On 2/5/2022 3:54 AM, Chris wrote:
> Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 09:43:11 -0800, sms wrote:
>>
>>> Our favorite troll is lying again. I have never said that anyone that
>>> doesn't want to be vaccinated should be forced to do so.
>>
>> Steve,
>> If the risk is losing your job, that is _force_ by another means.
>
> It's motivation. Freedom of choice is not without consequences. No-one is
> limiting your choice.

Absolutely.

If a teacher loses their job in a public school they can get a job in a
private school, i.e.
<https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/18/us/miami-private-school-students-covid-vaccine/index.html>.

Police officers that lose their job can move to a city and state where
vaccines are not required.

If you are discharged from the military then you can get a civilian job.

On 2/5/2022 3:44 AM, Chris wrote:

<snip>

> "EE" apparently which I assume is electronic engineering, but who knows? He
> also mentioned "college degrees" so maybe not actually any degrees, then.

In the U.S., EE is "Electrical Engineering," which covers a wide range
of disciplines from electrical power to computer design to
microcontrollers.

In article <stlv9o$6mg$2@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> > "EE" apparently which I assume is electronic engineering, but who knows? He
> > also mentioned "college degrees" so maybe not actually any degrees, then.
>
> In the U.S., EE is "Electrical Engineering," which covers a wide range
> of disciplines from electrical power to computer design to
> microcontrollers.

actually, it's *much* more than that, including semiconductor physics,
chip fab, wireless communication, signal processing, ai, biomedical and
various other disciplines.

On Sat, 05 Feb 2022 12:08:04 -0500, nospam wrote:

>>> "EE" apparently which I assume is electronic engineering, but who knows? He
>>> also mentioned "college degrees" so maybe not actually any degrees, then.
>>
>> In the U.S., EE is "Electrical Engineering," which covers a wide range
>> of disciplines from electrical power to computer design to
>> microcontrollers.
>
> actually, it's *much* more than that, including semiconductor physics,
> chip fab, wireless communication, signal processing, ai, biomedical and
> various other disciplines.

In the USA, you can get all sorts of electrical engineering related degrees,
as Steve said.

For example, chip design is completely different than electrical power
distribution, just as biomedical device design is different from design of
the power grid.

They'll all start with the same basics just like all biological science
degrees do, and then the individual branches off into a specialty.

This branching into specialties happens yet anew when the college graduate
gets his first job in, oh, say, National Semiconductor off of Lawrence.

On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 11:01:06 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

> I was worried that was what you were referring to...

No you weren't as you were looking for the percentage which needed to be
extrapolated from the figures that were given on page 20.

To extrapolate, you just slide the decimal point over, which I did in my
head long ago & which I was quoting off the cuff from having read that CDC
doc back in November.

But since Usenet is water under the bridge, I'll let you slide because my
point is that you objected to the CDC figures I quoted, where even your (new
math, see below) shows even _worse_ numbers than what I extrapolated off the
cuff.

*The chance of kids _not_ dying from Covid isn't 99.998% but 99.9998%*

> You've made three mistakes.

Let's look at them since I'm never afraid to admit a mistake (only fools do
that). I'll openly admit a mistake if I made it, especially in off the cuff
math as I'm not like you Chris.

I don't dispute facts simply because I don't like them.
You do that.

Not me.

> 1. 0.2 per 100,000 is 0.0002 per 100 or 0.0002%. Not 0.002% as you claim.

I moved the decimal point instantaneously, off the cuff, in my head, at the
time the document was published, and I was quoting from memory because at
that time, I assessed it to be small (which it is).

Let me try again as if I'm wrong, I'll admit it (but I'm sure you need to be
apprised that your clarification moves the risk of death to kids even
further in the direction that I was stating things were, Chris).

I'll move the decimal point over, one by one, for clarity:
a. 0.2 per 100,000
b. is 0.02 per 10,000
c. is 0.002 per 1000
d. is 0.0002 per 100.
Bingo!
You're right!

I'm wrong.
Thank you for correcting that error!

Given the Covid crude mortality rate overall is around 0.2%, the crude
fatality rate for children isn't two orders of magnitude less, as I had
previously claimed, but it's actually _three_ orders of magnitude less!

That inadvertent math error now fixed makes my argument even stronger.

I thank you for catching my mistake but I have to point out that it makes my
argument even better by an order of magnitude that the risk of death to
children is _three_ orders of magnitude less than that of the population
overall... (not two) and yet...

And yet...

People like Steve want to _force_ those kids to get the shot when their
chance of _not_ dying from Covid isn't 99.998% but 99.9998% for God's sake!
<https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-11-2-3/03-Covid-Jefferson-508.pdf>>
<https://imgur.com/a/luBkBZp>
<https://i.imgur.com/11zdaKC.png>

> 2. this is a "crude rate" not a case fatality rate

I believe, offhand, it's the "Crude Mortality Rate", is it not?
That's the _typical_ value which is quoted in pandemics, is it not?

Why do you think the "crude mortality rate" exists Chris?
Why do you think the CDC quotes it, Chris?

