Forum Klix.ba

Dozer wrote: Da, slazem se - fakat je nevjerovatan ovaj tvoj jadni pokusaj "elegantnog" izvlacenja iz dubioze u kojoj si se nasao.... Eeee, moooj "profesore"... Ne ide to tako. I nema potrebe da trazis moje postove jer sam ti ih ja vec nasao i dao linkove. A u njima pise sta pise, crno na bijelom, i vise nego jasno potvrdjuje sve sto sam vec rekao - da si obicni spinner i troldzija ovdje.

Dozer wrote:Smanjenje nataliteta: Na neki nacin ce se uticati na to da se broj novorodjenih smanji, tj. da se smanji stopa nataliteta, cime se direktno smanjuje i procenat povecanja broja ljudi na tom prostoru u nekom vremenskom periodu, ali se istovremeno statisticki povecava broj umrlih, tj. stopa mortaliteta.

Dozer wrote:I jos jednom pokazes da uopste nisi shvatio primjer koji sam ti dao, jer i u njemu je prirodni prirastaj i nakon drugog perioda ostao pozitivan.

Dozer wrote:Period: 2016 - 2020
Planirana stopa smanjenja nataliteta na petogodisnjem nivou: 15% u odnosu na prethodni petogodisnji period. (moram nekako oznacavati, jer vidim da ne kontate )
Broj stanovnika na dan 01.01.2016.: 1.150.000 (100%/115%)
Godisnji natalitet: 70.000 (7%/6.08%); Ukupni petogodisnji natalitet: 350.000 (35% / 30,43%)
Godisnji mortalitet: 70.000 (7%/6.08); Ukupni petogodisnji mortalitet: 350.000 (35% / 30,43%)
Petogodisnji prirastaj: 0,00 (0% / 4,57%)
Broj stanovnika na dan 31.12.2020.: 1.150.000

Dozer wrote:
Smanjenje nataliteta: Na neki nacin ce se uticati na to da se broj novorodjenih smanji, tj. da se smanji stopa nataliteta, cime se direktno smanjuje i procenat povecanja broja ljudi na tom prostoru u nekom vremenskom periodu, ali se istovremeno statisticki povecava broj umrlih, tj. stopa mortaliteta

animals wrote:meni nije jasno, sta je tema ovdje

Dozer wrote:Cool. A sta bi bilo ono "4,57%"?
I, sta bi s onim "T" u tvojim.primjerima?
Ovo samo uletih da vidim ima li koja nova vratolomija...kad ono covjek opet nesto citira i ne konta sta citira...

Dozer wrote:
Smanjenje nataliteta: Na neki nacin ce se uticati na to da se broj novorodjenih smanji, tj. da se smanji stopa nataliteta, cime se direktno smanjuje i procenat povecanja broja ljudi na tom prostoru u nekom vremenskom periodu, ali se istovremeno statisticki povecava broj umrlih, tj. stopa mortaliteta

Ovo konkretno znaci upravo ono sto sam i ranije napisao - stopa mortaliteta se ne umanjuje uporedo sa umanjivanjem stope nataliteta, a to onda dovodi do STATISTICKOG povecanja te stope u nekom periidu, iako zapravo umire isti broj ljudi.
Opet te pitam - sta je za tebe bazni ppdatak: broj ili postotak?

Odoh sad malo okretati janje, zalit ga dobro pivama, pa malo u ribu, i tako to. Cujemo se nekad nakon praznika

Sretan vam 1. maj ljudi

Krastavica wrote:Kod ovih naucnika glavna rijec u tezama je uvijek > MOZDA , sve im je pod upitnikom , u ovolikoj galaksiji da nema jos nekoga , vrlo malo vjerovatno , mora bit negdje

Krastavica wrote:Kod ovih naucnika glavna rijec u tezama je uvijek > MOZDA , sve im je pod upitnikom , u ovolikoj galaksiji da nema jos nekoga , vrlo malo vjerovatno , mora bit negdje

Dozer wrote:Razlika izmedju nataliteta i mortaliteta u nekom vremenskom periodu i na nekom prostoru. Moze biti pozitivan i negativan. Happy?

Dozer wrote: Samo, mali problem je sto ja kao ekonomista imam malo drugaciju vizuru svega toga od tebe kao matematicara, jer sam ja u stanju stvari sagledavati i dugorocno, odnosno na bazi trenutnih validnih podataka mogu stvoriti projekciju nekog stanja u buducnosti, a nisam usmjeren samo na rjesavanje trenutnog problema/zadatka.

inače ekonomisti računaju putanju svemiskog broda i korištenje gravitacijskog povlačenja pri planiranju određene putanje.

