven't talked about Iraq in a while so here's some ] interesting data to chew on: ] ] Murder numbers: ] ] ] [Chicago] ended 2002 with 646 murders, second to Los ] ] Angeles, which had 653. New York was third with 580. ] ] According to: http://lunaville.org/warcasualties/Summary.aspx ] ] The total number of U.S. soldier fatalities stands at 512. ] This is 11 months of data. ] ] 512 killed in a WAR, compared to a 643 in L.A. ] ] Just some food for thought. Wow, what a bizarre and meaningless comparison. This statistic looks quite a bit different when it is expressed as [number of deaths] / [number of people in the sample group]. |
|
| |
RE: Deaths in Iraq., vs Deaths in Los Angeles by Jeremy at 1:40 am EST, Jan 28, 2004 |
jlang wrote: ] Wow, what a bizarre and meaningless comparison. Thank you, Jacob, for bringing the voice of reason to this thread. For everyone else, here is your reading assignment: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0809058405/ Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and Its Consequences by John Allen Paulos |
|
|
|