chrismcdonald's posterous

Twilight

I came across this poll when looking for media for this project. This was on Quizzilla. Twilight is an excessively popular book series and now with the movie out kids are going crazy for it. Apparently there have been hundreds of online polls about how people feel about the movie. I thought this one was funny, so I decided to lighten the mood for my last post. Nothing about his poll is legit. I simply ran into it randomly, so poll responders are those just like me or those seeking info on Twilight, probably fans. The outcome of this poll, if it were simply used without any indepth examination, suggests that people are not tired of polls and Twilight. The problem is that these are self reporting polls most likely by fans, so there is very little reliability or validity to the results. The sample size is also only 64 people without any demographic information, so it is hard to make any clear generalizations about the respondant group. Since there is no real method to the data collection the error factor is probably extremely high.  It is probably meant as a joke, but it could be misconstrued by noncritical thinkers. While this is probably obvious, I think that this is a good example of how easily math can be used to manipulate numbers and how statistics can easily be toyed with to change outcomes and opinions. As a comparison I looked at the IMDB website for demographics on movie raters. This is probably a more accurate poll, but again, there is no info on data collection. It appears to be user responders, so this poll is still less accurate than random sampling polls.

Are you sick of all these Twilight polls?(my sister made this poll, personally i love Twilight)

Created by mezsolo

Yes!! i am so sick of them!!
6% (4)
um, They can be alright
6% (4)
No, i will love Twilight forever!!
86% (53)
.... no comment
0% (0)

User ratings for
Twilight (2008/I) More at IMDb Pro »


22,094 IMDb users have given a weighted average vote of 5.9 / 10

Demographic breakdowns are shown below.

Votes  Percentage  Rating
7,574  34.3% 10
1,741  7.9% 9
2,332  10.6% 8
2,001  9.1% 7
1,396  6.3% 6
1,002  4.5% 5
706  3.2% 4
660  3.0% 3
749  3.4% 2
3,933  17.8% 1

Arithmetic mean = 6.7.  Median = 8

This page is updated daily.

See user ratings report for:

Votes Average
Males  8,993  5.1
Females  12,379  7.5
Aged under 18  3,869  6.7
Males under 18  969  5.2
Females under 18  2,896  7.9
Aged 18-29  14,545  5.9
Males Aged 18-29  6,423  5.0
Females Aged 18-29  8,075  7.4
Aged 30-44  2,226  5.9
Males Aged 30-44  1,197  5.4
Females Aged 30-44  1,012  7.4
Aged 45+  669  5.7
Males Aged 45+  346  5.4
Females Aged 45+  312  6.6
IMDb staff  5  4.4
Top 1000 voters  55  5.7
US users  13,882  6.0
Non-US users  7,509  5.9
 
IMDb users  22,094  5.9

Zoo elephants die early

I thought this was interesting because there are two conflicting ideas from two different studies. One study suggests that elephants do not live as long in zoos as those who live in the wild, whereas the opponent suggests that they are statistically the same. Neither side offers in depth information on data collection so it is hard to know where the truth lies. You would think in a field obviously dominated by science that the numbers would not be so different. If sociology is questionable as a science it is easy to understand disparities in test results, but lifespan is science, it is much easier to calculate and to make reliable conclusions, so why the difference? The only thing that I can think of is method. Perhaps the bias behind who is conducting the studies influences the results and the method of calculation. Does the journal Science have any stake in wild elephants verses zoo elephants. Obviously the contender, Paul Boyle, senior vice president for conservation and education at the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, has reason to be biased; he is paid by zoo associations. It is hard to say, without the data, which information is correct. These conflicts may also lead to practicle problems like the treatment of the animals. If one study concludes that the elephants have the appropriate lifespan, then policy may not change and elephants may continue to live as they do now. However, if the other study suggests that elephant lifespan is shorter in zoos thent there may be movements to change the treatment and environment of zooed animals. The data is important as is the collection of the data, because this data effects lives.

Zoo Elephants Live A Shortened Life, Study Finds

by Joe Palca

All Things Considered, December 11, 2008 · Living in a zoo shortens an elephant's life, according to a new research study published in the journal Science.

The study compared the life spans of African and Asian elephants living in European zoos between 1960 and 2005, with the life spans of African elephants living in the Amboseli National Park in Kenya and Asian elephants living in a reserve in Myanmar.

"We looked at about 300 African female elephants [in zoos], and of those, none have made it past the age of 50," says study author Georgia Mason of the University of Guelph in Canada. "In Amboseli National Park, about a third of the females will make it past age 50."

The results for Asian elephants were less promising. According to Mason, half the animals living in Myanmar had died by age 41, whereas in European zoos, half of all elephants die by the age of 19.

"Quite a dramatic difference," says Mason.

Critics point out that the two wild populations Mason studied have special protections, and that elephants outside of these areas face threats to their survival as a species, including poaching and loss of habitat. It's estimated there are only about 30,000 Asian elephants in the wild today, compared with an estimated 200,000 a quarter-century ago. The number of African elephants is also declining, although less drastically.

Paul Boyle, senior vice president for conservation and education at the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, takes issue with Mason's numbers. Research done by one of his member zoos showed that "the average life expectancy for Asian elephants in [U.S. zoos] is 44.8 years, and the average life expectancy for Asian elephants in the wild is 45 years," says Boyle. "Statistically, 44.8 and 45 are the same number."

In addition, he says that by including data going back as far as 1960, Mason has ignored improvements in animal management, including better diets and better medical care.