Dozer wrote:Profesore... ja nisam tvoj student, pa da me ispitujes recenicu po recenicu. Sve ti fino pise.
Imas dva uporedna perioda, pa bujrum.
Imas cak i zvanicne tabelarne statistike, sa svim potrebnim podacima, pa bujrum i tu. Mislim da je fakat smijesno da ti mene sad nesto, kao, ispitujes, a iz svih primjera i svega sto sam postavio vise je nego jasno da ja vrlo dobro znam o cemu pricam.

Dozer wrote:Samo, mali problem je sto ja kao ekonomista imam malo drugaciju vizuru svega toga od tebe kao matematicara, jer sam ja u stanju stvari sagledavati i dugorocno, odnosno na bazi trenutnih validnih podataka mogu stvoriti projekciju nekog stanja u buducnosti, a nisam usmjeren samo na rjesavanje trenutnog problema/zadatka..

Dozer wrote:Uzmi kakav god i koji primjer hoces, ali ako je u njemu stopa nataliteta u stalnom opadanju, a koja je veca od stope opadanja mortaliteta, u jednom momentu ce se te dvije stope prvo izjednaciti, a onda ce stopa mortaliteta preuzeti primat.
Pitanje za tebe:
Da li u tom momentu nastupa pocetak depopulacije?

Dozer wrote:Koliko teksta covjek napisa, a nista konkretno ne rece...

Da li ti meni, konacno, mozes precizno ukazati na te moje logicke greske? Ono: tu i ti si napisao to i to (pa citiras tacno onako kako sam napisao, a ne da postavis svoje shvatanje onoga sto sam napisao), a to ne moze biti radi toga i toga?
Zasto ti je ovo toliki problem vec stranicama?

Koje ja to, konkretno, osnovne stvari ne razumijem?

Jel' to ono - ako stopa mortaliteta ostaje ista kroz neki period, recimo 10 godina, a stopa nataliteta kroz isti period opada, tada se ne moze reci da se stopa mortaliteta U ODNOSU na stopu nataliteta povecava u tom istom periodu?
Deder, pojasni mi tu gresku u logici...
Mislim... ti ocito ne kontas da javrlo dobro znam sta je stopa nataliteta, a sta stopa opadanja nataliteta, ali eto... Pravicu se blesav i pusticu tebe da mi to objasnis. Recimo, neka to bude na periodu od 10 godina.

KB9 wrote:

animals wrote:meni nije jasno, sta je tema ovdje

teorije zavjere o svemu i svacemu, velikom vecinom gdje ih nema, izazvane teskom paranojom

sizifinho wrote:Psihijatrija je divna grana medicine, odlucio sam sr njome bavit - svasta sam naucio.

sizifinho wrote:

Dozer wrote: Samo, mali problem je sto ja kao ekonomista imam malo drugaciju vizuru svega toga od tebe kao matematicara, jer sam ja u stanju stvari sagledavati i dugorocno, odnosno na bazi trenutnih validnih podataka mogu stvoriti projekciju nekog stanja u buducnosti, a nisam usmjeren samo na rjesavanje trenutnog problema/zadatka.

hvalite me usta moja

sizifinho wrote:doktor medicine - za godinu i po jesam
fizika i hemija - sve su predmeti na medicini koji se moraju savladati
historičar - prije medicine interesovala me historija
lingvista - znam pričat na tri jezika tečno, uz to cijeli život pišem, tako da...

saimidin wrote:Conspiracy theories rely on the view that the universe is governed by design, and embody three principles: nothing happens by accident, nothing is as it seems, and everything is connected. Another common feature is that conspiracy theories evolve to incorporate whatever evidence exists against them, so that they become unfalsifiable and a matter of faith rather than proof.

Antony Sutton wrote:...
Memorandum Number One: Is There A Conspiracy Explanation For Recent History?

...
During the past one hundred years any theory of history or historical evidence that falls outside a pattern established by the American Historical Association and the major foundations with their grantmaking power has been attacked or rejected - not on the basis of any evidence presented, but on the basis of the acceptability of the argument to the so-called Eastern Liberal Establishment and its official historical line.

