Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

He Who Laughs Last... the debt to China.

Page 2 of 3 [ 33 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

As time passes, which direction has the PPR department been headed in?
More friendly and open, allowing for freedom of speech without retaliation for saying something somebody doesn't like 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
More hostile and closed, where opening your mouth is like salsa dancing on a mine field 56%  56%  [ 5 ]
In between, where there is mostly freedom, but sometimes you step on a mine with a 15 megaton yield 44%  44%  [ 4 ]
Total votes : 9

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

07 Aug 2009, 11:29 am

Henriksson wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
[Such as, the population of China is about 1 billion, while the USA is 300 million.

PRC population estimate for 2009 is 1,338,612,968 people. Saying China has about 1 billion people is like saying America has no population at all. :roll:


Even though I was using 2008, the difference would not be that the US would have no people, but that we would have 230 million people.

The difference in ratio is 10:13 or 76.9%



Henriksson
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Nov 2008
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,534
Location: Sweden

07 Aug 2009, 11:36 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Henriksson wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
[Such as, the population of China is about 1 billion, while the USA is 300 million.

PRC population estimate for 2009 is 1,338,612,968 people. Saying China has about 1 billion people is like saying America has no population at all. :roll:


Even though I was using 2008, the difference would not be that the US would have no people, but that we would have 230 million people.

The difference in ratio is 10:13 or 76.9%

You seem to pull numbers out of your arse. The 2000 census was 1,242,612,226 inhabitants, so that's like saying the US had no population at all in 2008, and they had 200 million population in 2000.


_________________
"Purity is for drinking water, not people" - Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

07 Aug 2009, 11:55 am

Dude, I'm talking proportions. I probably rounded when I got the information from the CIA factbook. And it doesn't matter. Sure it changes the ratio from, 1:3 to 1:4, but that is still comparable. And I'm just pulling numbers out of my arse am I? your face.

And more in comparisons with China, we occupy about the same amount of surface area. The USA has about 9,800,000 km^2 and China has about 9,600,000 km^2, rounded to two significant figures.

As for populations of the world, I was wrong, we actually rank 4th on the CIA's list, but that is just due to them listing the EU in the list. Though compared to the EU, we have 62.5% the population compared to all the member nations of the European Union.

Here would be the list in scientific notation for July 2009 estimates:

1st: China 1.3 * 10^9 people
2nd: India 1.2 * 10^9 people
3rd: The EU 4.9 * 10^8 people
4th: USA 3.0 * 10^8
88th: Sweden 9.1 * 10^6



Henriksson
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Nov 2008
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,534
Location: Sweden

07 Aug 2009, 12:04 pm

Here, you apparently claim that the population of China in 2009 is 1 billion:

Quote:
Such as, the population of China is about 1 billion, while the USA is 300 million. We have about a ratio of 1:3 compared to theirs.


I point out that it's actually 1.3 billion, therefore your comparison is very inaccurate, to which you reply:

Quote:
Even though I was using 2008, the difference would not be that the US would have no people, but that we would have 230 million people.


The only way to interpret that would be that you compared China's population in 2008 against the US population in 2009, which means that your comparison still fails, but it also means you think China's population in 2008 is 1 billion. Since the Chinese population in 2000 was about 1.240 billion, you're telling me that China lost 240 million from 2000 to 2008, and then magically gained 300 million in one year.

So yeah, you are pulling numbers out of your arse.


_________________
"Purity is for drinking water, not people" - Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

07 Aug 2009, 12:11 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
I probably rounded when I got the information from the CIA factbook. And it doesn't matter. Sure it changes the ratio from, 1:3 to 1:4, but that is still comparable.


I got the number from CIA factbook and just rounded it to the nearest first digit. Anyway, it is still accurate to the same order of magnitude and that 1 and 1.3 are almost the same shows the coefficient isn't just invented. You're just trying to be an ass anyway you can.



Henriksson
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Nov 2008
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,534
Location: Sweden

07 Aug 2009, 12:48 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
I probably rounded when I got the information from the CIA factbook. And it doesn't matter. Sure it changes the ratio from, 1:3 to 1:4, but that is still comparable.


I got the number from CIA factbook and just rounded it to the nearest first digit. Anyway, it is still accurate to the same order of magnitude and that 1 and 1.3 are almost the same shows the coefficient isn't just invented. You're just trying to be an ass anyway you can.

Round 1.3 to the nearest digit and you get 1, yes, but round 0.3 to the nearest digit and you get 0.

Alternatively, 1300 - 300 + 300 - 300 = 1000 + 0

I'm not being an ass. It's just that if you can't even get the numbers right, your argument falls flat on it's face.


_________________
"Purity is for drinking water, not people" - Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

07 Aug 2009, 2:19 pm

Henriksson wrote:
Alternatively, 1300 - 300 + 300 - 300 = 1000 + 0


And that is suppose to relate in terms of a one to one kill ratio I suppose, if we were to have the entire populations each stabbing one another I suppose... ?



Henriksson
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Nov 2008
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,534
Location: Sweden

07 Aug 2009, 2:21 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Henriksson wrote:
Alternatively, 1300 - 300 + 300 - 300 = 1000 + 0


And that is suppose to relate in terms of a one to one kill ratio I suppose, if we were to have the entire populations each stabbing one another I suppose... ?

