Richard Desmond buys Channel Five
 

"Richard Desmond has clinched a deal to buy Channel Five for £103m, and has
promised to spend more money in the television industry as he works to
become a major player in the market."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jul/23/richard-desmond-channel-five1

Richard Desmond buys Channel Five
 

On Friday, July 23rd, 2010 at 21:55:58h +0100, Ivan wrote:

"Richard Desmond has clinched a deal to buy Channel Five for £103m, and
has promised to spend more money in the television industry as he works
to become a major player in the market."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jul/23/richard-desmond-channel-five1

QUOTE

Desmond's critics say he has failed to invest in the papers, cutting costs
and axing or outsourcing jobs while taking tens of millions of pounds out
of the business.

UNQUOTE

So should one expect a similar policy at `five'?

Richard Desmond buys Channel Five
 

On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 21:55:58 +0100, "Ivan"
wrote:

"Richard Desmond has clinched a deal to buy Channel Five for £103m, and has
promised to spend more money in the television industry as he works to
become a major player in the market."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jul/23/richard-desmond-channel-five1

Great! Another f***ing multimedia plutocrat. When are we going to get
a political party with the ******** to say that you can't own papers
*and* TV stations?

Richard Desmond buys Channel Five
 

J G Miller wrote:
QUOTE

Desmond's critics say he has failed to invest in the papers, cutting costs
and axing or outsourcing jobs while taking tens of millions of pounds out
of the business.

UNQUOTE

So should one expect a similar policy at `five'?

It'll be interesting to see what (if anything) he does about C5's ties with
BSkyB, namely the provision of news, and the D-Sat uplinking/encryption.

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

www.paras.org.uk

Richard Desmond buys Channel Five
 

"Mark Carver" wrote in message
...
J G Miller wrote:
QUOTE

Desmond's critics say he has failed to invest in the papers, cutting
costs
and axing or outsourcing jobs while taking tens of millions of pounds
out
of the business.

UNQUOTE

So should one expect a similar policy at `five'?

It'll be interesting to see what (if anything) he does about C5's ties
with BSkyB, namely the provision of news, and the D-Sat
uplinking/encryption.


A bit OT Mark, but now that Rupert and Richard have managed to resolve their
differences, with Virgin agreeing to sell Virgin Media Television to Sky, I
wonder if there will be any future broadcasting surprises there?
I also see that 'Film Four HD' has now made an 'exclusive' appearance on the
Virgin cable HD package, IMV a great pity, as I think that it would have
done wonders for the adoption of Freeview HD if it had been launched on
their HD package, instead of the duplicated Channel Four HD.

Richard Desmond buys Channel Five
 

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...


Duno about 'people are a lot more savvy than they used to be', if so why is
it that even our mainstream broadcasters are increasingly falling over one
another in their attempts to appeal to the lowest dumbed down Chav
mentality?. if it's about ratings, then they must genuinely believe that
those kind of people constitute a very large proportion of their target
audience, maybe the old saying, 'you'll never go broke underestimating the
intelligence of the public', still holds true.



People are a lot more savvy than they used to be I think and know when
they are being conned. However, there is little they can do but boycot the
output be it paper or electronic.

Richard Desmond buys Channel Five
 

"Ivan" wrote in message
...

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...


Duno about 'people are a lot more savvy than they used to be', if so why
is it that even our mainstream broadcasters are increasingly falling over
one another in their attempts to appeal to the lowest dumbed down Chav
mentality?. if it's about ratings, then they must genuinely believe that
those kind of people constitute a very large proportion of their target
audience, maybe the old saying, 'you'll never go broke underestimating the
intelligence of the public', still holds true.

snip

It generally seems to pass people by that around 50% of the population is
below average intelligence.

--
No plan survives contact with the enemy.

Helmuth von Moltke the Elder

Richard Desmond buys Channel Five
 

"David WE Roberts" wrote in message
...

"Ivan" wrote in message
...

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
...


Duno about 'people are a lot more savvy than they used to be', if so why
is it that even our mainstream broadcasters are increasingly falling over
one another in their attempts to appeal to the lowest dumbed down Chav
mentality?. if it's about ratings, then they must genuinely believe that
those kind of people constitute a very large proportion of their target
audience, maybe the old saying, 'you'll never go broke underestimating
the intelligence of the public', still holds true.

snip

It generally seems to pass people by that around 50% of the population is
below average intelligence.