*Choosing the right COVID-19 indicator*
crude mortality, case fatality, and infection fatality rates
influence policy preferences, behaviour, and understanding
<https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-021-01032-0>
"In times of pandemic, media alternate the usage of different COVID-19
indicators, ranging from the more typical crude mortality rate
to the case fatality rate, and the infection fatality rate"

Did you read the paper on the key ways to calculate Covid risks, Chris?
I posted it before and I posted it yet again above, where it says:
"Results show that while the usage of the crude mortality rate proves
to be more efficient in terms of supporting policy preferences
and behaviours to contain the virus, all indicators suffer from
a significant misunderstanding on behalf of the population."

Methinks you don't like the rate because it doesn't fit into your belief
system, which is fine, but your belief system is based on _zero_ facts,
so no fact is going to fit into your imaginary belief system, Chris.

You don't have to _like_ facts, but you can't ignore them because you don't
like the fact that the "typical" rate that is quoted, is, for kids, about
0.0002% (not 0.002% as I had claimed) which is supported by that CDC doc.

Notice even with my inadvertent math error though that I don't bullshit.
Your kind correction only makes my argument _stronger_ (not weaker).

> which is the better way
> to assess risk of death as I'm sure you know.

I've read many papers on _how_ to assess danger Chris.
The Crude Mortality Rate is what I've been using, and you _know_ that.

That article clearly shows that the CMR is the _typical_ value quoted.

If you want to use a _different_ rate, you can, but I doubt it changes my
argument, because my argument is logical, sensible, and reasonable, and it's
supported by the facts.

You are desperate to find a way around the facts.
And that's OK.

It's normal for people who don't use facts for their belief systems.
(The iKooks do it all the time, Chris.)

Given the chance of anyone dying from Covid is about 0.2% (we can argue over
the sig figs if we want but it doesn't change the _magnitude_ of the
difference for kids even if I increase that to 0.5%) the chance of a kid
aged 5 to 11 years old dying from Covid in the USA from October to October
2020 to 2021 is 0.0002%.

That's a fact.
It's from the CDC.

You _hate_ that fact.
Steve _hates_ that fact.

But the fact you hate facts doesn't change at all that it's a fact.

Given that fact, my argument is to ask Steve _why_ he feels all kids should
be forced to be given the shot (whether or not their parents want them to
have it) when those kids have only a 0.0002% chance of dying from Covid?

Why?

> The CFR as shown in an
> earlier slide appears to be 0.6% for 5-11 kids.

As the reference above shows, the "typical" measurement is the Crude
Mortality Rate, but as the article shows, the "Case Fatality Rate" also has
merit in certain circumstances... of that I'd be a fool to deny that point.

Both rates, though, are well _below_ 1% so the overall chance of NOT dying
for a kid, with either rate, is clearly well below 99%, would you agree?

Why would you inject a foreign substance into billions of kids who have
almost no chance of dying from Covid no matter _what_ rate you employ?

> 3. Minor point but the table is 2019 data whereas the COVID numbers are a
> 20/21 12-month period so not directly comparable. Could be higher/lower.

They're not going to change appreciably, but if they do, you'll let me know
as I will chance my stance on a dime if new evidence comes to the fore.

It's what intelligent well educated people do.

On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 05:21:41 -0800, sms wrote:

> If you are discharged from the military then you can get a civilian job.

Whatever happened to Steve's oft-quoted mantra of: *My Body My Choice* ?

It's not so bad that ignorant people like Steve exist, as plenty of people
are ignorant that kids have a 99.9998% chance of _not_ dying from Covid.

And, it's not really so bad that Steve _still_ (after a dozen posts!) can't
comprehend that math, which is right in front of Steve's face in this set:
<https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-11-2-3/03-Covid-Jefferson-508.pdf>>
Page 20: <https://imgur.com/a/luBkBZp>
Bigger: <https://i.imgur.com/11zdaKC.png>

And yet, with a 99.9998% chance of _not_ dying from Covid, Steve _still_
wants to force all those kids (whose immune systems are still forming) to
undergo a shot that _Steve_ wants them to have.

Why?
There is almost zero chance of the kids dying from Covid.

Hell, most people are _immune_ to Covid, which Steve hates, but it's a fact.
Why is Steve trying to take away our rights?

Why?

I suspect Steve is driven insane by his inordinate fears only because _he_
can't fathom that he has a 99.8% chance of _not_ dying, and his school age
kid has a 0.9998% chance of _not_ dying from Covid.

Steve is afraid.
So he wants to take away your rights.

But notice, before, he said you had rights: My Body My Choice?
What happened to his own mantra?

HINT: He lied.

On 2/5/2022 3:54 AM, Chris wrote:

<snip>

> Wrong. You didn't do the math (sic).

He did do the math, he just didn't like the science or the math so he
made up his own numbers.

On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 13:58:48 -0800, sms wrote:

>> Wrong. You didn't do the math (sic).
>
> He did do the math, he just didn't like the science or the math so he
> made up his own numbers.

This is to Chris.
1. Did you read, Chris, what Steve just wrote?
2. How would _you_ respond to Steve, if you were to respond as an adult?

I don't have the capacity to drop down to Steve's level where Steve can't
comprehend the fact that the crude mortality rate for kids is 0.0002%.

It just is a fact.
But facts do not fit into any portion of Steve's (imaginary) belief system.

I know _you_ comprehend the crude mortality rate.

You know, Chris, that the Crude Mortality Rate for kids is 0.0002% right?
That is a 99.9998% chance of _not_ dying (before you're even infected).

While we can use other rates once the kid is _already_ infected, that is the
rate _before_ the kid gets infected, and it is the _typical_ rate quoted for
pandemics (because it's the risk to the population before they get
infected).

