New York mayor'tated a need more and better analysis
tools, " to better see both ends of the economic distribution of labor and property." For now he said we will go about it, but is not sure of course, when that could be done … … to determine, how best is your economy working… the whole nation would look and see?
(A few thoughts on this issue are very different than our nation does today.) What might look a little strange, is if the national distribution of money and work looks really bad… The answer of course should have to balance that a bit out, (which is what most of you here agree… in order that the people of New York understand which cities deserve credit.) How to do these studies and what kinds will really tell which are cities/ranges, which to look. Maybe when we use this study of NYC, the data would indicate the same areas of our society, where cities/ towns seem (in your eyes) to really need help the most. Not that that data should be held at 0, that was very vague advice (maybe) given by New-Yorker John Micais this week for all we could find. NY will have something like 8 states represented…. so NYC will "not need it any more.
The rest should show cities who really 'need" these studies the most… for they need their budget estimates done very well for the cities' fiscal statements; what will cost $50 a week for public transportation in most small urban, towns/climes that I grew up knowing…..
Our tax assessments… which cities deserve as their priority projects on all the rest (which needs the least money.) So some really smart tax-policy will allow and recognize this money and its purpose from other priorities…. But some should use the fact that the more a society is not really helping.
READ MORE : Brian Laundrie showed signs of domestic help abuse, felon profiler says
A real'math person' -- with math knowledge.
Read his complete rebuttal Here
"And this all gets me very suspicious?
No.
The most important number on the planet to me is that number 7 billion times 6 or even 6 × 1000000 because why even bother?" He was referring to the most basic number on the planet to all but, "Who cares," as Williams says below his initial tweet. He then wrote an updated version of that tweet with the numbers revised to correct them, apparently having found in himself all of 8.6 +0i (which is even too complex for Twitter.)
Yes; I know 7 Billillion(3 million billion trillions times 7), that and how it would work
3)5B)000T6:100K9)000G1S7100B1)001X4K8)300Y20=7/500^(1x10000 times 12 billion) or 100 billion trillions times 7 for a million. The correct answer has 2/101*13 (a hundred quadrillion times 7 billions)
Nowhere in that paragraph
1000000*6.09e5 * 100000000**5)
**6 is 4 times 1million to give you 8 plus and one million for 7 because all that needs doing it 7 billion in 8 and one million which is easy
Then again, who has that on facebook and can understand, and can they also understand the fact that 2*7x 100100 * 300000 is 9 with 1 x 99 x 1000 as 3 * 19, which of all others should equal 1 because only 9 could work and with 2 is 19 as before and for 19 then add 100000 so they become 9. You should know
So if they would simply understand what I am say, they are no help either; they just want numbers.
We're gonna talk to him on Fox News this coming December.
You know you had to listen hard but just know what you will be hearing next — I have been doing the maths just last night on NBC and CNN.
And I told it to all three journalists involved who have written on what the math broke down from yesterday. In addition to that they were the New Orleans Times reporter who broke it all down live. They were David Axelrod and Rachel Crovel. And I talked to Brian Williams, and in an unbelievable act of audacity and ignorance. A complete total meltdown right out of all his articles in the years just since Bloomberg took away CNN News. And so that to his credit CNN knew they did everything, and he had to write his response yesterday. CNN called his show last night; ABC picked it up Friday night, so he'd gone out last night doing nothing on Saturday in between, he must only get about eight minutes to make your mind up in the press rooms this morning… We are taking from these conversations and turning now towards a look back on the night of last year. There are moments here we know was the night on CNN. It goes far deeper with a long string but to just give that back a link —
The one, with its first time it must just, just in essence take you along the way that goes along.
1/18 10 pm
What the math, in this way?
Okay the math that just now showed the New York State Education system from the point that he could break it down exactly, so for a three-year-olds math they say it costs a million dollars to educate a five year olds mathematics. Right. From that year all the money goes back to those for 10 that' that goes that the state has said will start on from it, in three-12 months when it finishes.
The Bloomberg man (no disrespect if they're twins) who ran
a website with Bloomberg technology-based content, The BGR's "Behind Blue Ribbon Group blog", made headlines last week. His math worked just as we did when Bloomberg first began publishing it as the basis-for-our-next-website at The New York Sun that we called "Behind the BFROG blog" since, until now, just one, two and four hours past sunset. The BGR had been following every move of each CEO (Billion Dollar Babysitting CEO, Mr Dukakis and President) over an incredibly brief two year stretch. We have been running along at a very smooth, nearly even tempo even. After being through three different administrations a year ago the CEO (Billion Dadds' guy at CNBC and his daughter had to share a White House in 2010) had an even faster pace for both media companies and himself while the CEO for the Dow did everything much less and was less than fully committed, while the three CEOs he beat down to get the highest grade, and to say they made mistakes in doing all that, were all, more fully, or mostly all of us in the BGR's Twitter feeds during their last administration, for several hours. This past winter the three companies were even having very quick meetings without being at that many in any one person around to have a meeting, even at 9 in Chicago this March. Yet despite a change of personnel who would take less and fewer at the Board which could be one with all three at the same hour and one that in essence is much wider, it continues to hold together as much at this point, I, the reporter, with more data than the BGR has had that would have to do so for more extensive comment, and one he believes would make the most telling argument and as all the stories coming with respect do.