Fifty years ago those kind of people appearing on television, as game show
contestants, would have been ritually humiliated and ridiculed in front of
their peers, by the likes of 'Hughie' or 'Brucie', purely meant as
'inoffensive fun' you understand.
Nowadays of course that things are very different, i.e. obese peroxide
blonde, complete with body piercing and tattoo, cue photograph of dull
looking children with Wayne Rooney look-alike, 'so this is your two lovely
kids, Carpenter and Chantal, with your current partner Darren, ooh aren't
they lovely'... or am I being too much of a cynical old git?

Richard Desmond buys Channel Five
 

David WE Roberts wrote:

It generally seems to pass people by that around 50% of the population
is below average intelligence.


I can't see this because there's no reason why IQ should form a regular
symetrical curve.

Bill

Richard Desmond buys Channel Five
 

On 23/07/2010 21:55, Ivan wrote:
"Richard Desmond has clinched a deal to buy Channel Five for £103m, and
has promised to spend more money in the television industry as he works
to become a major player in the market."


Ah, knowing that twits connections, Channel 5 will become this ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L!VE_TV

"Tiffany's Big City Tips, in which model Tiffany Banister gave the
financial news while stripping to her underwear, and the News Bunny, a
person in a rabbit suit who stood behind a newsreader making gestures
and expressions for each item"

Proper class, that was ...


--
Adrian C

Richard Desmond buys Channel Five
 

Adrian C wrote:

Ah, knowing that twits connections, Channel 5 will become this ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L!VE_TV

Blame Janner Stray Pawer for that ...

Richard Desmond buys Channel Five
 

Bill Wright wrote:

David WE Roberts wrote:

It generally seems to pass people by that around 50% of the population
is below average intelligence.


I can't see this because there's no reason why IQ should form a regular
symetrical curve.

Depending on *which* average function you're talking about, that may or
may not be relevant ...

Richard Desmond buys Channel Five
 

In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:

It generally seems to pass people by that around 50% of the population
is below average intelligence.

I can't see this because there's no reason why IQ should form a regular
symetrical curve.

There is: that's how IQ is defined.

If you'd said "intelligence" instead of "IQ" you would have been
right.

We have no way to determine intelligence directly, even supposing that
such a thing makes sense. We only have performance on tests. And
because we have no objective measure of the intelligence required to
answer a question, all we can do is say that one result is higher than
another. It's as if we had no rulers but could only compare lengths
to see whether they were shorter or longer. Mapping the scores to IQs
is therefore arbitrary; the producers of IQ tests have generally
decided to map scores to a normal (i.e. Gaussian) distribution with a
mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15.

(Originally IQ was defined as being mental age expressed as a
percentage of physical age, but of course this on made sense for
children and in effect assumed that intelligence increases linearly
with age.)

-- Richard

Richard Desmond buys Channel Five
 

On Saturday, July 24th, 2010 at 04:18:12h +0100, Lighthouse asked:

When are we going to get a political party with the rude word deleted
to say that you can't own papers *and* TV stations?

The voters of the UKofGB&NI have just elected a government which has proposed
exactly the opposite policy and is now implementing that policy.

http://www.newspapersoc.org.UK/blog/index.php/2010/06/10/government-looks-at-removing-cross-media-ownership-rules

QUOTE

GOVERNMENT LOOKS AT REMOVING CROSS-MEDIA OWNERSHIP RULES

JUNE 10, 2010 · POSTED IN NS NEWS BY NSÂ*

JeremyÂ*Hunt has asked Ofcom to examine the case for removing *all* cross-media ownership rules
at a local level, adding that the “challenge and scrutiny� of local journalism is vital to
ensuring “greater transparency� in public life .

UNQUOTE

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jul/15/local-media-ownership-rules

QUOTE

Local media ownership rules to go by November

Thursday 15 July 2010 16.12 BST

Coalition sets out media plans, giving 2012 as date for communications bill,
licence fee deal and local TV licences

To pave the way for mergers required to create a new generation of multimedia
content providers, the government intends to complete the relaxation of
cross-media ownership laws by November.

UNQUOTE

Great way to ensure that your commercial news source is all from the same
hymn sheet be it local newspaper, local radio, local TV, or website.

Richard Desmond buys Channel Five
 

On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 11:58:15 +0100, David WE Roberts wrote:

It generally seems to pass people by that around 50% of the population
is below average intelligence.