How would you suggest I drop myself down to Steve's ignorant level to
respond to his baseless claims (which he made because _he_ didn't comprehend
the math)?

On Sat, 05 Feb 2022 12:08:04 -0500, nospam wrote:

>>> "EE" apparently which I assume is electronic engineering, but who knows? He
>>> also mentioned "college degrees" so maybe not actually any degrees, then.
>>
>> In the U.S., EE is "Electrical Engineering," which covers a wide range
>> of disciplines from electrical power to computer design to
>> microcontrollers.
>
> actually, it's *much* more than that, including semiconductor physics,
> chip fab, wireless communication, signal processing, ai, biomedical and
> various other disciplines.

Nospam can be forgiven for not comprehending since nospam doesn't have an
education to speak of, where what nospam says is only right in the
aggregate.

Any one electrical engineer is usually trained in the basics and then the
details, where one may focus on biomedical instrumentation (which ends up
being mostly about transducers, funnily enough) while another may focus on
chip design, while others do semiconductor physics (which is different from
chip design), while others focus on the power grid, etc.

Having been in that field for decades, I would surmise that _every_ trained
EE knows this intimately, since educated people know what they don't know.

While Steve _does_ have an EE (that is certain), there's absolutely no
evidence that nospam has _any_ formal education to speak of, which I
wouldn't even bring up (lot's of people are ignorant) except that nospam
tries to belittle the vast education that other people do have.

In summary, almost everything nospam claims is wrong because he doesn't have
the educational background to be right.

On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 11:54:27 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

>> If the risk is losing your job, that is _force_ by another means.
>
> It's motivation. Freedom of choice is not without consequences. No-one is
> limiting your choice.

Chris,

Call it what you will as renaming it doesn't change what it is.
My point hasn't wavered, and, in fact, you and Steve _proved_ my point.

*Those most ignorant are the most scared and therefore they want
everyone else to be forced to make the same ignorant decisions they make*

That.
That.

That is my point, and you proved it in spades as it took you _days_ to find
the percentage when it was _always_ there right in front of your face.

People like you who are _that_ oblivious to facts, have a right to be
ignorant.

But what you don't have a right to do is take away everyone else's rights to
make an informed decision.

>> Steve, the science is that the risk of _not_ dying from Covid is over 99%.
>> For children, it's two orders of magnitude _less_ than that.
>
> Wrong. You didn't do the math (sic).

You couldn't even _find_ the figures Chris, after _days_ of looking.
Nobody with a PhD would be _that_ oblivious when I gave you the cite.
Nobody intelligent would have _missed_ it once I gave you the page.

Yes, I made a math error (which ended up being in my favor as you know).
SO it's actually _worse_ (by an order of magnitude) than I said it was.
*Instead of 99.998% of US children not dying from Covid, it's 99.9998%*

My math error, when corrected, only makes my argument stronger.
Your inability to comprehend the math makes your argument vastly weaker.

Enough said though, as people like you are smart enough to realize that.
It's people like Steve who are wackos who can't comprehend facts.

My point has never wavered, as I made my own personal decision to get the
shot and boosters, but I know far to much to _force_ that decision on
others.

My point is people like Steve are ignorant and yet they want to force their
fear-based decisions on others.

That.
That.
That.

That's is the problem here.
That is what I'm trying to "force" into your thick skull.

DO you get it yet?

On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 11:44:43 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

>> I find it interesting that you won't actually tell us what degrees you hold.
>
> "EE" apparently which I assume is electronic engineering, but who knows? He
> also mentioned "college degrees" so maybe not actually any degrees, then.

Steve has an EE degree which, in the USA, is typically a college (often 5
years) degree (often then around 135 to 145 credits as opposed to 120
credits for a BA or BS degree).

The distinction between BA and BS is sometimes vague, but I went to one
school that _only_ gave a BA at the time (even for the life sciences), where
you're forced to take a shit ton of humanities in addition to the sciences.

Once you get to the graduate school level, it's different as you focus on
your specific field of endeavor instead of on being more sophisticated.

The problem I see with uneducated people like nospam is, is that they have
no sophistication.

Worse, they think everyone else is as unsophisticated as they are.

So, to people like nospam who are ill prepared for an adult discussion,
replying to facts that he doesn't like with "ftfy" is, to him, appropriate.

Ignorant people like nospam is are allowed to be ignorant, of course, but
they can't be believed because they don't even know that they are wrong when
they claim the wacko things that they claim.

Which is why nospam can _never_ back up any of his claims with actual facts.

But Steve is different.
Remember it was Steve who brazenly lied to us about FCC coverage maps.

Steve is a politician.
He is a liar by nature.

He _hates_ facts.
The fact he _hates_ is the CDC says 99.9998% of US kids didn't die of Covid.

What Steve claims is that those CDC facts are "wrong".
Why?

Did Steve supply a counter fact to back up his claim that the CDC is wrong?
Nope.

Steve simply lied.
Steve's belief system has no room for facts.

And that's OK.
I don't care if ignorant people like Steve exist.

It's when these ignorant people want to force their ignorance upon us that I
care.

That.
That.
That.

That is my point.
*The more ignorant people are about covid...*
*the more they force their fear-based decisions upon everyone else*

And that's wrong.

Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 11:01:06 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>
>> I was worried that was what you were referring to...
>
> No you weren't as you were looking for the percentage which needed to be
> extrapolated from the figures that were given on page 20.

A percentage that could not come from what was presented in the side.

> you objected to the CDC figures I quoted,

I object when people quote supposed facts but then cannot or will not back
them up. You're very bad at that.

The actual fact didn't matter, but it's impossible to discuss facts without
verifying their accuracy first.

>
>> You've made three mistakes.
>
> Let's look at them since I'm never afraid to admit a mistake (only fools do
> that).

False. You haven't admitted you were wrong to call the COVID genome
"astoundingly huge".

>> 1. 0.2 per 100,000 is 0.0002 per 100 or 0.0002%. Not 0.002% as you claim.
>
> I moved the decimal point instantaneously, off the cuff, in my head

And made yourself look silly.

> And yet...
>
> People like Steve want to _force_ those kids to get the shot when their
> chance of _not_ dying from Covid isn't 99.998% but 99.9998% for God's sake!
> <https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-11-2-3/03-Covid-Jefferson-508.pdf>>
> <https://imgur.com/a/luBkBZp>
> <https://i.imgur.com/11zdaKC.png>

The point that comes across clearly in that presentation is that COVID is
equally as dangerous to children, if not worse, as flu. Seeing as we
already vaccinate kids against flu then it makes sense to do the same for
covid.

>> 2. this is a "crude rate" not a case fatality rate
>
> I believe, offhand, it's the "Crude Mortality Rate", is it not?
> That's the _typical_ value which is quoted in pandemics, is it not?

Nope. It's useless. Need to look at effects across cases or infections.
Especially when you want to discuss the risk of dying. If you never come
into contact with the virus then you never have any risk but that doesn't
help in assessing global risk.

> Why do you think the "crude mortality rate" exists Chris?
> Why do you think the CDC quotes it, Chris?

It's easy to calculate and easily comparable across mortality risks due to
very different things.

> *Choosing the right COVID-19 indicator*
> crude mortality, case fatality, and infection fatality rates
> influence policy preferences, behaviour, and understanding
> <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-021-01032-0>
> "In times of pandemic, media alternate the usage of different COVID-19
> indicators, ranging from the more typical crude mortality rate
> to the case fatality rate, and the infection fatality rate"
>
> Did you read the paper on the key ways to calculate Covid risks, Chris?
> I posted it before and I posted it yet again above, where it says:
> "Results show that while the usage of the crude mortality rate proves
> to be more efficient in terms of supporting policy preferences
> and behaviours to contain the virus, all indicators suffer from
> a significant misunderstanding on behalf of the population."
>
> Methinks you don't like the rate because it doesn't fit into your belief
> system,

I'm not policy maker. Are you?

>
>> The CFR as shown in an
>> earlier slide appears to be 0.6% for 5-11 kids.
>
> As the reference above shows, the "typical" measurement is the Crude
> Mortality Rate, but as the article shows, the "Case Fatality Rate" also has
> merit in certain circumstances... of that I'd be a fool to deny that point.
>
> Both rates, though, are well _below_ 1% so the overall chance of NOT dying
> for a kid, with either rate, is clearly well below 99%, would you agree?
>
> Why would you inject a foreign substance into billions of kids who have
> almost no chance of dying from Covid no matter _what_ rate you employ?

To save their lives? Like we do for all other vaccines. This is why 50% do
not die by the age of 15 anymore. The absolute rate may be low, but you
need to remember that young kids rarely die of anything. COVID is the 5th
or 6th leading cause of death for kids. We have a way to prevent it so we
should use it.

Plus there's the fact that 38% of kids are seropositive which is a huge
risk for the rest of the population and a reservoir for potential mutation.

Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 11:54:27 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>
>>> If the risk is losing your job, that is _force_ by another means.
>>
>> It's motivation. Freedom of choice is not without consequences. No-one is
>> limiting your choice.
>
> Chris,
>
> Call it what you will as renaming it doesn't change what it is.
> My point hasn't wavered, and, in fact, you and Steve _proved_ my point.
>
> *Those most ignorant are the most scared and therefore they want
> everyone else to be forced to make the same ignorant decisions they make*

Why are you scared by a completely benign vaccine? Vaccinating people or
kids is nothing new.

Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 11:44:43 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>
>>> I find it interesting that you won't actually tell us what degrees you hold.
>>
>> "EE" apparently which I assume is electronic engineering, but who knows? He
>> also mentioned "college degrees" so maybe not actually any degrees, then.
>
> Steve has an EE degree which, in the USA, is typically a college (often 5
> years) degree (often then around 135 to 145 credits as opposed to 120
> credits for a BA or BS degree).

So a college "degree" is not a bachelors degree? That's not a genuine
degree then. We'd call that a diploma or certificate here.

> The distinction between BA and BS is sometimes vague, but I went to one
> school that _only_ gave a BA at the time (even for the life sciences), where
> you're forced to take a shit ton of humanities in addition to the sciences.

Oxford and Cambridge, for purely historical reason, call all their degrees
as BA or MA.

