Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2013-10-21, 16:33 Link #7181 Guernsey The GAP Man     Join Date: Jun 2008 Age: 28 Does anyone know how to get Format Factory to convert videos with subs in them? I use to able to do it before without much trouble it seems that every time I try to convert a video with subs into another format, the subs are gone and I don't see them. __________________
 2013-10-29, 08:13 Link #7182 ArchmageXin Master of Coin     Join Date: Mar 2008 I need help with a statistical question. I am having a debate with someone who claim Asians (Not just chinese) in America are some kind of advantageous race (like whites). He cites Out of X amount of poor children below poverty line, Asians are only 575K, about 13% of all "poor" I retorted Asians are only 6% of the population, there were, there wouldn't be a significant # of "poor asians"because the 575K is a fixed number. If the Asian population suddenly shoot up, the poor will also do. And he said I have no understanding of statistics. Someone care to explain it to me? __________________
SaintessHeart
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~

Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 27
Quote:
 Originally Posted by ArchmageXin I need help with a statistical question. I am having a debate with someone who claim Asians (Not just chinese) in America are some kind of advantageous race (like whites). He cites Out of X amount of poor children below poverty line, Asians are only 575K, about 13% of all "poor" I retorted Asians are only 6% of the population, there were, there wouldn't be a significant # of "poor asians"because the 575K is a fixed number. If the Asian population suddenly shoot up, the poor will also do. And he said I have no understanding of statistics. Someone care to explain it to me?
Won't it be easier to ask him to prove it to you on the spot, mathematically, how his idea of "statistics" work?

I mean, that is obviously ad hominem. It is a game of "counter-sniping" or "take your path of light and I'll take my wooden bridge"; if he turns up nothing then it is better to spend more time bidding for a loli in Kyrgyzstan than continue.
__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.

 2013-10-30, 04:39 Link #7184 Zakoo Senior Member     Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Gensokyo Though the last time I used poisson law or any other statistical laws was some years ago, I believe you are right, the two statistics #Amount of Asian children being under the poverty line and #Global number of Asian people in US population, are dependent Unfortunately, probably what the man meant, is that you misunderstood what a dependence is in statistic, dependence is nothing more than a correlation, and yes, if what he meant was this, I can understand why he said so, because you base your reasoning as if the population under poverty line would reproduce faster than the asian population above the poverty line. I don't know whether it is wrong or right, but at this point others sources need to back up your argument. If he didn't mean this, then yes Saintess explained everything.
 2013-10-30, 14:04 Link #7185 Dhomochevsky temporary safeguard     Join Date: May 2004 Location: Germany Age: 35 The correct questions to ask are: How many percent of the asians in the US are poor? How many percent of the whites in the US are poor? Same for other parts of the population. This eliminates the problem that they are different sized groups. But if the numbers you cited, "asians are 6% of the population" and "13% of all poor are asian" are correct, then they are by no means privilliged. Their part in the poor group is more than double their part in the population group!
 2013-10-30, 15:08 Link #7186 ArchmageXin Master of Coin     Join Date: Mar 2008 Here is my calculation, simple they might be Census 2012 Census #Poor kids % of poor kids White 196,817,552 66% 5,002,000 3% African American 37,685,848 13% 4,817,000 13% Asian American 14,465,124 5% 547,000 4% Hispanic 50,477,594 17% 6,110,000 12% Total: 299,446,118 So yea, I guess 5% asian America has 4% poor, but using the same logic, Hispanics have 17% population and 12% poor. I still don't understand why Asians are this magic race that is "unfair" to other minorities. __________________
oompa loompa
Senior Member

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 28° 37', North ; 77° 13', East
Age: 26
Quote:
 Originally Posted by ArchmageXin Here is my calculation, simple they might be Census 2012 Census #Poor kids % of poor kids White 196,817,552 66% 5,002,000 3% African American 37,685,848 13% 4,817,000 13% Asian American 14,465,124 5% 547,000 4% Hispanic 50,477,594 17% 6,110,000 12% Total: 299,446,118 So yea, I guess 5% asian America has 4% poor, but using the same logic, Hispanics have 17% population and 12% poor.
It doesn't matter if only 5% of the U.S is Asian, what matters is only 4% of the asian population (using children, obviously) is BPL. OTOH for all other minorities this figure is significantly higher. Based solely on this data, if you were trying to say that asian americans are not better off, at least financially, than the other minority groups, you've just done the opposite. Then again, whether income is the best judge of whether a minority has an 'advantage' is questionable, so even though this does say asian americans are better off financially, take it with a grain of salt at as to whether that really means they have an advantage, and i guess look at other avenues. Just don't look at mean standardized test scores, or G.P.A's; it will not help your argument. Also, the number of poor children can be a misleading statistic, as ( I don't know, it might not make a difference), but the average number of children per household by minority may differ. #Households BPL is probably a better statistic, I would be surprised if it wasn't available if #Poor children was.