"So there's a significant bias in this paper to include data back at a time when nobody was as good at keeping animals healthy and alive as our institutions are today," Boyle says.

Mason says she and her colleagues looked for indications that things were getting better for elephants over time. She says she found improvements for African elephants, but not Asian elephants.

Zoos need to do a better job of figuring out what elephants in captivity need to live a long and healthy life, she says.

"It's clear that some animals are living decent, long lives," says Mason. "And other animals are dying really early. And I think it's now really important to work out why some zoos are successful and others aren't.

Gallup on Holiday Spending

I found the Gallup website and have to say that I am excited about it, what a nerd. Any how here is the link to the Gallup video on spending trends this Christmas season: http://www.gallup.com/fvideo.aspx?i=sP-4ZOECKfFAB4zRy92LPFFOA1z2BuKF1uIz7wsPK...(.3kFW5Qaa

 

Pollsters asked respondents how much they planned to spend on Christmas gifts this year and the average was around six hundred dollars, this is much lower, almost two hundred dollars lower then the last five years. I thought I might compare two different sources to see how they might differ so I also looked athttp://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/consumer/us-consumers-curtail-2008-holiday-spending/

 

Why the difference? Gallup says 45% of people claim that they will spend less this year, whereas Nielsen says only 35%. The timing could be the difference. Gallup's polls were done in November, whereas this was posted in October. Could the difference be because of polling methods? Gallup polled a roughly 1000 households, whereas Nielsen polled 21,000, does this become more accurate as a result? I decided to look more in depth at Nielsen's data which really give little insight as to the difference. The only factor that I can really see from the articles and available information was time. November saw greater financial problems then October with the big 3 auto crisis as well as additional insurance and housing crisis, and the credit industry failings.

It will be interesting to see how the two compare as Nielsen catches up in the their polling.

U.S. Consumers Curtail 2008 Holiday Spending

October 10th, 2008 Posted in Consumer, Nielsen News | 15 Comments

Nielsen is forecasting sales of more than $98 billion for the November-December 2008 holiday retail season.  But amid worsening economic conditions, U.S. consumers are likely to be more cautious than ever with their spending. 

A recent Nielsen survey of 21,000 U.S. households found that 35% plan to spend less this year than they did in 2007.  Just 6% will spend more this year, while 50% say they’ll maintain the same level of spending from 2007.

Lower-income households reported large reductions in their holiday spending — but so did high income households.  In all, 37% of lower-income households are expected to cut back on holiday spending, as will 34% of higher income households.

 

What’s Hot?

Necessities — rather than novelties and luxuries — are expected to drive holiday sales this year, according to Nielsen’s research.

Toiletries, baby care products, food items, and gift cards for groceries, gasoline, telephone, and car maintenance are expected to see strong sales.

Practical, cold-weather apparel — socks, fleece jackets, and undergarments — and household goods, like cook books, bed/bath linens, and kitchen supplies are also expected to sell well in November and December. 

Among more affluent consumers, fireplace accessories, kitchen ware, family games, and other at-home entertainments will dominate sales. 

As in past years, DVDs, video games, mobile phones, books, and wines and spirits are also expected to generate a fair share of holiday sales. 

Although many consumers are curtailing their spending on out-of-home food, alcohol, and entertainment, sales of movie tickets, which remain an affordable luxury, are expected to stay strong in November and December.

 

What’s Not?

Department stores and retailers of electronics, toys, home improvement supplies, and office supplies are likely to feel the brunt of the economic slowdown as consumers shift their purchases to more value-oriented retailers.   

 

Where’s the Action?

Online retailers, dollar stores, grocery stores, supercenters, mass merchandisers, and club stores are expected to attract the lion’s share of holiday spending, as consumers seek to minimize the number of shopping trips they make — and find good values.

 

GAllup Poll on self satisfaction

I thought this poll was very interesting, sadly I have to agree with their findings, at least in my own life. As far as the reliability of this survey, Gallup is well respected and follows a strict method policy. They did phone calls on 1009 adults and estimate 95% confidence in results.  I wonder which answers were available -- very satisfied, satisfied, somewhat satisfied, neutral, somewhat unsatisfied, unsatisfied, very unsatisfied.-- the article doesn't say.  I would be interested in seeing how people responded by these categories and look at the demographics behind each category.

They also made an attempt at correlations. They do not explain how they came to the conclusions that they did. They said they believe that the reasons are mostly economic given past history of lowered satisfaction during times of economic decline. This makes sense, but they don't provide this information in this article. I wonder if they took the polls on various subjects and sort of overlaid them to see what was common among them and that is how they made the assumption. They do mention defining different groups by income and political associations. This also makes sense, but they are not specific on how they made the conclusions they did, so the answer to the why question is just an assumption...


December 10, 2008

Personal Satisfaction Ratings Decline to Lowest Since 1992

Now less than half of Americans say they are very satisfied with their personal lives

by Jeffrey M. Jones

PRINCETON, NJ -- Though the significant majority of Americans say they are satisfied with the way things are going in their personal lives -- as has been the case for decades -- there has been a notable decline in reported satisfaction over the past 12 months to 80%, the lowest Gallup has measured since 1992.

q5vth38ste

This is based on Gallup's annual Lifestyle Poll, conducted Dec. 4-7 this year. Personal life satisfaction ratings have been highly stable over the years. For example, over the past four years these have been either 84% or 85%. So while a drop of four percentage points is not large in an absolute sense, it is notable in light of the overall stability of this trend line.