Below the average intelligence for that country.

But how does that average compare to the average of other countries
and that of the worlwide average?

Are most Japanese more intelligent than the average Anglo-Saxon?

Richard Desmond buys Channel Five
 

On Saturday, July 24th, 2010 at 12:39:43h +0100, Ivan wrote:

Fifty years ago those kind of people appearing on television, as game
show contestants, would have been ritually humiliated and ridiculed in
front of their peers, by the likes of 'Hughie' or 'Brucie', purely meant
as 'inoffensive fun' you understand.

But one should not confuse lack of general knowledge with lack of intelligence,
although there may be a relationship between the two.

And one should remember that nowadays most state schools in the UKofGB&NI
now teach children in order to pass tests, not to teach children how
to learn.

And teaching children to think is definitely considered unpatriotic
since it may cause them to question the Establishment and ordered system.

This is of course reflected in William Wright's recent posting berating
the presence of "troublemakers" (people prepared to take a stand and
ask awkward questions) in universities.

Richard Desmond buys Channel Five
 

On Saturday, July 24th, 2010 at 15:15:40h +0100, Adrian C wrote:

Ah, knowing that twits connections, Channel 5 will become this ...

But will it appeal to viewers of the demographics with disposable
income that television advertising agencies wish to reach?

At the end of the day, it is the overall ratings and advertising time sales
which determine the success of a tv network.

Richard Desmond buys Channel Five
 

"Adrian C" wrote in message
...
On 23/07/2010 21:55, Ivan wrote:
"Richard Desmond has clinched a deal to buy Channel Five for £103m, and
has promised to spend more money in the television industry as he works
to become a major player in the market."


Ah, knowing that twits connections, Channel 5 will become this ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L!VE_TV

"Tiffany's Big City Tips, in which model Tiffany Banister gave the
financial news while stripping to her underwear, and the News Bunny, a
person in a rabbit suit who stood behind a newsreader making gestures and
expressions for each item"



I thought I remembered them also having dwarf throwing sessions (where
vertically challenged people were hurled against a Velcro coated wall)
however I couldn't find a link, although I did stumble upon this
http://www.oddee.com/item_97074.aspxwhich contains one or two interesting
items.

Richard Desmond buys Channel Five
 

J G Miller wrote:

And teaching children to think is definitely considered unpatriotic
since it may cause them to question the Establishment and ordered system.
Given that the teaching profession is full of lefty Guardian reading
weirdos I don't think so. If anything the kids are indoctrinated with
anti-establishment lefty liberal anachist ********. They're taught all
about their human rights but nothing about their responsibilities. Lots
of lessons about the evils of racism but none about the evils of
becoming a state-dependent idle scumbag.

Bill

Richard Desmond buys Channel Five
 

J G Miller wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 11:58:15 +0100, David WE Roberts wrote:

It generally seems to pass people by that around 50% of the population
is below average intelligence.

Below the average intelligence for that country.

But how does that average compare to the average of other countries
and that of the worlwide average?

Are most Japanese more intelligent than the average Anglo-Saxon?

Research into the relationship between intelligence and race is not
allowed. Science is always subservient to political correctness. We are
no better nowadays than they were when Leonarda da Vinci was persecuted
by the Catholic Church for researching cosmology.

It's the same with global warming. Any scientists who dare express doubt
about the offical doctrine risk losing their jobs.

Bill

Richard Desmond buys Channel Five
 

On Sunday, July 25th, 2010 at 04:09:08h +0100, Bill Wright wrote:

Research into the relationship between intelligence and race is not
allowed.

You had better tell that to Professor J P Rushton who has been
conducting research on and off in that area for over 20 years.

http://psychology.uwo.CA/faculty/rushton_pubs.htm

eg

Rushton, J. P., & Jensen, A. R. (2006).
The totality of available evidence shows race-IQ gap still remains.
Psychological Science, 17, 921-922.

Richard Desmond buys Channel Five
 

In article , Andy
Burns
wrote:
Bill Wright wrote:

David WE Roberts wrote:

It generally seems to pass people by that around 50% of the
population is below average intelligence.


I can't see this because there's no reason why IQ should form a
regular symetrical curve.

Depending on *which* average function you're talking about, that may or
may not be relevant ...

So far as I can recall mode and median are not averages. Are you saying
they are? if so, can you explain?