On 2/6/2022 3:22 AM, Chris wrote:
> Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 11:54:27 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>>
>>>> If the risk is losing your job, that is _force_ by another means.
>>>
>>> It's motivation. Freedom of choice is not without consequences. No-one is
>>> limiting your choice.
>>
>> Chris,
>>
>> Call it what you will as renaming it doesn't change what it is.
>> My point hasn't wavered, and, in fact, you and Steve _proved_ my point.
>>
>> *Those most ignorant are the most scared and therefore they want
>> everyone else to be forced to make the same ignorant decisions they make*
>
> Why are you scared by a completely benign vaccine? Vaccinating people or
> kids is nothing new.

You have to try to understand that alt-right mindset. It's not that they
really believe that the vaccine is bad, it's that the government funded
the development (in some cases) and that the government is doing it's
mandated job to protect the population from disease and death. By not
getting vaccinated, they are "owning the libs" all the way to the grave.

This cartoon sums it up well: <https://i.redd.it/8f6pdy25z4k71.jpg>.

You also have to understand that, occasionally, educated people get
caught up in the anti-vax movement, though it isn't that common.

But no one has forced anyone to get vaccinated with the Covid vaccine,
just as no one is forced to get any vaccine. However there are
consequences for not getting vaccinated. Children cannot usually not go
to a public school, and in the case of Covid, it is often not possible
for an unvaccinated person to enter certain establishments, visit most
other countries, etc.. This is necessary to protect the general population.

Our favorite troll might want to consider taking some math and
statistics classes, but teaching him critical thinking skills is
probably not possible at this stage.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“The good thing about Science is that it's true whether or not you
believe in it.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 2/6/2022 3:52 AM, Chris wrote:
> Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 5 Feb 2022 11:44:43 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>>
>>>> I find it interesting that you won't actually tell us what degrees you hold.
>>>
>>> "EE" apparently which I assume is electronic engineering, but who knows? He
>>> also mentioned "college degrees" so maybe not actually any degrees, then.
>>
>> Steve has an EE degree which, in the USA, is typically a college (often 5
>> years) degree (often then around 135 to 145 credits as opposed to 120
>> credits for a BA or BS degree).
>
> So a college "degree" is not a bachelors degree? That's not a genuine
> degree then. We'd call that a diploma or certificate here.

In the U.S., it's a BSEE (Bachelor of Science in Electrical
Engineering). It's the same number of credits as required for any
baccalaureate degree. For engineering, it may take five years instead of
four years because the coursework is more difficult for an engineering
degree so you may choose to take less credits per quarter (or semester),
depending on your ability.

In a quarter system, to graduate in four years you would get 45 credits
per year, or 180 total to graduate. In a semester system you would get
30 credits per year, or 120 total to graduate.

In article <stoh6k$vj$1@dont-email.me>, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

> >> Steve has an EE degree which, in the USA, is typically a college (often 5
> >> years) degree (often then around 135 to 145 credits as opposed to 120
> >> credits for a BA or BS degree).
> >
> > So a college "degree" is not a bachelors degree? That's not a genuine
> > degree then. We'd call that a diploma or certificate here.
>
> In the U.S., it's a BSEE (Bachelor of Science in Electrical
> Engineering).

that depends on the school and curriculum. for example, there are
electrical and computer engineering (ece), electrical engineering and
computer science (eecs) degrees as well as other variants. also, some
schools reverse the letters, i.e, sb (bachelors) and sm (masters).

> It's the same number of credits as required for any
> baccalaureate degree. For engineering, it may take five years instead of
> four years because the coursework is more difficult for an engineering
> degree so you may choose to take less credits per quarter (or semester),
> depending on your ability.

it's normally 4 years except for schools that have an internship/co-op
program, thus extending it to 5, or for lesser students who can't do it
in 4 years, or who switch majors and need to take additional courses
they otherwise would have taken had they not needed to switch.

On Sun, Feb 06 2022, Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:

>
> Having been in that field for decades, I would surmise that _every_ trained
> EE knows this intimately, since educated people know what they don't know.
>

You're not a fan of Donald Rumsfeld then? [1] I'm not sure whether
your claim is correct or not!

Did you know whether or not your misplaced shifting by factors of 10
was erroneous?

But if you wish to continue ranting...

Robert
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_known_knowns
--
Robert Marshall twitter: @rajm
La grenouille songe..dans son château d'eau

On 2/6/2022 7:45 AM, Robert Marshall wrote:

<snip>

> You're not a fan of Donald Rumsfeld then? [1] I'm not sure whether
> your claim is correct or not!
>
> Did you know whether or not your misplaced shifting by factors of 10
> was erroneous?

Whatever. Being off by a factor of 10 is probably one of the most
innocuous misstatements of fact from our favorite troll. The data on
Covid is clear, he chooses to ignore it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own
facts.” ― Daniel Patrick Moynihan
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sun, 06 Feb 2022 10:31:46 -0500, nospam wrote:

> it's normally 4 years except for schools that have an internship/co-op
> program, thus extending it to 5, or for lesser students who can't do it
> in 4 years, or who switch majors and need to take additional courses
> they otherwise would have taken had they not needed to switch.

I know Steve and nospam are aware of all this but for others outside the
states, I'll lay out some details of how our school system works, as I
understand it.

I'll stick to California because the USA, education is done differently than
in many countries as the education, while it gets "help" from the Feds, uses
the concept of the "town controlled" little one room red schoolhouse.