The Official Establishment History
There is an Establishment history, an official history, which dominates history textbooks, trade publishing, the media and library shelves. The official line always assumes that events such as wars, revolutions, scandals, assassinations, are more or less random unconnected events. By definition events can NEVER be the result of a conspiracy, they can never result from premeditated planned group action. An excellent example is the Kennedy assassination when, within 9 hours of the Dallas tragedy, TV networks announced the shooting was NOT a conspiracy, regardless of the fact that a negative proposition can never be proven, and that the investigation had barely begun.
Woe betide any book or author that falls outside the official guidelines. Foundation support is not there. Publishers get cold feet. Distribution is hit and miss, or non-existent. Just to ensure the official line dominates, in 1946 the Rockefeller Foundation allotted $139,000 for an official history of World War Two. This to avoid a repeat of debunking history books which embarrassed the Establishment after World War One. The reader will be interested to know that The Order we are about to investigate had great foresight, back in the 1880s, to create both the American Historical Association and the American Economic Association (most economists were then more historians than analysts) under their terms, with their people and their objectives. Andrew Dickson White was a member of The Order* and the first President of the American Historical Association.

Failure of Official History
Times have changed. The weaknesses, inconsistencies and plain untruths in official history have surfaced. In the 1980s it is rare to find a thinking reader who accepts official history. Most believe it has been more or less packaged for mass consumption by naive or greedy historians. Although an historian who will stick out his neck and buck the trend is rare, some who do are victims of an even deeper game. Conspiracy then is an accepted explanation for many events at the intelligent grass roots level, that level furthest removed from the influence of The Order. We can cite at random the Kennedy assassination where the official "lone gunman" theory was never accepted by Americans in the street; Watergate, where a "deep throat" informer and erased tapes reek of conspiracy, and Pearl Harbor, where Rear Admiral Husband E. Kimmel and Major General Walter C. Short took the rap for General George C. Marshall and President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The revisionist historian has a double burden as well as a double task. The double burden is that research likely to question the official historical line will not get financed. The double task is that research must be more than usually careful and precise.
A non-official work is not going to be judged on its merits. The work will be judged on the basis of its acceptability to a predetermined historical standard. What this standard is we shall explore later.

Hypotheses and Method
Which brings us to methodology. In this volume we will present three hypotheses. What is a hypothesis?
A hypothesis is a theory, a working theory, a start point, which has to be supported by evidence. We arrived at these three hypotheses by examining certain documents which will also be described. The official history hatchet mongers will scream that our hypotheses are now being presented as proven assertions - and whatever we write here will not stop the screams. But again, these are only hypotheses at this point, they have to be supported with evidence. They are a first step in a logical research process. Now in scientific methodology a hypothesis can be proven. It cannot be disproven. It is up to the reader to decide whether the evidence presented later supports, or does not support, the hypotheses. Obviously no
one author, critic, or reader can decide either way until all the evidence has been presented. We also intend to use two other principles of scientific research ignored by official establishment historians.
Firstly, in science the simplest explanation to a problem is always the most acceptable solution. By contrast, in establishment history, a simple answer is usually criticized as "simplistic." What the critic implies is "The poor writer hasn't used all the facts," In other words, it's a cheap "putdown" without the necessity of providing an alternate answer or additional facts.
Secondly, again in science, an answer that fits the most cases, i.e., the most general answer, is also the most acceptable answer. For example, you have 12 events to explain and a theory that fits 11 of these events. That theory is more acceptable than a theory that fits only 4 or 5 of the events...

ANTONY C. SUTTON
AMERICA’S SECRET ESTABLISHMENT
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE ORDER* of SKULL & BONES


ANTONY SUTTON was a research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, from 1968 to 1973. He is a former economics professor at California State University Los Angeles. He was born in London in 1925 and educated at the universities of London, Gottingen and California with a D.Sc. degree from University of Southampton, England.

Other Books by Author
Technological Treason
The Diamond Connection
Gold Versus Paper
Wall Street and The Rise of Hitler
The War On Gold
Energy, The Created Crisis
Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution
Wars and Revolutions Parts 1 and 2
Wall Street and Franklin D. Roosevelt
Trilaterals Over Washington - Volume 1-Volume 2
Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development 1917—1930
Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development 1930-1945
Western -Technology and Soviet Economic Development 1945-1965
National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union in 19'3
Introduction to The Order
How The Order Controls Education
How The Order Creates War and Revolution
The Secret Cult of The Order
The Best Enemy Money Can Buy