Gallup first asked about personal satisfaction in this format in 1979, and has found ratings below 80% in only a limited number of polls, usually at times (like the present) when the economy was in poor shape, such as the late 1970s, the early 1980s, and in 1991-1992. Yet, a poor economy drags down Americans' personal life satisfaction only to a small degree because these ratings have never been below the 73% measured in July 1979.

The current decline comes in a year in which Gallup has found record-low ratings of satisfaction with the way things are going in the country and of economic conditions, as well as record or near-record lows in trust in government, and approval of Congress and the president.

Perhaps the more significant change in Americans' personal satisfaction comes in the results of the follow-up question -- first asked in the 2001 Lifestyle survey -- that asks Americans to say to what degree they are satisfied or dissatisfied. This year, just 47% of Americans say they are "very satisfied" with the way things are going in their personal lives, the first sub-50% measure over the past eight years. The current figure also represents a sharp drop from the 59% reporting a high degree of personal satisfaction at this time last year.

7xyqtwkbqem0gqd07ias3g

Each major demographic or attitudinal subgroup shows a decline in the percentage who report being very satisfied this year compared to last. Higher-income respondents are among those showing the largest declines. Currently, 56% of Americans whose annual household incomes are $75,000 or greater say they are very satisfied with their personal lives, down from 75% last year. Even so, higher-income Americans still report much greater satisfaction than lower-income Americans.

5aaxwe2ha0mx_0wh8wkuka

Interestingly, both Republicans' and Democrats' satisfaction has declined sharply compared to 2007, while there has been virtually no change in independents' reported satisfaction. Republicans remain the most satisfied of the three party groups, to some degree reflecting their typically higher average incomes.

hftpcxpjuu2uyqm__a7vtg

Republicans and higher-income Americans are two of the few groups among which more than 50% are very satisfied with their personal lives. Other groups exceeding 50% include college graduates (53%), those who are married (52%), and self-identified conservatives (51%).

The groups reporting the lowest degree of personal life satisfaction are Democrats (37% very satisfied) and those residing in households of less than $30,000 annual income (38%).

Implications

The vast majority of Americans report that they are satisfied with their personal lives, including close to half who are very satisfied. While high satisfaction levels are the norm, these can fall off, particularly when economic conditions in the country are not good, as has been the case this year. Thus, it is understandable that Americans are not quite as personally satisfied as they have been in the past, in the midst of one of the worst economies in decades; however, it is notable that such a poor economy can affect personal satisfaction only so much.

Survey Methods

Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,009 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted Dec. 4-7, 2008. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones (for respondents with a land-line telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell-phone only).

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

Obama and the race factor

Posted on Sun, Sep. 7, 2008

 

The American Debate: It's little discussed, but Obama's race may be decider

By Dick Polman

Inquirer National Political Columnist

Let us swing the door ajar and invite the elephant into the room. One big reason Barack Obama is locked in a tight race, rather than easily outdistancing his opponent, is because he is black.

That factor is rarely discussed in polite political conversation. People tend to dance around it, talking instead about Obama's perceived inexperience, or his youth, or his perceived airs, or his liberal voting record. And racist sentiment rarely shows up in the polls, because a lot of people don't want to share their baser instincts with the pollsters; they'll save that instead for the privacy of the voting booth.

But the incremental evidence - anecdotal and even statistical - has become impossible to ignore.

Union organizers in the key state of Michigan complain in the press that, as one puts it, "we're all struggling to some extent with the problem of white workers who will not vote for Obama because of his color." An aging mine electrician from Kentucky is quoted as saying, "I won't vote for a colored man. He'll put too many coloreds in jobs." An elderly woman in a New Jersey hair salon is overheard complaining about Barack and Michelle Obama the other day, about how blacks supposedly have larger bones than whites, and about how she's fleeing America if Obama wins.

Jimmy Carter, while attending the Democratic convention, cited race as a "subterranean issue," yet at times this year it has been bared for all to see. Case in point, Pennsylvania. On the day of the Democratic presidential primary, 12 percent of the white Democratic voters told the exit pollsters that race mattered in their choice of candidate; of those whites, 76 percent chose Hillary Rodham Clinton over Obama. The same pattern surfaced in other states, including the key autumn state of Ohio.

This is worth pondering a moment longer. If 12 percent of Democratic voters are willing to tell exit pollsters, eye to eye, that race was an important factor, to Obama's detriment, isn't it fair to assume that the real percentage (including those who kept their sentiments private) was actually higher? And what might this portend for the general election, when the white electorate will be broader, and hence significantly less liberal, than in Democratic contests?

Here's one hint. Last June, the Washington Post-ABC News poll devised a "racial sensitivity index," based on a series of nuanced questions that were designed to measure the varying levels of racial prejudice in the white electorate. The pollsters came up with three categories, ranging from most to least enlightened. The key finding: Whites in the least-enlightened category - roughly 30 percent of the white electorate - favored John McCain over Obama by a ratio of 2-1.

A few prominent Democrats did broach this sensitive topic at the Denver convention. Dee Dee Myers, the former Bill Clinton aide, shared her concerns at one political forum, and with good reason. She worked for Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley in the 1980s, when it appeared that Bradley was a cinch to win his U.S. Senate contest despite his race. The final round of polls showed him winning comfortably. He lost.

"I lived through that," Myers said. "We're whistling past the graveyard if we think that race was not a factor in the Democratic primaries. Today's young voters will get us past these attitudes," but it will take time. As for millions of older voters, "they talk about having 'culture' problems [with Obama], but to separate culture from race is impossible."