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: (primary education)
A. The town controls schools, then a bit from the state, less from the Feds
B. Hence the town chooses the primary & secondary school books & curriculum
C. In some places I've lived, the rich towns have to pay the poor towns
D. But my point is that all secondary education in the US has local control
E. For colleges and universities, the state _also_ has their schools
F. And both levels have the concept of private schools also
G. In general, a kid goes to "elementary school" at about 5 years of age
H. Although pre-school is prevalent (usually at extra cost) at 4 years
I. The "kindergarten" is usually a half day (either morning or afternoon)
J. Full days start at 6 years of age, usually about 7 or 8am to 2 or 3pm
K. In all other states but California, the kids are bussed to & from school
L. In California, since parents have to drive, they stagger the times
M. So a hoard of parents drive from one school to the other every weekday
N. This elementary school lasts to about 5th or 6th grade
O. The whole time the kids have (essentially) _one_ teacher in each grade
P. Many US schools have only one full class of students in each grade
Q. Sometimes they have to "mix" grades, taking the high achievers first
R. There are usually around 25 to 35 kids per classroom, averaging 30
S. The richer schools, of course, have fewer students (which matters)
T. The kids often have ancillary activities (playground, gym, music)
U. But they learn mostly the three R's (reading, 'riting, & 'rithmatic)
V. They are graded on an ABCDF scale, where some are "held back" a year
W. In the classroom they are separated by the good/better/best students
X. The teacher personally tailors the intensity to the level of the kid
Y. At the end they know basic arithmetic and they can read & write ok
Z. There usually is no pomp when they "graduate" and no "degree" given

MIDDLE SCHOOL: (primary education)
a. At about fifth (or sixth) grade, the kids go to "middle school"
b. There they encounter, for the first time, changing classrooms
c. They still have one "homeroom" teacher for the morning assembly
d. But then they walk the hallways to go to their next class
e. Unlike college, the classes are all in the same building
f. Where, in California, they're like little shacks mostly
g. But in most states, they are substantial super sturdy buildings
h. Which is why they were used as fallout shelters in the sixties
i. Anyway, the kids separate more fully into good/better/best
j. Now the English class is 30 students who are all good
k. Same with the Math classes and Science classes begin to appear
l. Depending on how rich the school is, electives like Music abound
m. And "Gym" class (technically called PE) takes on a role as never before
n. Specifically in terms of the Presidential Physical Fitness competition
o. And also specifically to drug and drinking abuse issues
p. There are often school sponsored socialization also, like dances
q. And sometimes, not always though, they have school sponsored sports
r. The kids often have lockers, for the first time, & gym shorts/tops too
s. They often "associate" with the school spirit (often a mascot too)
t. Notice the school adds a "social" concept given the kids' age
u. The classes begin to have basic biology and math up to algebra
v. Although rich schools have more advanced stuff than do poor schools
w. They also have a class each year in history for the first time
x. Again, they are graded ABCDF & there is no final examination usually
y. Universally, 8th grade is the last grade of primary school education
z. There often is a graduation ceremony, and a "fake" diploma kind of

HIGH SCHOOL: (secondary education)
A. High school universally is 4 years, freshman, sophomore, junior, senior
B. At 16 in poor districts, and 18 elsewhere, kids often will drop out
C. They are not allowed to force kids to stay in school at this point
D. The kids start at a homeroom in the morning and go for a longer day
E. There are always sports, which keep the kids in school 12 hours overall
F. There is a shit ton of school spirit - often with rival district schools
F. Oh, I forgot to mention the school district - which is different now
G. The primary schools have one school board - the secondary schools another
H. Both are controlled by the town - but they act almost separately
I. Now you have a class for each subject, math, science, history, arts, etc.
J. At your Sophomore year you begin to take advanced classes in key subjects
K. The highest level of math is usually calculus for example
L. There are also advanced history, chemistry, and physics classes
M. Some of them earn college credit if you score 3 or better on a 1-5 scale
N. Some kids therefore graduate with around 8 to 16 college credits that way
O. Grading is often college-like at 1 (F) to 4 (A) but not always
P. At your Junior year you take an SAT/ACT which are college entrance exams
Q. The smart kids try to ace them, which in my day was 800/800 in Math/Eng
R. Many also take local college classes which are offered by the high school
S. It's separate (run by the college) but offered locally at the high school
T. They also offer summer school (usually for kids who had flunked a class)
U. By now most kids have had their first job (which schools must approve)
V. You apply to schools in October of your Senior year (March acceptance)
W. For the first time in your life, your next level isn't guaranteed
X. Although it would be rare for a kid not to be accepted by any school
Y. They make a big deal about this high-school "diploma" for some reason
Z. For example, they have a big pompous graduation ceremony & parties
Y. Many high achievers get to wear special "honor society" tassels there

At this point, you go off to college to get a "degree", where I've never
really seen people make a huge distinction between "college" and
"university" but California has a distinction between "UC" and "State"
schools, and every state has a distinction for "Associate" degrees.

In general, universities are larger and have a great graduate program,
whereas colleges tend to be smaller with small to no graduate research,
however, that's only a general rule which will be broken many times.

Some colleges only offer "Bachelor of Arts" degrees (even for math and
science majors), while others offer a "Bachelor of Science" degree, where
the difference is in the sophistication of the program they force on you.

For example, those who have a Bachelor of Arts degree in the sciences have
to know _both_ the sciences and usually they also have to go into varying
degrees of depth in two completely different areas in the arts.

But much of this is determined by the school, and, depending on how it's
funded, by the state.

