BLASPHEMY: brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

John Knight jwknight at polbox.com
Wed Dec 4 23:28:24 EST 2002


"Gray Shockley" <gray at compcomm.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BA141E070024B8890FE759C0 at news-central.giganews.com...
> On Wed, 4 Dec 2002 19:03:29 -0600, John Knight wrote
> (in message <BBxH9.22622$K64.676887 at news2.west.cox.net>):
>
> > Obviously you missed the point, so let's put it another way.
> >
> > Even IF the reduction in the rate of alcohol-induced deaths since MADD
went
> > mad was due 100% to a reduction in drinking and driving, and even IF
none of
> > the putative 4,420 lives "saved" were due to a reduction in supposed
> > alcohol-related cirrhosis deaths (from which more people die from  the
> > non-alcohol-related variety than from the alcohol-related variety), and
even
> > IF none of them were due to a reduction in alcohol-related heart disease
> > deaths (which by itself, according to some claims, exceed 100,000 lives
> > "saved"), and even IF none of them were due to a reduction in the number
of
> > alcohol-related cancer deaths (which is another group which claims to
have
> > saved hundreds of thousands of lives as the *rate* of
NON-ALCOHOL-related
> > cancer deaths more than tripled), then IS $5.4 million per life saved a
wise
> > investment, OR would there be better uses for those dollars?
> >
> > You did NOT answer that question, under the pretense that this was a
"switch
> > of topics", so let's phrase it differently.
> >
> > If ALL of the 4,420 alcohol-induced deaths were traffic fatalities
CAUSED by
> > drinking drivers, and if all of the other 37,580 traffic fatalities were
> > caused by NON-drinking drivers, then:
> >
> > A)  Who causes the most traffic fatalities?
> >
> > B)  By how much?
> >
> > John Knight
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> Sonny, I don't play when only you get to cut the deck.
>
> And you mark the cards.
>
> Sonny, I play the Big Game; you, Sonny, play chickenfeed games.
>
> You even cheat at penny-ante.
>
>
>
> Gray Shockley
> --------------------------
> "Swinehood hath no remedy." - Sidney Lanier
>
>
>


We know what you mean, which is that graduates from American "public"
"schools" really are incapable of this simple algebra, so let's answer it
for you.

A)  The non-drinking driver obviously causes the most accidents.

B)  There are a number of ways to calculate "by how much", so let's start
with the simplest and work our way up.  The number of accidents caused by
non-drinking drivers divided by the number of accidents caused by drinking
drivers is 37,580 / 4,420 = 8.5 which means that non-drinking drivers cause
8.5 times as many accidents as drinking drivers.

But it's more important to know the RATE at which each type of driver has
accidents, which requires us to know what percentage of drivers drink and
drive.

Since you "play in the Big Game", why don't you tell us the answer?

It's very simple.

John Knight





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list