And Markos Moulitsas, who runs the liberal Daily Kos blog, said: "It's human nature. A lot of people want to cling to the comfortable world that they've always lived in. The Obamas don't look like what First Families have always looked like. This will be one of the factors in the fall, because a lot of people simply want to stick with what they've known in the past."

The race obstacle is not necessarily fatal, of course, because in the end it may be trumped by other factors - such as McCain's age, or nagging concerns about handing the nuclear football in an emergency to a "hockey mom" as GOP vice presidential candidate whose chief national security credential is the proximity of Alaska to Russia.

But clearly Obama needs to tread carefully, arguably by stressing lunch-pail economic issues and continuing to present himself as a "post-racial" candidate. He will need to dispel these white suspicions, if only because whites will continue to dominate the electorate - they constituted 77 percent of all voters in 2004 - even if he manages to inspire an historic black turnout. He has to bond somehow with blue-collar whites, yet he cannot show too much passion, because, as Democratic strategist Joe Trippi explained to me, "those whites don't like to see a black guy getting angry, it's a dangerous thing for an African American candidate to do."

I'm not suggesting that racism would be the sole explanation for an Obama loss. Nor am I seeking to insult those who object to Obama purely on the issues. But if Obama winds up losing after having posted a seemingly solid polling lead on election eve, we may well find ourselves pondering the words of Henry David Thoreau, who wrote in 1854 that "public opinion is a weak tyrant, compared with our own private opinion."

While reading this article I started thinking about what I had read in the book about measurement. I tried find the actual poll that ABC did, but was unable to find it. I wanted to see the “nuanced” questions that were asked to deturmine the levels of prejudice and create a “racial sensitivity index.” I would like to know what level of measurement was used to come to the conclusions made by the poll.

 

Were people asked ordinal questions like, ‘how supportive of ratial profiling are you?”

 

Very supportive

somewhat supportive

no opinion

somewhat unsupported

or very unsupportive

 

Where pollsters asked questions using interval measures like, “how many close non-white friends do you have”

 

1-3

4-6

7-9

10-12

Perhaps they asked the previous question making it a ratio measurement by making 0 friends an option.

 

Were questions simply ordinal?

Were they asked questions more like would you ever interracially marry?

 

Yes

No

 

If so, what race would you consider? followed by a list of races.

 

If the poll was able to make categories ranging from most to least enlightened, how did they deturmine these categories.

 

I really wish I had the poll to better judge the conclusions.

 

 

 

 

Twenty Questions: Social Justice Quiz 2008

I came across this article today and thought that it was a good example of statistical data. Most of these statistics were probably done through surveys either by private organizations or government census.

What are some of the concerns of using surveys to gather this information? Using the slides for this class that I found on eReserves, I will try to answer these questions as they pertain to the article that I chose.

•        Most of the surveys done for these statistics would be information gathering surveys.

•        A survey is good for this type of information because countries are doing a census on their population which can be very expensive and surveys are efficient for collecting large amounts of information.

•        A survey would also allow for the wide range of data collected.

•        Surveys are also fairly easy to administer given the expansive nature of these topics.

•        Some may argue that these topics may not be good for surveys given the complex nature of the subjects.

•        For example, acts of terrorism may be hard to define from country to country and may skew to findings of these surveys.

•        Another problem associated with surveys may be the survey bias.

•        For example, doctors and aid workers may misrepresent cause of death for various reasons, which may apply to determining death from malnutrition.

As for this article, I found it very informative because. I do look at the bias associated with the author of the article and the publisher. “Truthout” is a liberal magazine and the idea of social justice is stated at the very beginning of the article. This automatically speaks to a very specific audience for a specific reason, so the data in the article is going to be used to reinforce the concepts of social justice.

However, the sources for the information give credibility to the arguments made in the article. Surveys done by organizations like the US State Department, World Bank, United Nations, and the IRS are probably very well done given the scope of their authority.

 

 

"Twenty Questions: Social Justice Quiz 2008"

Friday 12 September 2008

by: Bill Quigley, t r u t h o u t | Perspective


    We in the US who say we believe in social justice must challenge ourselves to look at the world through the eyes of those who have much less than us.

    Why? Social justice, as defined by John Rawls, respects basic individual liberty and economic improvement. But social justice also insists that liberty, opportunity, income, wealth and the other social bases of self-respect are to be distributed equally unless an unequal distribution is to everyone's advantage and any inequalities are arranged so they are open to all.

    Therefore, we must educate ourselves and others about how liberty, opportunity, income and wealth are actually distributed in our country and in our world. Examining the following can help us realize how much we have to learn about social justice.

    1. How many deaths are there worldwide each year due to acts of terrorism?

    Answer: The US State Department reported there were more than 22,000 deaths from terrorism last year. Over half of those killed or injured were Muslims. Source: Voice of America, May 2, 2008. "Terrorism Deaths Rose in 2007."

    2. How many deaths are there worldwide each day due to poverty and malnutrition?

    A: About 25,000 people die every day of hunger or hunger-related causes, according to the United Nations. Poverty.com - Hunger and World Poverty. Every day, almost 16,000 children die from hunger-related causes - one child every five seconds. Bread for the World. Hunger Facts: International.

    3. 1n 1965, CEOs in major companies made 24 times more than the average worker. In 1980, CEOs made 40 times more than the average worker. In 2007, CEOs earned how many times more than the average worker?

    A: Today's average CEO from a Fortune 500 company makes 364 times an average worker's pay and over 70 times the pay of a four-star Army general. Executive Excess 2007, page 7, jointly published by Institute for Policy Studies and United for Fair Economy, August 29, 2007. The 1965 numbers from State of Working America 2004-2005, Economic Policy Institute.