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Richard Desmond buys Channel Five
 

In article , Richard Tobin
wrote:
In article , Bill Wright
wrote:

It generally seems to pass people by that around 50% of the
population is below average intelligence.

I can't see this because there's no reason why IQ should form a regular
symetrical curve.

There is: that's how IQ is defined.

If you'd said "intelligence" instead of "IQ" you would have been right.

We have no way to determine intelligence directly, even supposing that
such a thing makes sense. We only have performance on tests. And
because we have no objective measure of the intelligence required to
answer a question, all we can do is say that one result is higher than
another. It's as if we had no rulers but could only compare lengths to
see whether they were shorter or longer. Mapping the scores to IQs is
therefore arbitrary; the producers of IQ tests have generally decided to
map scores to a normal (i.e. Gaussian) distribution with a mean of 100
and standard deviation of 15.

That seems rather harsh on those people who then have to be assigned an IQ
value of less than zero. :-) Or did we decide to use this as the
criterion for being chosen as a member of the current cabinet as a 'booby
prize' for being members of 'Densa'? I think we should be told. 8-]

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Richard Desmond buys Channel Five
 

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Richard Tobin
wrote:
In article , Bill Wright
wrote:

It generally seems to pass people by that around 50% of the
population is below average intelligence.

I can't see this because there's no reason why IQ should form a regular
symetrical curve.

There is: that's how IQ is defined.

If you'd said "intelligence" instead of "IQ" you would have been right.

We have no way to determine intelligence directly, even supposing that
such a thing makes sense. We only have performance on tests. And
because we have no objective measure of the intelligence required to
answer a question, all we can do is say that one result is higher than
another. It's as if we had no rulers but could only compare lengths to
see whether they were shorter or longer. Mapping the scores to IQs is
therefore arbitrary; the producers of IQ tests have generally decided to
map scores to a normal (i.e. Gaussian) distribution with a mean of 100
and standard deviation of 15.

So how would it work if there were 10 people with an IQ of 99 and one
with an IQ of 101?

Bill

Richard Desmond buys Channel Five
 

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In [email protected] w.co.uk, Andy
Burns
wrote:
Bill Wright wrote:

David WE Roberts wrote:

It generally seems to pass people by that around 50% of the
population is below average intelligence.


I can't see this because there's no reason why IQ should form a
regular symetrical curve.

Depending on *which* average function you're talking about, that may or
may not be relevant ...

So far as I can recall mode and median are not averages. Are you saying
they are? if so, can you explain?

Well that was what I was taught; seems it's still being taught today

http://www.gcse.com/maths/averages.htm
http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/average

Richard Desmond buys Channel Five
 

J G Miller wrote:
On Sunday, July 25th, 2010 at 04:09:08h +0100, Bill Wright wrote:
Research into the relationship between intelligence and race is not
allowed.

You had better tell that to Professor J P Rushton who has been
conducting research on and off in that area for over 20 years.

Yes, and doesn't he get some flak for it!

Bill

Richard Desmond buys Channel Five
 

In message , J G Miller
writes:
On Saturday, July 24th, 2010 at 15:15:40h +0100, Adrian C wrote:

Ah, knowing that twits connections, Channel 5 will become this ...

But will it appeal to viewers of the demographics with disposable
income that television advertising agencies wish to reach?

At the end of the day, it is the overall ratings and advertising time sales
which determine the success of a tv network.

Indeed: as has been observed here before, the product of (commercial) TV
companies is audiences. (They may make a small amount from DVD sales and
foreign material sales, but that's not their main product.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)[email protected]+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"He just 'phoned up to wash his head at us" - Zaphod Beeblebrox (on Marvin).

Richard Desmond buys Channel Five
 

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
o.uk...
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In [email protected] w.co.uk, Andy
Burns
wrote:
Bill Wright wrote:

David WE Roberts wrote:

It generally seems to pass people by that around 50% of the
population is below average intelligence.


I can't see this because there's no reason why IQ should form a
regular symetrical curve.

Depending on *which* average function you're talking about, that may or
may not be relevant ...

So far as I can recall mode and median are not averages. Are you saying
they are? if so, can you explain?

