03 Nov 04
5 edits
Originally posted by Danger Mousehttp://www.geohive.com/global/linkg.php?xml=pop_genderratio&xsl=pop_genderratio
....
51 Female
49 Male (a slight advantage to the guys)
...
suggests for 2003:
total: 6,301,463,000
male 3,169,122,000
female 3,132,342,000
giving 50:50
but more importantly: more males ..... should i bother with more?
show me why.
i repeat from before:
your figures are incorrect in that regards.
what about the rest??????
i have only tested two sets of numbers and found them to both be fictitious.
i prefer to simply ignore such clearly off track data, - except when wondering who created it; when; and why?
03 Nov 04
3 edits
Originally posted by Danger Mouseact locally to do good 😉
...
However, as stated by another poster, what is everyone going to do about helping those less fortunate than ourselves????
for a more global perspective: i want to have a decent idea of what the hell is going on.
lets start from a solid base of truth, then our conclusions will be much more meaningful.
there are some interesting ideas out there: i remember hearing, a long time ago, about a computer simulation suggesting that wealth tends to become accumulated in certain individuals just as a natural almost accidental process.(unfortunately i cannot find it yet)
this simulation inspires in me the thought that : YES I AM LUCKY!
it is not my right; it is not my fault; it is only my luck: what should i really do with the power it gives me?
i have POWER TO BE NICE!
03 Nov 04
Actually, you have not PROVED anything. I believe the Australian 1% is explained by the author (who or whatever they are) rounding up and not wanting to exclude a continent. The other data is not proved inaccurate just because you have a different set of data. Surely you are not so naive as to believe that any set of figures / stats on this scale are ever going to be deadly accurate. There are too many variables and incomplete records (I would think that is a vast understatement).
But, hey, feel free to dismiss all of it. I shared the info with everyone to provoke thought and not to argue about the odd 1%.
04 Nov 04
Originally posted by Danger Mousemy source: "Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat (2003). "World Population Prospects: The 2002 Revision Highlights". New York: United Nations"
....The other data is not proved inaccurate just because you have a different set of data. ....
do you discount this as just another source?
what is you source?
to dismiss 1% as a small deviation is innapropriate when it is exactly the 1% that we are interested in.
george bush could use data like yours to prove he has helped the iraqis.
be careful: you play a dangerous game when you suggest rounding 0.3 up to 1 is acceptable behaviour.