    4. In how many of the more than 3,000 cities and counties in the US can a full-time worker who earns the minimum wage afford to pay rent and utilities on a one-bedroom apartment?

    A: In no city or county in the entire USA can a full-time worker who earns minimum wage afford even a one-bedroom rental. The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) urges renters not to pay more than 30 percent of their income in rent. HUD also reports the fair market rent for each of the counties and cities in the US. Nationally, in order to rent a two-bedroom apartment, one full-time worker in 2008 must earn $17.32 per hour. In fact, 81 percent of renters live in cities where the Fair Market Rent for a two-bedroom rental is not even affordable with two minimum-wage jobs. Source: Out of Reach 2007-2008, April 7, 2008, National Low-Income Housing Coalition.

    5. In 1968, the minimum wage was $1.65 per hour. How much would the minimum wage be today if it had kept pace with inflation since 1968?

    A: Calculated in real (inflation-adjusted) dollars, the 1968 minimum wage would have been $9.83 in 2007 dollars. Andrew Tobias, January 16, 2008. The federal minimum wage is $6.55 per hour effective July 24, 2008, and will be $7.25 per hour effective July 24, 2009.

    6. True or false? People in the United States spend nearly twice as much on pet food as the US government spends on aid to help foreign countries.

    A: True. The USA spends $43.4 billion on pet food annually. Source: American Pet Products Manufacturers Association Inc. The USA spent $23.5 billion in official foreign aid in 2006. The US government gave the most of any country in the world in actual dollars. As a percentage of gross national income, the US came in second to last among OECD donor countries and ranked number 20 at 0.18 percent behind Sweden at 1.02 percent and other countries such as Norway, Netherlands, Ireland, United Kingdom, Austria, France, Germany, Spain, Canada, New Zealand, Japan and others. This does not count private donations, which, if included, may move the US up as high as sixth. The Index of Global Philanthropy 2008, pages 15-19.

    7. How many people in the world live on $2 a day or less?

    A: The World Bank reported in August 2008 that 2.6 billion people consume less than $2 a day.

    8. How many people in the world do not have electricity?

    A: Worldwide, 1.6 billion people do not have electricity and 2.5 billion people use wood, charcoal or animal dung for cooking. United Nations Human Development Report 2007/2008, pages 44-45.

    9. People in the US consume 42 kilograms of meat per person per year. How much meat and grain do people in India and China eat?

    A: People in the US lead the world in meat consumption at 42 kg per person per year, compared to 1.6 kg in India and 5.9 kg in China. People in the US consume five times the grain (wheat, rice, rye, barley, etc.) as people in India, three times as much as people in China, and twice as much as people in Europe. "THE BLAME GAME: Who is behind the world food price crisis," Oakland Institute, July 2008.

    10. How many cars does China have for every 1,000 drivers? India? The US?

    A: China has nine cars for every 1,000 drivers. India has 11 cars for every 1,000 drivers. The US has 1,114 cars for every 1,000 drivers. Iain Carson and Vijay V. Vaitheeswaran, "Zoom: The Global Race to Fuel the Car of the Future" (2007).

    11. How much grain is needed to fill an SUV tank with ethanol?

    A: The grain needed to fill an SUV tank with ethanol could feed a hungry person for a year. Lester Brown, CNN.Money.com, August 16, 2006.

    12. According to The Wall Street Journal, the richest one percent of Americans earns what percent of the nation's adjusted gross income? Five percent? Ten percent? Fifteen percent? Twenty percent?

    A: "According to the figures, the richest one percent reported 22 percent of the nation's total adjusted gross income in 2006. That is up from 21.2 percent a year earlier, and it is the highest in the 19 years that the IRS has kept strictly comparable figures. The 1988 level was 15.2 percent. Earlier IRS data show the last year the share of income belonging to the top one percent was at such a high level as it was in 2006 was in 1929, but changes in measuring income make a precise comparison difficult." Jesse Drucker, "Richest Americans See Their Income Share Grow," Wall Street Journal, July 23, 2008, page A3.

    13. How many people does our government say are homeless in the US on any given day?

    A: A total of 754,000 are homeless. About 338,000 homeless people are not in shelters (live on the streets, in cars or in abandoned buildings) and 415,000 are in shelters on any given night. The 2007 US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Annual Homeless Report to Congress, page iii and 23. The population of San Francisco is about 739,000.

    14. What percentage of people in homeless shelters are children?

    A: HUD reports nearly one in four people in homeless shelters are children 17 or younger. Page iv, the 2007 HUD Annual Homeless Report to Congress.

    15. How many veterans are homeless on any given night?

    A: Over 100,000 veterans are homeless on any given night. About 18 percent of the adult homeless population are veterans. Page 32, the 2007 HUD Homeless Report. This is about the same population as Green Bay, Wisconsin.

    16. The military budget of the United States in 2008 is the largest in the world at $623 billion per year. How much larger is the US military budget than that of China, the second-largest in the world?

    A: Ten times. China's military budget is $65 billion. The US military budget is nearly 10 times larger than the second leading military spender. GlobalSecurity.org

    17. The US military budget is larger than how many of the countries of the rest of the world combined?

    A: The US military budget of $623 billion is larger than the budgets of all the countries in the rest of the world put together. The total global military budget of the rest of the world is $500 billion. Russia's military budget is $50 billion, South Koreas is $21 billion, and Irons is $4.3 billion. GlobalSecurity.org.

    18. Over the 28-year history of the Berlin Wall, 287 people perished trying to cross it. How many people have died in the last four years trying to cross the border between Arizona and Mexico?