Well that was what I was taught; seems it's still being taught today

http://www.gcse.com/maths/averages.htm
http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/average

And they don't include http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_mean or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_mean

--
Max Demian

Richard Desmond buys Channel Five
 

"Max Demian" wrote in message
...
"Andy Burns" wrote in message
o.uk...
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In [email protected] w.co.uk, Andy
Burns
wrote:
Bill Wright wrote:

David WE Roberts wrote:

It generally seems to pass people by that around 50% of the
population is below average intelligence.


I can't see this because there's no reason why IQ should form a
regular symetrical curve.

Depending on *which* average function you're talking about, that may or
may not be relevant ...

So far as I can recall mode and median are not averages. Are you saying
they are? if so, can you explain?

Well that was what I was taught; seems it's still being taught today

http://www.gcse.com/maths/averages.htm
http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/average

And they don't include http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_mean or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_mean

And I forgot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadratic_mean beloved of
electrical and electronic engineers, and audiophiles.

--
Max Demian

Richard Desmond buys Channel Five
 

In article , Andy
Burns
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In [email protected] w.co.uk, Andy
Burns wrote:
Bill Wright wrote:

David WE Roberts wrote:

It generally seems to pass people by that around 50% of the
population is below average intelligence.


I can't see this because there's no reason why IQ should form a
regular symetrical curve.

Depending on *which* average function you're talking about, that may
or may not be relevant ...

So far as I can recall mode and median are not averages. Are you
saying they are? if so, can you explain?

Well that was what I was taught; seems it's still being taught today

http://www.gcse.com/maths/averages.htm
http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/average

Interesting that such errors and muddles should propagate into such
sources.

Particularly odd for a 'dictionary' to say that a series of things that
have quite different meanings in statistics are 'synonyms'. Perhaps they
don't even know the meaning of 'synonym'. :-)

Oh well, given that 'English' ends up being defined by useage I assume
this will become established as the general usage. Not unusual for
terms in daily common use to be assigned a different meaning to when
specialists use the same word. a la muddles over 'weight' and 'mass'
and of course 'energy' and 'power'.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Richard Desmond buys Channel Five
 

Bill Wright wrote:
J G Miller wrote:
On Sunday, July 25th, 2010 at 04:09:08h +0100, Bill Wright wrote:
Research into the relationship between intelligence and race is not
allowed.

You had better tell that to Professor J P Rushton who has been
conducting research on and off in that area for over 20 years.

Yes, and doesn't he get some flak for it!

But it *is* allowed.

BugBear

Richard Desmond buys Channel Five
 

Ivan wrote:
"Richard Desmond has clinched a deal to buy Channel Five for £103m, and
has promised to spend more money in the television industry as he works
to become a major player in the market."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jul/23/richard-desmond-channel-five1

Not the first time the Daily Express and C5 have been part of the same
organisation.

At one time they were part of United News & Media (which owned Anglia TV as
well).

Richard Desmond buys Channel Five
 

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Andy
Burns
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In [email protected] w.co.uk, Andy
Burns wrote:
Bill Wright wrote:
David WE Roberts wrote:

It generally seems to pass people by that around 50% of the
population is below average intelligence.

I can't see this because there's no reason why IQ should form a
regular symetrical curve.
Depending on *which* average function you're talking about, that may
or may not be relevant ...
So far as I can recall mode and median are not averages. Are you
saying they are? if so, can you explain?

Well that was what I was taught; seems it's still being taught today

http://www.gcse.com/maths/averages.htm
http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/average

Interesting that such errors and muddles should propagate into such
sources.

Particularly odd for a 'dictionary' to say that a series of things that
have quite different meanings in statistics are 'synonyms'. Perhaps they
don't even know the meaning of 'synonym'. :-)

Oh well, given that 'English' ends up being defined by useage I assume
this will become established as the general usage. Not unusual for
terms in daily common use to be assigned a different meaning to when
specialists use the same word. a la muddles over 'weight' and 'mass'
and of course 'energy' and 'power'.

Channel and channel
Speed and velocity
satellite and Sky
Freeview and Freesat
Digital and good
Analogue and bad

OK, these are silly examples. But I wonder if there are words that
originally had a meaning in common parlance, and were then used by
specialists but with a narrower meaning, after which said specialists
would throw up their hands in horror when the word was used in the
original way.

Bill

Richard Desmond buys Channel Five
 

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 09:45:47 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article , Andy
Burns
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In [email protected] w.co.uk, Andy
Burns wrote:
Bill Wright wrote:

David WE Roberts wrote:

It generally seems to pass people by that around 50% of the
population is below average intelligence.