Last edited by oompa loompa; 2013-10-30 at 17:42.

ArchmageXin
Master of Coin

Join Date: Mar 2008
Quote:
 Originally Posted by oompa loompa It doesn't matter if only 5% of the U.S is Asian, what matters is only 4% of the asian population (using children, obviously) is BPL. OTOH for all other minorities this figure is significantly higher. Based solely on this data, if you were trying to say that asian americans are not better off, at least financially, than the other minority groups, you've just done the opposite. Then again, whether income is the best judge of whether a minority has an 'advantage' is questionable, so even though this does say asian americans are better off financially, take it with a grain of salt at as to whether that really means they have an advantage, and i guess look at other avenues. Just don't look at mean standardized test scores, or G.P.A's; it will not help your argument. Also, the number of poor children can be a misleading statistic, as ( I don't know, it might not make a difference), but the average number of children per household by minority may differ. #Households BPL is probably a better statistic, I would be surprised if it wasn't available if #Poor children was.

Actually, white at 66% only have 3% poor children, one could argue that is miles ahead of Asians. And Hispanics have 17% of pop against 12% poor, so wouldn't they be better off than Asians as well?
__________________

 2013-10-30, 20:03 Link #7189 erneiz_hyde 俺強えええ (笑）     Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: InterWebs White isn't a minority, and iirc your friend didn't mention Asian as the master race, only that they're more well off like the whites. When viewed in actual numbers, it may not seem much, but when you consider it in the ratios, what your friend says make some sense based on that data alone. Ignore that Hispanics made up 17% the population, just that the whole Hispanics have a 12% percentage of BPL. Your friends' point lies in that ratio, not the actual number of people BPL. The rest is as oompa loompa says. __________________
ArchmageXin
Master of Coin

Join Date: Mar 2008
Quote:
 Originally Posted by erneiz_hyde White isn't a minority, and iirc your friend didn't mention Asian as the master race, only that they're more well off like the whites. When viewed in actual numbers, it may not seem much, but when you consider it in the ratios, what your friend says make some sense based on that data alone. Ignore that Hispanics made up 17% the population, just that the whole Hispanics have a 12% percentage of BPL. Your friends' point lies in that ratio, not the actual number of people BPL. The rest is as oompa loompa says.
Wait, if Hispanics made up 17% of the population, but only 12% of Hispanic children are below poverty line, isn't that a good thing?

I mean, there are certainly more Hispanic children under poverty than Asians, but Asians are a very small % in the first place, and not likely to produce equal number of poor babies.
__________________

erneiz_hyde

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: InterWebs
Quote:
 Originally Posted by ArchmageXin Wait, if Hispanics made up 17% of the population, but only 12% of Hispanic children are below poverty line, isn't that a good thing? I mean, there are certainly more Hispanic children under poverty than Asians, but Asians are a very small % in the first place, and not likely to produce equal number of poor babies.
It's that bolded part that keeps you from getting your friend's point. Your friend most likely does not take that into account at all. All he did was probably comparing 12% to 4%.
__________________

LeoXiao

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Vereinigte Staaten
Age: 24
Quote:
 Originally Posted by ArchmageXin Wait, if Hispanics made up 17% of the population, but only 12% of Hispanic children are below poverty line, isn't that a good thing?
12% of Hispanics are below the poverty line, but only 3% of whites are below it, meaning that whites are 4 times less likely to be poor.

Quote:
 I mean, there are certainly more Hispanic children under poverty than Asians, but Asians are a very small % in the first place, and not likely to produce equal number of poor babies.
The % of the total U.S. population doesn't factor into it. If we magically increased the number of Asians to 17% of the population but kept the poverty level (4%) the same, then the Hispanics would still have an 8% lead in poverty. So Asians are quite well-off, just after whites.