    A: At least 1,268 people have died along the border of Arizona and Mexico since 2004. The Arizona Daily Star keeps track of the reported deaths along the state border, and it reports 214 died in 2004; 241 in 2005, 216 in 2006, 237 in 2007, and 116 as of July 31, 2008. These numbers do not include deaths along the California or Texas borders. The Border Patrol reported that 400 people died in fiscal 2206-2007, while 453 died in 2004-2005 and 494 died in 2004-2005. Source The Associated Press, November 8, 2007.

    19. India is ranked second in the world in gun ownership with four guns per 100 people. China is third with third firearms per 100 people. Which country is first and how widespread is gun ownership?

    A: The US is first in gun ownership worldwide with 90 guns for every 100 citizens. Laura MacInnis, "US most armed country with 90 guns per 100 people." Reuters, August 28, 2007.

    20. What country leads the world in the incarceration of its citizens?

    A: The US jails 751 inmates per 100,000 people, the highest rate in the world. Russia is second with 627 per 100,000. England's rate is 151, Germany's is 88 and Japan's is 63. The US has 2.3 million people behind bars, more than any country in the world. Adam Liptak, "Inmate Count in US Dwarfs Other Nations'" New York Times, April 23, 2008.

Boon or doom? An article on the $10 billion particle collider

Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:SimSun; panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1; mso-font-alt:宋体; mso-font-charset:134; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 135135232 16 0 262145 0;} @font-face {font-family:"\@SimSun"; panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1; mso-font-charset:134; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 135135232 16 0 262145 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:SimSun;} h1 {mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0in; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; mso-outline-level:1; font-size:24.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; font-weight:bold;} h2 {mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0in; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; mso-outline-level:2; font-size:18.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; font-weight:bold;} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} p {mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0in; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:SimSun;} p.textbodyblack, li.textbodyblack, div.textbodyblack {mso-style-name:textbodyblack; mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0in; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:SimSun;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:.5in .5in .5in .5in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->

I was looking through the news and happened upon this article. The article itself was really of less importance than the online survey offered and its explanation. I will provide all of the info, but the focus should be on the explanation of the scientific survey verses an online poll.

The article follows:

Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4   MSNBC.com

Boon or doom? Collider stirs debate

Chapter 2: Cutting through the hype over black holes and future benefits

By Alan Boyle

Science editor

updated 3:03 p.m. MT, Mon., Sept. 8, 2008

 

Will the Large Hadron Collider save the world, or destroy it?

 

As the atom-smasher at Europe's CERN research center is readied for its official startup on Wednesday, researchers might wish that the general public was captivated by the quest for the Higgs boson, the search for supersymmetric particles and even the evidence for extra dimensions.

But if the feedback so far is any guide, the real headline-grabber is the claim that the world's most powerful particle-smasher could create microscopic black holes that some fear would gobble up the planet.

The black-hole scenario is even getting its day in court: Critics of the project have called for the suspension of work on the European collider until the scenario receives a more thorough safety review, filing separate legal challenges in U.S. federal court and the European Court of Human Rights.

The strange case of the planet-eating black hole serves as just one example showing how grand scientific projects can lead to a collision between science fiction and science fact. The hubbub also has led some to question why billions of dollars are being spent on a physics experiment so removed from everyday life.

Why do it?
Michio Kaku, a theoretical physicist at the the City College of New York, acknowledged that people often ask about the practical applications of particle physics. Even if physicists figure out how a particle called the Higgs boson creates the property of mass in the universe, how will that improve life on Earth?

"Sometimes the public says, 'What's in it for Numero Uno? Am I going to get better television reception? Am I going to get better Internet reception?' Well, in some sense, yeah," he said. "All the wonders of quantum physics were learned basically from looking at atom-smasher technology."

  fact file

LHC by the numbers

 

•

Cost: $6 billion to $10 billion

 

•

Years in the making: 14

 

•

Top energy: 14 trillion electron volts

 

•

Peak power consumption: 120 megawatts

 

•

Number of collaborators: More than 10,000

 

 

 

Cost: $6 billion to $10 billion
Why the wide range of estimates?
Europe’s CERN research organization says it’s investing $6 billion. Adding the value of other contributions since 1994, including the detectors, boosts the total to as much as $10 billion. To some extent, it depends on who’s doing the counting and what the currency rates are.

 

 

Sources: CERN, Symmetry magazine

 

Kaku noted that past discoveries from the world of particle physics ushered in many of the innovations we enjoy today, ranging from satellite communications and handheld media players to medical PET scanners (which put antimatter to practical use).

"But let me let you in on a secret: We physicists are not driven to do this because of better color television," he added. "That's a spin-off. We do this because we want to understand our role and our place in the universe."

About those black holes ...
The black holes that may (or may not) be generated by the Large Hadron Collider would have theoretical rather than practical applications.

If the collider's detectors turn up evidence of black holes, that would suggest that gravity is stronger on a subatomic scale than it is on the distance scales scientists have been able to measure so far. That, in turn, would support the weird idea that we live in a 10- or 11-dimensional universe, with some of the dimensions rolled up so tightly that they can't be perceived.

 

Some theorists say the idea would explain why gravity is so much weaker than the universe's other fundamental forces — for example, why a simple magnet can match the entire Earth's gravitational force pulling on a paper clip. These theorists suggest that much of the gravitational field is "leaking out" into the extra dimensions.