I can't see this because there's no reason why IQ should form a
regular symetrical curve.

Depending on *which* average function you're talking about, that may
or may not be relevant ...

So far as I can recall mode and median are not averages. Are you
saying they are? if so, can you explain?

Well that was what I was taught; seems it's still being taught today

http://www.gcse.com/maths/averages.htm
http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/average

Interesting that such errors and muddles should propagate into such
sources.

General dictionaries record the way words are used even if some of the
uses are not technically correct. If some words are commonly used in a
way that is erroneous and muddled in terms of their strict meanings or
origins these "wrong" usages should appear in the dictionary entries.

However, Merriam-Webster should have distinguished between technical and
non-technical definitions.

The GCSE website which deals with technical uses only is just plain
wrong to use "average" to include "mean", "mode" and "median".

Particularly odd for a 'dictionary' to say that a series of things that
have quite different meanings in statistics are 'synonyms'. Perhaps they
don't even know the meaning of 'synonym'. :-)

Words do not have to have identical meanings to be classed as synonyms
but the meanings do need to be close, possibly overlapping.

"Mean (average), mode and median are all "measures of central tendency"
but I agree that they are not reaaly close enough to be described as
synonyms.

Oh well, given that 'English' ends up being defined by useage I assume
this will become established as the general usage. Not unusual for
terms in daily common use to be assigned a different meaning to when
specialists use the same word. a la muddles over 'weight' and 'mass'
and of course 'energy' and 'power'.

This sometimes happens when science adopts an existing word and uses it
with a limited meaning.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

Richard Desmond buys Channel Five
 

bugbear wrote:
Bill Wright wrote:
J G Miller wrote:
On Sunday, July 25th, 2010 at 04:09:08h +0100, Bill Wright wrote:
Research into the relationship between intelligence and race is not
allowed.

You had better tell that to Professor J P Rushton who has been
conducting research on and off in that area for over 20 years.

Yes, and doesn't he get some flak for it!

But it *is* allowed.

In the strict sense that you don't get thrown into prison for it, yes,
it's allowed. But those looking for a research grant or hoping for a
long career and advancement have good reasons to avoid the study of the
correlation between race and intelligence, and also anything that
questions the global warming religion.

Those like Prof Rushton are very secure and can basically do what they
like. It's a bit different for younger people, who have to toe the
official line.

It's the same in a lot of other areas of course. In teaching it would be
very dangerous to remark, for instance, that the Afro-carribean boys
seem to be more aggressive in the playground.

Bill

Richard Desmond buys Channel Five
 

"Peter Duncanson" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 09:45:47 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article , Andy
Burns
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In [email protected] w.co.uk, Andy
Burns wrote:
Bill Wright wrote:

David WE Roberts wrote:

It generally seems to pass people by that around 50% of the
population is below average intelligence.


I can't see this because there's no reason why IQ should form a
regular symetrical curve.

Depending on *which* average function you're talking about, that may
or may not be relevant ...

So far as I can recall mode and median are not averages. Are you
saying they are? if so, can you explain?

Well that was what I was taught; seems it's still being taught today

http://www.gcse.com/maths/averages.htm
http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/average

Interesting that such errors and muddles should propagate into such
sources.

General dictionaries record the way words are used even if some of the
uses are not technically correct. If some words are commonly used in a
way that is erroneous and muddled in terms of their strict meanings or
origins these "wrong" usages should appear in the dictionary entries.

However, Merriam-Webster should have distinguished between technical and
non-technical definitions.

The GCSE website which deals with technical uses only is just plain
wrong to use "average" to include "mean", "mode" and "median".

Who says that it is 'plain wrong'? Do we all have to start saying 'central
tendency' instead? What would that gain us?

--
Max Demian

Richard Desmond buys Channel Five
 

In article , Bill Wright
wrote:
bugbear wrote:
Bill Wright wrote:
J G Miller wrote:
On Sunday, July 25th, 2010 at 04:09:08h +0100, Bill Wright wrote:
Research into the relationship between intelligence and race is not
allowed.

You had better tell that to Professor J P Rushton who has been
conducting research on and off in that area for over 20 years.

Yes, and doesn't he get some flak for it!

But it *is* allowed.