Let's take the state of California for now where there are private and
public colleges just as there were private and public primary and secondary
schools, where the "regulation" is by the state far less for the private
schools so they may vary greatly.

Essentially, for the public colleges, California has three systems:
1. Two-year schools which award an "Associates" degree
2. Four-year colleges which award a "Bachelors" & "Masters" degree
3. Four-year universities which award both those and a "PhD" degree
It's not iron clad, but that's the general gist of the distinctions.

The two-year schools, AFAIK, don't require _any_ entrance exam.
I think all the person needs is a "high school diploma" or equivalent.
That's where the "GED" comes in, I think, but I don't know much about it.

Oh, I should point out that there is an "intelligence" distinction:
1. In general, the high-school "C" students often start at two-year schools
2. The high-school "B" students get accepted into the 4-year state colleges
3. The high-school "A" students get accepted into the 4-year UC universities

To summarize this key point about the caliber of the student
1. The community school will accept just about the average anybody
2. The state school will accept the students who are better than average
3. The state university will accept only the best students

As for cost, if we look at only the California state-sponsored system
1. Community colleges are dirt cheap (the state funds about half the cost)
2. State schools are still pretty cheap (roughly about $25K/year overall)
3. State universities have to pay their way more than the others (~$30K)

On Sun, 06 Feb 2022 15:45:39 +0000, Robert Marshall wrote:

> You're not a fan of Donald Rumsfeld then? [1] I'm not sure whether
> your claim is correct or not!

*The CDC fact is the chance of a kid not dying from Covid is 99.9998%*

You are ignorant if you think I'm politically aware, having been trained in
the sciences, engineering, and, of all things, marketing & history (because
I went to a school which required such sophistication in order to graduate).

The one thing I _never_ took was anything in politics.

The _closest_ to politics, is my half dozen classes in marketing, which I
had trouble believing in those days, given I was an incurable optimist.

For example, I wouldn't charge more for flashlights if there was a storm
coming up, but other people will - so I had trouble understanding supply and
demand curves because my human nature isn't greed.

I also had trouble with understanding Marketing tricks, like taking the same
product and breaking it into good/better/best with superficial changes, as I
came from a math and science background which isn't easily fooled by tricks.

And yet, most people _are_ easily fooled by those tricks (some even lies).
I had a _lot_ of trouble understanding that.

Now, at my advanced age, I understand that most people are despicable.
For example, Apple removes functionality, year after year, just so that you
have to buy it back - but - they MARKETING that loss of functionality as
being "courageously" "For the environment" (when it's really just greed).

> Did you know whether or not your misplaced shifting by factors of 10
> was erroneous?

*The CDC fact is the chance of a kid not dying from Covid is 99.9998%*

This is the kind of accusation that comes from the likes of Alan Baker, who
is an utter moron who doesn't realize the mistake I made was _different_
from the mistake that both Chris and Steve made, and even more to the point
the mistake I made had _weakened_ my argument, where the correction
_strengthened_ my argument.

You are clearly too stupid to comprehend what I just said, so I'll outline:
a. Steve & Chris made a _major_ error in not comprehending the fact
b. Not only that, but they dismissed the claim as not existing at all

Those are HUGE strategic errors on the part of both Steve and Chris
a. Chris dismissed that the fact existed (but now agrees that it exists)
b. Steve _still_ dismisses that the fact exists!

Notice that each was _incomprehensibly stupid_ in dismissing that the fact
existed, just because the fact didn't factor into any of their computations!

Notice, while I gladly admit my error, the difference is astounding:
a. I _knew_ the fact existed
b. I could easily find it in the CDC document

Let me ask all _adults_ here:
a. Does Steve believe the CDC facts or not?
b. Does Chris?

> But if you wish to continue ranting...

*The CDC fact is the chance of a kid not dying from Covid is 99.9998%*

It's interesting that you are so ignorant that you consider "facts" a rant.
The fact ignorant people like you exist is fine, by the way, as you exist.
a. You're ignorant
b. You exist

But what is my point is the more ignorant people are (like Steve is), the
more they are driven by fear to _force_ inject substances into my body.

They don't force that injection into me based on facts.
They don't force that injection into me based on science.
They don't force that injection into me based on logic.

They want to _force_ inject people, based purely on _their_ abject fear.

That.
That.
That.

That is my point.
*The CDC fact is the chance of a kid not dying from Covid is 99.9998%*

On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 08:18:11 -0800, sms wrote:

> Whatever. Being off by a factor of 10 is probably one of the most
> innocuous misstatements of fact from our favorite troll. The data on
> Covid is clear, he chooses to ignore it.

Notice how Steve isn't man enough to admit what everyone else knows.

1. Steve _still_ disagrees vehemently with the facts as stated by the CDC
2. Worse, Steve claimed (many times) that facts in his face didn't exist!
3. And now, Steve claims that its appreciable the delta between
*The CDC fact is the chance of a kid not dying from Covid is 99.9998%*
*The CDC fact is the chance of a kid not dying from Covid is 99.998%*

Notice these facts:
a. Steve claims the statistic is wrong (he says it doesn't even exist!)
b. My typo was off (by mistake in practice, not theory) by 0.0018
c. Steve was off by 100% (since he completely denies the fact)

If Steve were intelligent, he'd admit the CDC statistic exists.
If Steve were intelligent, he'd admit the CDC statistic is correct.
If Steve were intelligent, he'd admit the CDC statistic is HUGE!