 

"It will be extremely exciting if the LHC did produce black holes," CERN theoretical physicist John Ellis said.  "OK, so some people are going to say, 'Black holes? Those big things eating up stars?' No. These are microscopic, tiny little black holes.  And they’re extremely unstable.  They would disappear almost as soon as they were produced."

 

Not everyone is convinced that the black holes would disappear. "It doesn't have to be that way," said Walter Wagner, a former radiation safety officer with a law degree who is one of the plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit. Despite a series of reassuring scientific studies, Wagner and others insist that the black holes might not fizzle out, and they fear that the mini-singularities produced by the Large Hadron Collider will fall to the center of the earth, grow larger and swallow more and more of Earth's matter.

 

Ellis, Kaku and a host of other physicists point out that cosmic rays in space are far more energetic than the collisions produced in the Large Hadron Collider, and do not produce the kinds of persistent black holes claimed by the critics. In the most recent report, CERN scientists rule out the globe-gobbling black holes and the other nightmares enumerated in the lawsuit, even under the most outlandish scenarios. Wagner remains unconvinced, however.

 

"I don't think the knowledge we are going to acquire by doing such an experiment outweighs the risk that we are taking, if we can't quantify that risk. ... We need to obtain other evidence," he said.

 

Strangelets, monopoles and more
Black holes aren't Wagner's only worry: He also is concerned that when the collider creates a soup of free-flying quarks, some of those quarks might recombine in a hazardous way — creating a stable, negatively charged "strangelet" that could turn everything it touches into more strangelets.

 

The lawsuit also suggests that magnetic monopoles — basically, magnets with only a north or a south pole, but not both — could be created in the collider and wreak havoc.

 

Physicists point out that such phenomena have never been seen, either in previous collider experiments or in the wide cosmos beyond Earth.

"The experiments that we will do with the LHC have been done billions of times by cosmic rays hitting the earth," Ellis said. "They're being done continuously by cosmic rays hitting our astronomical bodies, like the moon, the sun, like Jupiter and so on and so forth. And the earth's still here, the sun's still here, the moon's still here. LHC collisions are not going to destroy the planet."

 

But how will all those collisions benefit the planet?

 

"We don't justify CERN or other big particle accelerators on the basis of spin-offs or technology transfer," Ellis said. "Of course, we do have programs for that. Personally, I believe that the most important knowledge transfer that we can make is by training young people who then maybe go off and do something else. I think that's probably more important than some particular technological widget that we may develop.

 

"I think the primary justification for this sort of science that we do is fundamental human curiosity," Ellis said. "It's true, of course, that every previous generation that's made some breakthrough in understanding nature has seen those discoveries translated into new technologies, new possibilities for the human race. That may well happen with the Higgs boson. Quite frankly, at the moment I don't see how you can use the Higgs boson for anything useful."

 

Kaku takes a different view: He said physicists will have to do a better job of explaining the potential payoffs if they expect taxpayers to keep covering the multibillion-dollar cost of exploring the scientific frontier. He pointed to the example of the Superconducting Super Collider — a project planned for Texas that would have been bigger than the Large Hadron Collider, but was canceled by Congress after $2 billion had been spent.

 

"After that cancellation, we physicists learned that we have to sing for our supper," Kaku said. "The Cold War is over. You can't simply say 'Russia!' to Congress, and they whip out their checkbook and say, 'How much?' We have to tell the people why this atom-smasher is going to benefit their lives."

 

Forecasting future benefits
If past physics experiments are any guide, the potential payoffs would likely come in three areas, Kaku said:

·  Telecommunications: The challenge of dealing with all the data created by past experiments led to the creation of the World Wide Web at CERN in 1990. In a similar way, the Large Hadron Collider could usher in an era of global distributed computing and more efficient mass data storage. A better understanding of the subatomic world could lead to breakthroughs in quantum computing and super-secure communication.

·  Medicine: Particle accelerators are already playing a fast-rising role in cancer treatment and medical imaging. New technologies developed for the Large Hadron Collider could well find their way into hospitals of the future. The ultrasensitive photon detector built for the LHCb experiment is a prime example, said the project's deputy spokesperson, Roger Forty. "I think there will be some cross-pollination with medical applications," he told msnbc.com.

·  Energy: Kaku suggested that the insights gained from the Large Hadron Collider could be applied to developing new energy sources in the decades ahead — such as controlled fusion power. Those microscopic black holes might even play a long-range role in the energy quest. "Some people think that maybe black holes in outer space may be a source of energy for future civilizations," he said.

 

Looking even farther ahead, Kaku noted that a deeper understanding of the universe has always led to technological leaps. Harnessing mechanical power led to the steam engine and the industrial revolution of the 19th century. The unification of electricity and magnetism led to computers, lasers and other 20th-century wonders. Unlocking the secrets of the atom led to the triumphs and terrors of the nuclear age.

 

"Human history has been shaped by the progressive unraveling of gravity, electricity and magnetism, and the nuclear force," Kaku said. "Now we are at the brink of the granddaddy of all such unifications ... the unification of all forces into a super force. We think the super force is superstring theory, a super force that drove the big bang, that created the heavens and the earth, that drives the sun, that makes all the wondrous technologies of the earth possible."

 

Will that great revelation come from the LHC? Even Kaku thinks that would be too much of a giant leap. "The Large Hadron Collider will not open up a gateway to another universe," he said. "It will not open up a hole in space. But it will try to nail down the equations which would allow perhaps an advanced civilization to do precisely that, to manipulate the fabric of space and time."

