Statistic from yahoo news article: can anyone explain this to me?
832349
actually, the one out of every 500,000 is just short hand for we don't have enough cases to figure out what the real statistics is for this disease. This fact was actually brought up in an class on evolution I had the other week, but yeah, don't rely on the one out 500,000 or 1 out 200,000 statistics, it's just some guestimate that sounds better then we don't know.
678426
this will explain it\nhttp://www.daniweb.com/techtalkforums/showpost.php?p=75196&postcount=43
793915
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/5243862.stm\nhttp://safari5.bvdep.com/0596009453/yahoohks-PREF-3\noh by the way it was yahooooooooooooooo
808142
Your data set would look like this:\n\n10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 235 235\n\nThe mean is 730/20 = 36.5.\nThe median is (10+20)/2 = 15.\nThe mode is 10.\n\nSo certainly what was stated by the dean isn't a lie.\n\nNow, if I were to calculate, say, the average number of classmates for each person in the statistics classes, there would be 100 9's, 160 19's, and 470 234's.  So the average number of classmates for people taking these classes is approximately 113,920/730 = 156.05.  The median is 234 and the mode is also 234.  So the newspaper isn't really lying either.\n\nI guess you can say that they are looking at this from two different perspecitves, so in that sense, there are two truths.
1041061
You could always click the "popular" link on the Yahoo! front page:\n\nhttp://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=index2&cid=964
253944
There was on online article about just this!\n\nI think it is just journalists trying to make up fluff.
1018285
The person made a mistake and misunderstood. Maybe e-mail Yahoo and ask them to take another look at all the facts.
151893
Hmm, I don't think anyone's ever figured this out. It would be tough to do. There's no "central" place on the internet to go to observe how many hits everything is getting, it's too broken up. I would guess it's in the 100s of thousands, but it's just a guess.
548104
http://www.press-enterprise.com/newsarchive/1998/03/20/890347033.html
878602
http://www.jayski.com/stats/2006standings/nov5.htm
951400
But how much of your "information" is filtered through a system that may not give you the whole truth?\n\nAny source for news will have a bias, regardless of the intention.\n\nNo offense, what proof do you have to support the 90% number you quote?
60794
I believe that there is a Yahoo Business contact that has information like that. Though I would guess that it is not free. Or there are places in the US that gather information of a consumer based on their internet usage and such. They have been in the news in recent months due to security breaches, Sorry I don't recall the name. Those would be the places that I would look for that kind of information.
566924
lol . . . finally a great question . . . \n\nI read the article too . . . and it felt like it was written by a woman . . . the way she reference the Percentages as Only 10% or Only 33%.  Do you really need the word only . . . no you don't . . . it is the womens way minimizing an actually large number . . . odds are the numbers are probably higher . . . and they went with the lowest in the article. . . from a different group.  This article tries to downplay the problem of women accusing men falsely \n\nYou know . . . this is fraud on the basic level . . . and if paternity went uncontested after a certain time period then . . . and then it is discovered that the child is not his . . . even if it is genetically proven.  He is still stuck paying child support.  Fraud is a crime . . . yet the government support this felony.\n\nLook at the links . . . from my blog.\n\nhttp://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-1fu03lEleqEHvVmUM.5t9K4-?p=31\nhttp://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-1fu03lEleqEHvVmUM.5t9K4-?p=35\nhttp://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-1fu03lEleqEHvVmUM.5t9K4-?p=85\n\nThis is wrong as it is selfish . . . I also answered your question regarding what is the most selfish thing a person can do . . . \n\n- - - \n\nYes . . . paternity testing is expensive . . . but is covered by most insurance . . . it is also optional in most hospitals.  But the father is afraid to ask for it . . . so not to insult his wife or girlfriend.  If it becomes manditory . . . this type of testing will radically go down in price . . . because the demand is there.  The main reason why it is a little pricy . . . is because the demand is low . . . and the training cost is high.  The demand was higher . . . then they would be more busy . . . and utilizing their training more and the cost will go down.\n\nAlso . . . the DNA testing . . . should be done by the hospital too . . . not only to confirm parentage . . . but if god forbids something happens to the child and the child needs an organ . . . 98% . . . a compatible organ can be found in the biologically father and someone answered that 1 of 6 is not compatible (in the pregnancy section) . . . and those are people who believe they are the biological fathers. \n\nThing is the parents . . . don't even need to know about the test or the results . . . unless it is proven that the father is not the father.\n\nWomen will say it will be an invasion of privacy . . . those who say that have something to hide.  It is not something to feel insulted about . . . those who feel insulted have insulted the guy they were with because they hope that the man they want is the father.\n\nPlus . . . I don't care if we put Maury out of business . . . this needs to be resolved and quickly.
792811
I was almost afraid to look at your link (after the one yesterday).But this one is a good one. Never did the Liberal media let us Know how many of our presidents used this same ability. It was used as a propaganda tool against president Bush. Liberals were  fooled again.
871826
What an informative article...but I am already against illegals in our country so this only reinforces not changes my stance.\n\nthanks!
134496
I have found a site relating to the topic I can't say that I can vouch for how reputable the information is.  But here is the link you make your own educated decision.  Obviously anyone can fudge numbers to make there own point.
437284
I would reference the study where they say everybody is removed by 6 people, which basically everybody is connected to everybody within 6 people.  And then continue how the internet may actually remove some of those people.  Or talk about flash mobs...