In the strict sense that you don't get thrown into prison for it, yes,
it's allowed. But those looking for a research grant or hoping for a
long career and advancement have good reasons to avoid the study of the
correlation between race and intelligence, and also anything that
questions the global warming religion.

How much experience have you had of either sitting on the relevant funding
panels or acting as a referee for the applications they get?

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Richard Desmond buys Channel Five
 

In article , Max Demian
wrote:
"Peter Duncanson" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 09:45:47 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

Well that was what I was taught; seems it's still being taught today

http://www.gcse.com/maths/averages.htm
http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/average

Interesting that such errors and muddles should propagate into such
sources.

General dictionaries record the way words are used even if some of the
uses are not technically correct. If some words are commonly used in a
way that is erroneous and muddled in terms of their strict meanings or
origins these "wrong" usages should appear in the dictionary entries.

However, Merriam-Webster should have distinguished between technical
and non-technical definitions.

The GCSE website which deals with technical uses only is just plain
wrong to use "average" to include "mean", "mode" and "median".

Who says that it is 'plain wrong'? Do we all have to start saying
'central tendency' instead? What would that gain us?

I'm quite happy to say it is "wrong" on the following basis.

That in general the mean, mode, and median all can return quite different
values for a given set of data. Indeed, there are also a set of different
sub-types of 'mean'. So as soon as you allow a term like "The Average"
(note use of definite article) to mean *all* of them symultaneously (i.e.
as "synonyms") you end up with statements that will in general be false
and/or misleading unless carefully qualified and explained in each case.

I can appreciate that in general common language there will be no awareness
of any distinction - as with other examples like the ones Bill and I listed
- and general dictionaries may reflect that. But for people who know about
or need to use stats correctly, trying to use the same word to mean all of
them without specifing in each situation is a recipy for confusion and
error. The ambiguity clouds clear communication and thought.

Which of the above do you define as your phrase "central tendency" and what
formula would you use for it given a set of data values?

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Richard Desmond buys Channel Five
 

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:54:23 +0100, "Max Demian"
wrote:

"Peter Duncanson" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 09:45:47 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article , Andy
Burns
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In [email protected] w.co.uk, Andy
Burns wrote:
Bill Wright wrote:

David WE Roberts wrote:

It generally seems to pass people by that around 50% of the
population is below average intelligence.


I can't see this because there's no reason why IQ should form a
regular symetrical curve.

Depending on *which* average function you're talking about, that may
or may not be relevant ...

So far as I can recall mode and median are not averages. Are you
saying they are? if so, can you explain?

Well that was what I was taught; seems it's still being taught today

http://www.gcse.com/maths/averages.htm
http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/average

Interesting that such errors and muddles should propagate into such
sources.

General dictionaries record the way words are used even if some of the
uses are not technically correct. If some words are commonly used in a
way that is erroneous and muddled in terms of their strict meanings or
origins these "wrong" usages should appear in the dictionary entries.

However, Merriam-Webster should have distinguished between technical and
non-technical definitions.

The GCSE website which deals with technical uses only is just plain
wrong to use "average" to include "mean", "mode" and "median".

Who says that it is 'plain wrong'? Do we all have to start saying 'central
tendency' instead? What would that gain us?

My problem with that wide use of "average" is that to me "average" means
"mean" and only "mean".

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

Richard Desmond buys Channel Five
 

In article , Peter Duncanson
wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:54:23 +0100, "Max Demian"
wrote:


The GCSE website which deals with technical uses only is just plain
wrong to use "average" to include "mean", "mode" and "median".

Who says that it is 'plain wrong'? Do we all have to start saying
'central tendency' instead? What would that gain us?

My problem with that wide use of "average" is that to me "average" means
"mean" and only "mean".

This seems a nice example of a situation where a useage may be OK in
general hand-waving terms in casual conversations, but lead to serious
muddles and errors as soon as anyone tries to become specific.

So when people argue in a pub about some vague and sweeping term like "the
average man" they probably neither know nor care about the differences
between mean (of various kinds), mode, and median.

But as soon as a value is given as "The Average" then they may become
misleading or confusing since many different values could be quoted as "The
Average" of exactly the same data set if you can't be bothered and blindly
use "Average" to mean *all* of the mean(s), mode, and median values without
saying *which one* you are using.

Maybe it was one of the select band with a negative IQ who thought this
made sense. That reminds me, I must look up Erf(100/15)... :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html