ArchmageXin
Master of Coin

Join Date: Mar 2008
Quote:
 Originally Posted by erneiz_hyde It's that bolded part that keeps you from getting your friend's point. Your friend most likely does not take that into account at all. All he did was probably comparing 12% to 4%.
Please note, this was an argument about how affirmative action hurts Asians. His argument was apparently society "favor" Asians because there are less Asians in the poor bracket than blacks or Latinos. I.E Latinos have 6 million kids under poverty compared to Asian's mere 575K.

As if all Asian families can afford spent thousands of dollars to tutor their kids, put them through cram schools etc.

My argument is that Asians are a small % of population. So the number of Asian poor babies would be smaller than other minorities.

So there is no way they are any way "advantageous" than blacks or Latinos. In fact, when I demanded he point out how does society favor Asians by law or social custom, he go back to I need to learn elementary stat, etc.

Quote:
 The % of the total U.S. population doesn't factor into it. If we magically increased the number of Asians to 17% of the population but kept the poverty level (4%) the same, then the Hispanics would still have an 8% lead in poverty. So Asians are quite well-off, just after whites.
But wouldn't the overall population mix changes, and thus poverty level change? Because the number of "poverty kids" is a static number. If more Asian ladies are pumping babies and exceed black/latinos, then the possibility of Asian poverty rate would change.
__________________

Last edited by ArchmageXin; 2013-10-30 at 21:23.

LeoXiao

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Vereinigte Staaten
Age: 24
Quote:
 Originally Posted by ArchmageXin Please note, this was an argument about how affirmative action hurts Asians. His argument was apparently society "favor" Asians because there are less Asians in the poor bracket than blacks or Latinos. I.E Latinos have 6 million kids under poverty compared to Asian's mere 575K. As if all Asian families can afford spent thousands of dollars to tutor their kids, put them through cram schools etc. My argument is that Asians are a small % of population. So the number of Asian poor babies would be smaller than other minorities. So there is no way they are any way "advantageous" than blacks or Latinos. In fact, when I demanded he point out how does society favor Asians by law or social custom, he go back to I need to learn elementary stat, etc.
Yes, but the fact that Asians are a small percent of the entire population is not relevant. What does matter is that a small percent of the Asians is poor, compared to blacks and Hispanics.

As for whether or not society favors Asians, just remind him that almost all Asians were banned from immigrating to the US for like a century, and those who did get in were subject to huge amounts of racism because they supposedly "cheated the white man" by working too hard.

Last edited by LeoXiao; 2013-10-31 at 11:46.

oompa loompa
Senior Member

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 28° 37', North ; 77° 13', East
Age: 26
Quote:
 Originally Posted by ArchmageXin Actually, white at 66% only have 3% poor children, one could argue that is miles ahead of Asians. And Hispanics have 17% of pop against 12% poor, so wouldn't they be better off than Asians as well?
Look, maybe this will make it clearer; If hispanics make up 17% of the population, and asians make up 5%, then the ratio of asian people to hispanic people is 5/17. Similarily, its 5/13 for asians vs african americans. Now, 4% of the asian population is BPL, and 12% of the hispanic population is BPL. So, the ratio of asian people BPL to hispanic people BPL is (4/12)(5/17) = 5/51, which is way less than the previous ratio I mentioned. Since the ratio decreases, asians have relatively less people BPL than the other minorities

Last edited by oompa loompa; 2013-10-30 at 23:46.

monir
cho~ kakkoii
Moderator

Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: 3rd Planet
Quote:
 Originally Posted by oompa loompa Look, maybe this will make it clearer; If hispanics make up 17% of the population, and asians make up 5%, then the ratio of asian people to hispanic people is 5/17. Similarily, its 5/13 for asians vs african americans. Now, 4% of the asian population is BPL, and 12% of the hispanic population is BPL. So, the ratio of asian people BPL to hispanic people BPL is (4/12)(5/17) = 5/51, which is way less than the previous ratio I mentioned. Since the ratio decreases, asians have relatively less people BPL than the other minorities
Let this be the last observation to this chicken-or-egg esque question. If you gentlemen feel the need to engage in further discussion over this, then please take it to PM/VM.
__________________
 Kudara nai na! Sig by TheEroKing. Calling on all Naruto fans, One Piece fans, and Shounen-fans in general... I got two words for you: One-Punch Man! Executive member of the ASS. Ready to flee at the first sign of trouble.

