Bush indexes to zero

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-04-28 01:22am

From
+http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/26 ... _nonettax/

George W. Bush wrote:And so - by the way, we rank 10th amongst the industrialized world in broadband technology and its availability. That's not good enough for America. Tenth is 10 spots too low as far as I'm concerned.

Obviously, Bush has programming experience. He's indexing to zero.

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2004-04-28 01:25am

I don't care, as long as he does something to make broadband faster and better here.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2004-04-28 01:26am

*snicker*

That is ... well at least we now know that his counting skills match his verbal skills, man I want to see his SAT's scores now (or whatever the SAT's were called back then).

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-04-28 01:29am

Broadband!

That's it, voting for him!

Shogoki · Post by **Shogoki** » 2004-04-28 07:25am

Rogue 9 wrote:Broadband! That's it, voting for him!

I guess Bush read the evil overlord lists too.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-04-28 10:06am

Broadband is a lot more difficult to implement in the US than it is in most countries as we are so spread out. But yes, that was funny

darthdavid · Post by **darthdavid** » 2004-04-28 09:25pm

He wants us in zeroth place. Rowfl.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-04-28 09:31pm

Crown wrote:*snicker*

That is ... well at least we now know that his counting skills match his verbal skills, man I want to see his SAT's scores now (or whatever the SAT's were called back then).

Yup, SAT.

I believe it was like a 1270 or something. Pathetic.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-04-28 09:37pm

To be slightly fair, the SATs have been recentered downward since GWB took it.

Darth Yoshi · Post by **Darth Yoshi** » 2004-04-28 10:51pm

Damn. He stole my platform.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-04-29 12:12am

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
Crown wrote:*snicker*

That is ... well at least we now know that his counting skills match his verbal skills, man I want to see his SAT's scores now (or whatever the SAT's were called back then).
Yup, SAT.

I believe it was like a 1270 or something. Pathetic.

1270 is a low score? What the fuck?

It was 1206, I believe, BTW.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-04-29 12:15am

1270's not low (although I rib my friends about it to that effect in order to enhance my 1500

).

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-04-29 12:18am

I had a 1360, but my verbal was 800. So there.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-04-29 12:41am

Since this thread is swiftly changing, I'll send it to NP

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2004-04-29 12:46am

Well could someone explain to me what these mean?

For example in Oz we have the ENTER score, max 99.99 (meaning that if you got that score you are in the top 0.01% of the country), so ...

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-04-29 12:50am

The maximum score on the SAT is 1600. The point spread is most decidedly not linear.

Most people fall around the 900-1,000 range, IIRC. My 1500 put me in the top 1% of people taking the test that year, but its not the hardest test in the world.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-04-29 12:56am

phongn wrote:Broadband is a lot more difficult to implement in the US than it is in most countries as we are so spread out. But yes, that was funny

Canada has a lower population density than the US, and we were well ahead of the US in broadband last time I checked.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-04-29 01:00am

But isn't Canada's population more confined to larger cities?

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-04-29 01:53am

Rogue 9 wrote:The maximum score on the SAT is 1600. The point spread is most decidedly not linear. Most people fall around the 900-1,000 range, IIRC. My 1500 put me in the top 1% of people taking the test that year, but its not the hardest test in the world.

The SAT is scored on a normal curve with the average set to 1000.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-04-29 01:59am

When you say "normal", do you mean linear or Gaussian?

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2004-04-29 02:13am

Howedar wrote:When you say "normal", do you mean linear or Gaussian?

Bell. I think.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-04-29 02:24am

I think so too, but the common definition of normal distribution would, I think, be a linear model. Technically, a normal distribution is a Gaussian bell.

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2004-04-29 02:26am

phongn wrote:To be slightly fair, the SATs have been recentered downward since GWB took it.

They changed the mean? What was it before?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-04-29 02:28am

Howedar wrote:When you say "normal", do you mean linear or Gaussian?

A normal probability distribution curve, probably what you've heard referred to as a Bell Curve.

Medicus · Post by **Medicus** » 2004-04-29 03:14am

Darth Wong wrote:
phongn wrote:Broadband is a lot more difficult to implement in the US than it is in most countries as we are so spread out. But yes, that was funny
Canada has a lower population density than the US, and we were well ahead of the US in broadband last time I checked.

DW, that's not really a fair comparison. Acording to this site, Canada map, 60% of Canada's population resides within 2.2% of its land area. Some simple math reveals that 60% of Canada's population lives in a density of 237 people/sq mile

(much higher than the national average of 8.7 people/sq mile)

Compare that map to the population density of the US.

US density

Notice that the enitre eastern half of the US has a population density of at least 8-79 people/sq mile, same with the pacific coast states. The entire US averages out to just over 80 people/sq mile