How will the machine do that? Ironically, it takes bigger and bigger machines to unlock the smallest subatomic mysteries — and the Large Hadron Collider is the biggest Big Bang Machine ever built. With its tangles of wiring, twists of plumbing and 17 miles of supercooled magnets, the machine may well rank as one of the engineering wonders of the 21st century.

 

Wednesday: Showtime for the Big Bang Machine

© 2008 MSNBC Interactive

URL: '+url+'

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24556999/

 

 

 

 

Here is the part that I found interesting. You, as the reader, have the ability to answer this online poll. At first I started thinking, well this is ridiculous. I mean how can you even assume that these figures mean anything. There are only a few options to choice from, so there is potential, as in my case, that my response would not be represented in this poll. Secondly, who answers these polls anyway? How do they know that this is accurate? Surely this is not a true representation of how people really feel. Then I noticed the fine print at the bottom of the poll, "Not a scientific survey". Below is an explanation about the differences between a scientific polls and an online survey. (This is the important part)...

 

Live Vote

 

What's your prevailing attitude toward the $10 billion Large Hadron Collider, which is the most powerful particle collider and the most expensive science machine on earth?   * 16310 responses

 

 

 

 

 

Fantastic! I can hardly wait for the discoveries.
61%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scary! I think there's a chance it could destroy the world.
19%

 

 

 

 

 

 

What a waste! Surely there's a better use for all that money.
18%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who cares! I haven't heard about this thing, and/or I'm not that interested.
1.2%

 

 

 

 

What's your prevailing attitude toward America's role in scientific research?   * 15991 responses

 

 

 

 

 

America is the world's scientific leader and will stay that way.
11%

 

 

 

 

 

 

America may be in the lead now but could soon lose its competitive edge.
25%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other countries are already taking the lead in some scientific fields, and that has hurt America's status in the world.
52%

 

 

 

 

 

 

America should devote less attention to scientific research and focus on more urgent issues.
12%

 

 

Not a scientific survey. Results may not total 100% due to rounding.

 

Live Votes on msnbc.com

The differences between online surveys and scientific polls

One week in the middle of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, more than 200,000 people took part in an msnbc.com Live Vote that asked whether President Clinton should leave office. Seventy-three percent said yes. That same week, an NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll found that only 34 percent of about 2,000 people who were surveyed thought so.

More recently, in an msnbc.com survey conducted after a televised debate in the run-up to the New Hampshire primary, when asked “Who stood out from the pack?” 76 percent of the more than 55,000 people who responded chose Rep. Ron Paul of Texas.

This indicated strong support for Paul among msnbc.com readers.

But it revealed nothing about how voters in New Hampshire, or other states, intended to vote in primary elections.

In the week prior to the New Hampshire primary, polls indicated that anywhere between five percent and 14 percent of likely voters in the Republican primary intended to cast their ballots for Paul.

On Election Day, Paul got about eight percent of the votes cast in the New Hampshire GOP primary.

To explain the gap in the numbers in this and other similar cases, let’s consider the differences in the two kinds of surveys.

Polls
Journalists and political strategists use polls to gauge what the public is thinking. The most statistically accurate picture is captured by using a randomly selected sample of individuals within the group that is being targeted, such as those likely to vote in a presidential primary election.

While a poll of 100 people will be more accurate than a poll of 10, studies have shown that accuracy begins to improve less at about 500 people and increases only a minor amount beyond 1,000 people.

So, in the case of that NBC-WSJ poll, only 2,005 adults were surveyed by the polling organizations of Peter D. Hart and Robert M. Teeter. The poll was conducted by telephone and had a margin of error of plus or minus 2.2 percentage points at the 95 percent confidence level. The confidence level means that if the same poll were conducted 100 times, each one randomly selecting the people polled, only five of the polls would be expected to yield results outside the margin of error.

In the NBC-WSJ survey, pollsters first randomly selected a number of geographic areas and then telephone numbers were generated in a way that allowed all numbers in those areas (both listed and unlisted) an equal chance to be called. Only one adult in each household was then selected to answer the poll.

Online Surveys
In contrast, msnbc.com's online surveys — or Live Votes — may reflect the views of more individuals, but they are not necessarily representative of the general population. And they may be even less representative of those people who are registered to vote and who do in fact vote.

To begin with, the people who respond to online surveys choose to do so — they are not randomly selected and asked to participate, but instead make the choice to read a story about a certain topic and then vote on a related question.

They may be highly motivated supporters of a particular candidate who are determined to show their support for him or her in any way they can.

And while Live Votes are designed to allow only one vote per user, someone who wants to vote more than once can use another computer or another Internet account.

Live Votes are not intended to be a scientific sample of opinion. Instead, they are part of the same dialogue that takes place in our online chat sessions: a way to share your views on the news with your fellow users and with msnbc.com writers and editors.

I thought this explanation was good because it offered examples of how numbers can be misinterpreted or misrepresented by someone unwilling to find out how a poll or survey was taken. All I would have to do is say, "So I took this online poll, and did you know that 61% of people think this collider thing is a great idea." This would be a complete misrepresentation of facts because a random sample was not performed to find the information.

I also thought it was interesting that the explanation of how research is gathered and how researchers determine the number of people to be polled, "While a poll of 100 people will be more accurate than a poll of 10, studies have shown that accuracy begins to improve less at about 500 people and increases only a minor amount beyond 1,000 people." To be critical of this statement would be to ask if this is really true. Where would I find this information, given that the source is simply the vague "studies have shown". How do I know that these studies were accurate? What is the source? How was this determined? When looking on the internet, I was unable to find these answers. How would I try to verify these figures? Perhaps our trip to the library will help?