 2013-11-07, 00:03 Link #7197 ellifeedn Thinker   Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: New York Could I make a thread ranting about how much I hate the changes YouTube is doing?
Daniel E.
AniMexican!
Moderator

Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Monterrey N.L. Mexico
Quote:
 Originally Posted by ellifeedn Could I make a thread ranting about how much I hate the changes YouTube is doing?
There are several threads about YouTube already, but they are focused on a specific topic each. I could see some use on a General topic for this, but I don't want to simply see a bunch of posts saying "YouTube sucks" now. Yet another thread, where people post a ton of YouTube videos in every post is not my moe either.

If you can show me a solid intro post via PM (one that could generate discussion), then I would be happy to consider your request.
__________________

 2013-11-09, 01:25 Link #7199 Irenicus Le fou, c'est moi     Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA Age: 27 Tech speculation question from a noob: Generally speaking, are wireless connections between routers -- one at the modem, the other turned into a repeater -- stronger than between a router and an adapter? I know repeaters help extend range, at least, but I mean something like recycling a router when one upgrades, and connecting the PC to the old router-turned-repeater with an ethernet cable like it's a big, big external adapter instead of just using...an adapter. Would that be an exercise in pointlessness? I know there's a whole bunch of variables in this (brand, quality, compatibility, signal standards), so there might be different answers for a few scenarios; say, these two: 1) Same generation and similar quality level (the "control group") 2) Older, say, top class router vs new generation adapters at various price points Moreover, as a whole, are routers from 2013 faster and more reliable than 2009 in the first place, not counting the shift from N to ac standards?
Dextro
He Without a Title

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Lisbon, Portugal
Age: 29
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Irenicus Tech speculation question from a noob: Generally speaking, are wireless connections between routers -- one at the modem, the other turned into a repeater -- stronger than between a router and an adapter?
I didn't fully get the question but I think I can still help. The quality of a wireless connection will always be limited by the weaker of the two antennas. Let's say you have a router that has a theoretical range of 50m and an adapter with equal range. That case is easy: you would be able to get a connection up to 50m of distance. Now if you were to upgrade your router with another that provided a 100m range you would still be capped at 50m because your receiving adapter can't output any further. Unlike with a FM Radio broadcast, in wifi both devices need to be able to ear and speak so the weakest of the two defines what kind of range you get.

Now what a repeater does is place a second router to cover extra distance while deferring to the main router all the network management (IP handling in particular).

(In this picture the adapter can communicate with the repeater but not the main router. The connection will be relayed by a cable from the repeater to the main router and then to the internet)

Btw I would recommend against using an older router as a wireless repeater. They don't tend to work that well in that scenario. Using one as a wired repeater though works rather well in dd-wrt in my experience and there's also some good and relatively accessible hardware by TP-Link that handles wireless range extension like a champion.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Irenicus I know repeaters help extend range, at least, but I mean something like recycling a router when one upgrades, and connecting the PC to the old router-turned-repeater with an ethernet cable like it's a big, big external adapter instead of just using...an adapter. Would that be an exercise in pointlessness?
It's a tricky thing to do. It'll work if you have the proper software running on the routers (check out if you can get both of them running something like dd-wrt) and it works better if both of them share the same wireless chip maker (Broadcom, Atheros).

The real issue with using an old router as a repeater is that every wireless security setting has to be exactly the same. As long as you keep that and the SSID exactly the same it should work. The recommendation for using routers with the same chip maker is down to implementations: if there's a slight variance in the way a chip handles the encryption, for example, it may make your devices get a bit mixed up and degrade your wireless quality a bit.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Irenicus Moreover, as a whole, are routers from 2013 faster and more reliable than 2009 in the first place, not counting the shift from N to ac standards?
I can guarantee you that they'll be faster and handle far more concurrent connections for the same price now than they did in 2009 simply because the processors inside them have increased clock speeds and it's cheaper to add extra ram today. As for reliability that's a whole different matter and I can't really tell you if they are better or worse. Depends a lot on who makes them really.
__________________

 Tags problem, q&a, questions, serious