[OT] Stranded Woman Saved By GPS

In article , Gordon Harris
writes
By the time you've installed a hydrogen tank in the boot, there's bugger all
room for luggage, so not a great problem ;-)

Just so long as there's room for a mobile phone.....

Gordon you're a Bad Egg :-)
--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk

W. D. Grey writes
In article , Gordon Harris
writes
By the time you've installed a hydrogen tank in the boot, there's bugger all
room for luggage, so not a great problem ;-)

Just so long as there's room for a mobile phone.....

Gordon you're a Bad Egg :-)

I know, I know....
--
Gordon Harris

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 21:41:18 +0000, Gordon Harris
wrote:

Rooney writes
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 19:46:11 +0000, Gordon Harris
wrote:

I thought he always left it in the pub car park and walked home.
;-)

I've managed to sleep comfortably in the last few cars - it wasn't so
easy when I had a little Peugeot though.

I last haven't slept in a car since I was a child and dad was driving us
to Poole over-night, some time in the '40s.
It's weird walking round Stonehenge at dawn in pyjamas.....

I thought druids wore nighties?
--
R
o
o
n
e
y

On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 12:44:34 +0100, Gordon Harris
wrote:

John Laird writes
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 15:20:54 +0100, The Reids
wrote:

Following up to Peter Clinch

there are some new hydrogen buses with zero emmissions in London
now. I'll wait till they do a car. :-)

BMW did a rather smart one in prototype form, including an auto boot
open for venting if a sensor detected a fuel leak.

Saw it in the house magazine, no price mentioned! I like the idea
of the boot flying open to scatter my luggage down the road.

By the time you've installed a hydrogen tank in the boot, there's bugger all
room for luggage, so not a great problem ;-)

Just so long as there's room for a mobile phone.....

Now there's another thing that's awkward on a bike!
--
R
o
o
n
e
y

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 01:14:44 +0000 (UTC), (Chris
Malcolm) wrote:

Mathematicians refer to that as a qualitative relationship, as opposed
to quantitative which would give numbers.


Your (invalid) argument is based on quantity alone.

Unless you are talking proportions, there being 'more middle-aged
women' wouldn't amount to a reason why the stas should differ, since
there could well be proportionally fewer middle-aged women drivers
than cyclists - in which case you would expect this to be reflected in
worse figures for driving.

What proportion of motorists are dangerous young men? And
what proportion of cyclists? Any stats?

No, and it doesn't matter, because it doesn't affect the argument,
just the specific quantities, not their relationship.

So when you say 'a lot more middle-aged women' and 'a lot more young
men', you don't mean percentage-wise? Do you really think there are
more young men who cycle than drive?

I see what the problem is. You don't have the slightest clue about
statistical arguments.

Having studies stats at degree level for two years, and having been
trained to teach stats to A level, I prefer my argument to that of
anyone who studied them at the same place as you and Pete (-:

Incidentally, my professional, academic field is assessing the
validity of arguments. It comes as no surprise to me to find, even in
this distinguished ng, people who just can't follow a line of
reasoning. Some people are great at the technical stuff but just
don't grasp logic.
--
R
o
o
n
e
y

On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 05:15:28 +0100, Rooney wrote:

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 01:14:44 +0000 (UTC), (Chris
Malcolm) wrote:

I see what the problem is. You don't have the slightest clue about
statistical arguments.

PS - here's a nice, simple, modern account.

Quote:
Statisticians typically don't use the terms "quantitative" and
"qualitative", and have instead developed more sophisticated
categories of scale.

A nominal scale allows distinction between different points of data,
but not necessarily anything else; names are an example of a nominal
scale. Nominal scales are always qualitative.
An ordinal scale has an inherent system of ordering; the ratings
"bad", "mediocre", and "good" are organized on an ordinal scale. Some
ordinal scales are quantitative.
A constant distance on an interval scale means the same thing
everywhere on the scale. An extra 5 kilograms is an extra 5 kilograms,
whether it's on top of 7 kilograms or 207 — but an extra point on the
logarithmic Richter scale is a much larger difference for an 8.0 than
for a 2.0. All interval scales all quantitative.
A ratio on a ratio scale means the same thing everywhere on the scale.
2 meters is twice as far as 1 meter, but 40 degrees Celsius is not
twice as hot as 20 degrees Celsius (since 0 degrees Celsius is not
Absolute Zero). All ratio scales are quantitative.
End quote.

If I have to explain any of this any further to either of you then it
will cost you £40 per hour.

Now I can't be arsed continuing this so I'm plonking you in a special
folder for computer technicians.
--
R
o
o
n
e
y