The question any _intelligent_ person should ask is why does Steve want to
_force_ inject substances into people's bodies when those people have a risk
of dying that is nowhere near even 1/2 of one percent?

Why?

What is Steve so afraid of that _he_ wants to force _everyone_ to undergo a
medical procedure when he himself denies that any fact from the CDC is
correct, let alone that it exists?

Let me repeat this:
a. Steve wants to _force_ inject everyone
b. And yet, he _denies_ that facts from the CDC exist
c. And, he _denies_ that they say exactly what they say

Who, on earth, is _that_ stupid?
HINT: Steve.

That.
That.
That.

That is my point.
*The more ignorant people are, the more they want to force that on us*

On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 11:22:01 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

> Why are you scared by a completely benign vaccine?

Chris,
How _ignorant_ are you?
You can't possibly be intelligent if you ask that question.

Did I _ever_ say I was scared by the shot, Chris.
Hell, how many times did I say I chose to get the shot Chris?
And the booster (I even said where, at Costco in Santa Cruz), Chris.

How _stupid_ can you be that you can't fathom a single word I said?

> Vaccinating people or kids is nothing new.

Jesus Christ, Chris.
I never said that vaccinating people or kids is "something new" did I?

Again, that shows an unfathomable ignorance on your part.

But, in reality, these two sentences prove my point in spaces.
a. People like you are so scared
b. That you can't comprehend facts
c. In fact, you can't even _see_ those facts, Chris.

You and Steve proved my point in spades.
a. I simply state facts
b. You _hate_ those facts
c. In fact, you hate fact so much, you _deny_ that facts even exist.

And then...

Then you fabricate these lifeless strawmen that I never said.
And you beat those lifeless strawmen of your own fabrication to death.

Again, you are what I am talking about with ignorant people like you are.
You're so ignorant, that you _refuse_ to believe that any facts exist.

Every fact goes _against_ your strongly held (but imaginary) belief system.
You have to find a way to _rationalize_ facts, because facts don't fit.

In short, your entire belief system is pure fear.
Your belief system is so absurd it has no room for facts.

A fact such as the fact that 99.9998% of kids will not die of Covid.

Yet Steve is even _more_ ignorant than you are Chris.
Steve thinks changing that 99.9998% to 99.998% is astoundingly huge.

That.
That.
That.

That is how fear turned Steve and you into unfathomably ignorant people.
--
It's ok for you to be ignorant - most people are.
But the point is you should not be forcing that on the rest of us.

On Sun, 6 Feb 2022 04:55:20 -0800, sms wrote:

>> Why are you scared by a completely benign vaccine? Vaccinating people or
>> kids is nothing new.
>
> You have to try to understand that alt-right mindset.

You and Chris can only understand rational people if you demonize them.

Notice that both Steve and Chris _fabricated_ that I said:
a. I'm "scared" by the shot (hell, I said I took it, and the booster!)
b. I'm claiming vaccination is something new for kids (I never said that)

More importantly, notice that for Steve & Chris, facts don't fit.
1. I tell them a fact of 99.998% (which is really 99.9998%)
2. They _deny_ that entire fact exist (it doesn't fit in their beliefs)
3. They can't even _find_ that fact when I point to exactly where it is

Why?
Why do Steve & Chris _not_ incorporate any facts into their belief system?

Worse, when they're confronted with facts the denied even existing,
why do both _rationalize_ that those facts are what they are... that way?

Why did Steve rationalize facts by claiming facts only come from the right?
Why did Chris rationalize facts by fabricating claims I never once made?

Why?
I know why.
Do you?

They both can't be _that_ stupid, can they?
Nobody is that stupid, right?

But what they both have is _fear_ ... pure unadulterated insensible fear.
Fear makes them both _immune_ to all facts.

There isn't a _single_ fact from the CDC that they are capable of believing.
They'll deny that the fact exists.

Because their decision was made based purely on fear.
Not facts.

Worse, they can't comprehend anyone who makes a decision based on facts.
Like I did.

Even worse than that, they want to *FORCE* their decisions on everyone.
That.

That is my point.
Steve & Chris proved me right.
In spades.

You and Chris can only understand rational people if you demonize them.

On Sun, Feb 06 2022, Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 06 Feb 2022 15:45:39 +0000, Robert Marshall wrote:
>
>> You're not a fan of Donald Rumsfeld then? [1] I'm not sure whether
>> your claim is correct or not!
>
> *The CDC fact is the chance of a kid not dying from Covid is 99.9998%*
>
> You are ignorant if you think I'm politically aware, having been trained in
> the sciences, engineering, and, of all things, marketing & history (because
> I went to a school which required such sophistication in order to graduate).
>
> The one thing I _never_ took was anything in politics.
>

The claim I was addressing - which is why I snipped everything else was
(well apart from the start of that sentence)

>>> since educated people know what they don't know.

and Rumsfeld is well known (inter alia) for his statement which I referenced in
my footnote:

"there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know
there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things
we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns-the ones we don't
know we don't know."

note that last sentence. I'm not a fan of Rumsfeld but I agree with that
statement!

But hey, you just carry on throwing insults about - it's the
inflammatory trolling rather than endeavouring to come to a common view
(hah this is usenet, which I've been around since the 1980s)
..

Robert
--
Robert Marshall twitter: @rajm
La grenouille songe..dans son château d'eau