Well, if you subtract 300 million from one side, it makes as much sense to subtract 300 million from the other side.


_________________
"Purity is for drinking water, not people" - Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

07 Aug 2009, 3:26 pm

Henriksson wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Henriksson wrote:
Alternatively, 1300 - 300 + 300 - 300 = 1000 + 0


And that is suppose to relate in terms of a one to one kill ratio I suppose, if we were to have the entire populations each stabbing one another I suppose... ?

Well, if you subtract 300 million from one side, it makes as much sense to subtract 300 million from the other side.


In what sense does it make sense though? If it were part of an equation, then yes, do unto one side as you do to the other. But it isn't.

With only one sig-fig for each population amount: China has 1 x 10^9 persons and the USA has 3 x 10^8 persons.



Henriksson
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Nov 2008
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,534
Location: Sweden

07 Aug 2009, 3:39 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Henriksson wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Henriksson wrote:
Alternatively, 1300 - 300 + 300 - 300 = 1000 + 0


And that is suppose to relate in terms of a one to one kill ratio I suppose, if we were to have the entire populations each stabbing one another I suppose... ?

Well, if you subtract 300 million from one side, it makes as much sense to subtract 300 million from the other side.


In what sense does it make sense though? If it were part of an equation, then yes, do unto one side as you do to the other. But it isn't.

With only one sig-fig for each population amount: China has 1 x 10^9 persons and the USA has 3 x 10^8 persons.

You're obviously not willing to present your argument in an unbiased manner.


_________________
"Purity is for drinking water, not people" - Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

07 Aug 2009, 3:52 pm

Henriksson wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Henriksson wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Henriksson wrote:
Alternatively, 1300 - 300 + 300 - 300 = 1000 + 0


And that is suppose to relate in terms of a one to one kill ratio I suppose, if we were to have the entire populations each stabbing one another I suppose... ?

Well, if you subtract 300 million from one side, it makes as much sense to subtract 300 million from the other side.


In what sense does it make sense though? If it were part of an equation, then yes, do unto one side as you do to the other. But it isn't.

With only one sig-fig for each population amount: China has 1 x 10^9 persons and the USA has 3 x 10^8 persons.

You're obviously not willing to present your argument in an unbiased manner.


Huh? What The Farce?



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

07 Aug 2009, 3:57 pm

Henriksson wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Henriksson wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Henriksson wrote:
Alternatively, 1300 - 300 + 300 - 300 = 1000 + 0


And that is suppose to relate in terms of a one to one kill ratio I suppose, if we were to have the entire populations each stabbing one another I suppose... ?

Well, if you subtract 300 million from one side, it makes as much sense to subtract 300 million from the other side.


In what sense does it make sense though? If it were part of an equation, then yes, do unto one side as you do to the other. But it isn't.

With only one sig-fig for each population amount: China has 1 x 10^9 persons and the USA has 3 x 10^8 persons.

You're obviously not willing to present your argument in an unbiased manner.


How the heck was my last post showing bias? I suppose you want the full estimated numbers, otherwise it is somehow bias? FINE.

China: 1,338,612,968
USA: 307,212,123



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

07 Aug 2009, 4:01 pm

So after all the going after one detail, saying my numbers are coming out my arse, and then calling me bias, what the heck next? Start speaking 1337?



Henriksson
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Nov 2008
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,534
Location: Sweden

07 Aug 2009, 4:11 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Henriksson wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Henriksson wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Henriksson wrote:
Alternatively, 1300 - 300 + 300 - 300 = 1000 + 0


And that is suppose to relate in terms of a one to one kill ratio I suppose, if we were to have the entire populations each stabbing one another I suppose... ?

Well, if you subtract 300 million from one side, it makes as much sense to subtract 300 million from the other side.


In what sense does it make sense though? If it were part of an equation, then yes, do unto one side as you do to the other. But it isn't.

With only one sig-fig for each population amount: China has 1 x 10^9 persons and the USA has 3 x 10^8 persons.

You're obviously not willing to present your argument in an unbiased manner.


How the heck was my last post showing bias? I suppose you want the full estimated numbers, otherwise it is somehow bias? FINE.

China: 1,338,612,968
USA: 307,212,123

Estimated numbers that actually make sense would be perfectly fine, like 1300 million and 300 million are perfectly fine.

When I pointed that China's population is 1300 million and not 1000 million, a faulty margin the size of USA, I would expect any reaonable person would say "Oh bummer, thanks Henriksson for pointing out such a colossal flaw in my comparisons, I'll be careful next time", but you persisted in coming with lots of justifications for such a wrong, and by that I conclude that you came to a conclusion from the very start and then tried your best to make your case as compelling. That's a confirmation bias.


_________________
"Purity is for drinking water, not people" - Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

07 Aug 2009, 4:55 pm

Everybody is right in their own eyes. And by saying this, instead of showing you gratitude, I'm sure it will just prove to you how right you know you are.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

07 Aug 2009, 4:57 pm

Okay, so, so far the poll is divided between Options 2 and 3, with nobody having voted for Option #1 for some reason...