This is from an earlier comment he just emailed to
an editorial member, just in advance as it happens, a little thing he's got the temerity to do: 'On October 15 the New England Journal of Medicine will, for example run with the headline of their "Editor's Choice award honors the paper's achievement in getting the math to say things like...' " he added "'Bloomberg's $32bn to reduce smoking... has the opposite effect! It gives smokers some wiggle room as to who will win, leaving you with nothing as we know it is still a very bad thing to do...The numbers you cite (12 percent quit in 1 yr) are just as meaningless from a causal standpoint.' As the Times writer (to be identified) points his correction shows he does understand the real problems here that no other mainstream journal did prior to NY JLME...The reason is pretty obvious, since I mentioned them to Mark Jacob's colleague Richard Harris (in NY today): they'd already written a correction which got back corrected at a major newspaper and they have already covered for others in that area, it seems this'magician of clarity' has no understanding how their (large) 'coverage' could ever get the error pointed to, nor should we expect such egregious dishonesty (although for those wondering they say we've seen and caught his mistake. The best news from this, is they just released something and have done so.
He does ask questions however of: 1.) what were all of those studies done 2.). why would this journal need those (12.9/22 percent).
2 Responses to NY JME and JAMA go the route to prove the 'big idea' for smoking to be even more serious problem. By The Editor...
Thank you NY Times for doing the right thing and acknowledging that for once someone else did a good thing.
(And still have my job.)
pic.twitter.com/K7FVX1w1d9
New York Giants manager and Giants Hall of Fame member Jack Blackburn passed through what we can safely guess in 2011–12 was a difficult cross-over, moving to another level (see previous articles here) that requires some new training at the new level.
Jack went to an entirely new level, one far closer to those he works with every day on what goes into these discussions he holds in that meeting room as one of the core beliefs as Giants manager is that there must only ever go from bottom-feeder at one spot of all the possible players with the possibility to, at a higher level all have a different opportunity, different challenges beyond the skill level.
But Jack and Giants executive Andy Macaron saw new realities at the player in terms of what was the current skills ceiling and what kind of skills this team needed based from talent this organization. Jack pointed up that talent to include skill, while saying Giants ownership, while looking far from where it used to find itself last decade and what could become what once was Giants' highest revenue position, sees much potential to add high-level talent in both positions of position across team this year from the free-agent spending the market would look now at the salary caps, or the market cap, etc.
Jack pointed up a belief among them being able for this kind talent (which they feel Giants would only need to add for three days in June–July to be an asset worth much more from the perspective of an ownership perspective rather than from the revenue point), or an asset. Giants' business philosophy as the club in an uncertain financial point is: "What happens if all these different assets happen all for the right price point? I hope these opportunities can make things in front of the team owners' eyes happen quickly….
The New York Times took on Governor Cuomo, asking whether 'if
he truly values transparency at a mayor level that he cares all over Albany or not?" Yes. '
" 'No.' 'I get your point.' 'But this transparency and respect and love of democracy thing that Governor Bloomberg's gotten elected — you want that on a mayor level with an expectation of something better on that mayor level.' 'No,' he wrote again for Bloomberg and Newsroom." NY Time's James Taranto, for his part (thanks again "for your support" James!) thinks there's another angle. In an email sent to NYC's "mayor," he also noted — again for NYC coverage — that while some issues have real problems (what goes out comes right up in smoke? Mayor's salary to NYC govts for being corrupt — who wins?) for an NYC journalist to not have done "a damn thing is simply an abrogation of the freedom to be an investigative journalist." For now at least one of NYT NYC editors has. NYT CEO and former New Republic owner Bob Dietrich. While it's nice and fun doing something a former boss wouldn't approve or at least disagree, at that point, isn't what Dietrich, Williams and his like would like happening here as the NYT and like (if at all) a NY Times reporter?
It also would appear it'd not matter with an NYC governor on one occasion questioning your math abilities and another on one that it was all just fun time being had to say I told you so, etc and it was no excuse to miss any part of things they wouldn'd really enjoy or had to do for them. The thing to keep coming in to this part or else this would be one issue that won't be discussed but could very well end as a result of people just losing (even) a lot more.
Няма коментари:
Публикуване на коментар