 |
|
Current group: soc.politics
8,500 dead GI
| akalaniz at hotmail.com | | akalaniz at hotmail.com | | akalaniz at hotmail.com | | RosardoZBT | | Sorackem | | RosardoZBT | | RosardoZBT | | akalaniz at hotmail.com | | akalaniz at hotmail.com |
|
|
| | From: | akalaniz at hotmail.com | | Subject: | 8,500 dead GI | | Date: | Mon, 17 Jan 2005 02:09:19 -0600 |
|
|
 | Using the data from: http://icasualties.org/oif/ I developed a
simplistic model.
I took a 4 month moving average of the ave. daily death rate and
plotted it in Excel. One could then fit a crude projective line of
death through it:
Y = m X + b where
where m=0.1 (ave. death/day)/month and
b=0.55 deaths
Given there are 4 years of Bush to go,
Y=(0.1 (death/day)/month)) * 365.25 days * 48 months = (about) 7000
deaths.
Given 1500 have already died, that makes 8,500 deaths.
Criticisms of model: The projected line is the expected line. The
error bars with its predicitions increase the furhter into the future
one projects. A moving average of 4 months may not be the best choice.
The model can not predict new information, e.g., a meteor flattens the
earth, etc.
Still, one's eyeballs, despite the data's volatility, can pick up a
rising trend in the graph.
AA PhD
|
|
| | From: | akalaniz at hotmail.com | | Subject: | Re: 8,500 dead GI | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 11:09:33 -0600 |
|
|
| Time will tell which way from the model truth will follow.
AA
|
|
| | From: | akalaniz at hotmail.com | | Subject: | Re: 8,500 dead GI | | Date: | Fri, 21 Jan 2005 11:01:09 -0600 |
|
|
| I hope the model is wrong.
Alex Alaniz, PhD
|
|
| | From: | RosardoZBT | | Subject: | Re: 8,500 dead GI | | Date: | Mon, 17 Jan 2005 13:24:15 -0600 |
|
|
| 1. Given the stability of the situation, you cant really average out
deaths per month.
2. you assume we'll be there for 4 more years? proof?
|
|
| | From: | Sorackem | | Subject: | Re: 8,500 dead GI | | Date: | Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:47:15 -0600 |
|
|
| "RosardoZBT" wrote in news:1105989813.288067.117130
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
> 2. you assume we'll be there for 4 more years? proof?
Since when does an 'assumption' require proof?
|
|
| | From: | RosardoZBT | | Subject: | Re: 8,500 dead GI | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 04:06:15 -0600 |
|
|
| to me it seems that it cant help but be wrong. there are so many
variables that the deaths cant be accurately calculated.
|
|
| | From: | RosardoZBT | | Subject: | Re: 8,500 dead GI | | Date: | Thu, 20 Jan 2005 01:29:01 -0600 |
|
|
| I apologize with my rushed answer. I think what I was trying to get at
was what you were going with this topic.
I know the mathmatical formula you were creating and the assumptions
you were making. I obviously rushed into thing with my response.
|
|
| | From: | akalaniz at hotmail.com | | Subject: | Re: 8,500 dead GI | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 12:05:31 -0600 |
|
|
| Time will tell which way from the model truth will follow.
AA
|
|
| | From: | akalaniz at hotmail.com | | Subject: | Re: 8,500 dead GI | | Date: | Mon, 17 Jan 2005 15:16:34 -0600 |
|
|
| Did you not read the auto-criticisms of the model? Among them was the
admission that a meteor may flatten the earth, that is to say, anything
can happen. However, the model might still have some value given
Bush's recent statement that US troops will remain in Iraq until the
job is done AND given the failed history of the British Empire from
1919-1947 in trying to quell insurgency in Iraq.
If you are going to be an officer, as I was, I enjoin you to sharpen
yourreading skills and critical reasoning abilities, as well as your
familiarization with mathematical modeling.
Question: You surely didn't mean "given the stability of the
situation?" You meant, I take it, the INSABILITY of the situation?"
And it is precisely because of the instability that I took a 4 month
moving average (do you know what this means?) in order to tame out the
volatility.
Alex Alanz, PhD
|
|
|
| | |
|
 |
