Tab Content
  • HitoKichi's Avatar
    Today, 02:34 PM
    4238 replies | 198375 view(s)
  • HitoKichi's Avatar
    Today, 11:51 AM Mark Humphrys (amongst others) asks whether we can estimate the number of descendants of King Edward III. A slightly different but related question is the probability that a present-day English person descends from Edward III (1312-1377). This is my attempt to calculate this probability. First we can consider the number of ancestors that we have. Wachter (1978), in considering the number of ancestors at the time of the Norman conquest for a child born in England in 1947, suggested that in 1587 (13 generations at 30 years) the child would have 7938 ancestors, a figure that allows for some cousin-cousin marriages, based on the observation that Wachter himself had 63 rather than 64 ancestors six generations back. Smith (2001) has examined 626 birth-briefs at the Society of Genealogists, and reviewed other literature on cousin-cousin marriages, showing that although the rate is difficult to estimate, the estimates which can be considered reliable range from 0.28% to 0.86% of marriages. Over many generations, this would mean that on average the number of ancestors increased not twofold per generation, but between 1.9828 and 1.9944 per generation, leading to slightly lower estimates than Wachter's, of 7322 to 7899 ancestors at the 13th generation (and 14518 to 15753 at the 14th generation). Marriages between more distant cousins, also have an impact, but these are ignored here, following the original argument of Wachter. Wachter (1978) asserts, and Smith (2001) provides some limited evidence, that second cousin marriages are much less common than first cousin marriages, and third or more distant cousin marriages occur no more frequently than would be expected from the number of third, etc., cousins in the population. Third, etc., cousin marriages are therefore very rare. Sturges and Haggett (1987) estimated the average growth rate of the English population c.1350-c.1994 was 1.14 times per generation, implying 2.28 surviving children per couple. With an average 2.28 children per couple then on average each individual has 28 third-cousins, and less than 9000 tenth-cousins in a population of millions. Thus marriages between very distant cousins are more common, but not as common as first cousin marriages until one reaches about 12th cousins, which is more distant than is possible in the 13 generations considered here. Second, etc., cousin marriages also have less impact on the number of ancestors than first cousin marriages. The child of first cousins has 24 rather than 32 distinct 3x-great grandparents, but the child of second cousins has 28, and the child of third cousins has 30. It is therefore safe to follow Wachter in ignoring marriages between cousins other than first cousins, as including them is a lot of calculation which will only reduce the average number of ancestors in 1587 by a fraction of a percent, and this is probably within the margin of error derived from the uncertainty in the rate of first-cousin marriages. In line with Wachter we can assume "wide diffusion of ancestors throughout society and the country by 1600." Taking those numbers as a starting point, then if we knew the number of descendants of Edward III born in England in the 30-year generation centred on 1587, we could estimate the probability of at least one of them being one of those ancestors. Leo van de Pas in his website "Genealogics" gives as comprehensive a list of the descendants of Edward III as can probably be compiled at present. In the fifth generation he lists 321 descendants, of whom I count about 245 as 'English' (though distinguishing English from Welsh and Irish nobles in this list is difficult). This gives a rate of increase of 3.00 times in each generation within 'English' descendants or 3.17 per generation for all descendants. This is high in comparison to Sturges and Haggett's (1987) estimate of 2.28 surviving children per couple on average over...
    2 replies | 61 view(s)
  • HitoKichi's Avatar
    5 replies | 160 view(s)
  • PierzStyx's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:05 PM
    Did I say that? No. As Ron Paul points out in the video, the issue is that a tax cut without a cut in spending is no tax cut at all. You don't get wealth back, the government just monetizes the debt. They do this either by borrowing, which handicaps the future, or by printing money, which destroys the worth of money in the present. Meaning that all that money you aren't paying to the government? You might as well not have it because it ends up losing enough worth that it doesn't matter, you're having to spend more to get the same basic goods. Tax cuts without spending cuts mean little to nothing as a result. Which means you need BOTH for it to work.
    121 replies | 1386 view(s)
  • PierzStyx's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:04 PM
    Actually, as Ron Paul points out here, the issue is that a tax cut without a cut in spending is no tax cut at all. You don't get wealth back, the government just monetizes the debt. They do this either by borrowing, which handicaps the future, or by printing money, which destroys the worth of money in the present. Meaning that all that money you aren't paying to the government? You might as well not have it because it ends up losing enough worth that it doesn't matter, you're having to spend more to get the same basic goods. Tax cuts without spending cuts mean little to nothing as a result. Which means you need BOTH for it to work. Now, in the short term, before the effects of borrowing and fiat inflation take hold, you'll have a bubble increase in spending and apparent wealth. But soon enough the check comes due and that bubble bursts. And everyone is worse off. They aren't separate issues, everything, especially income and spending, are interrelated. Therefore, a tax cut without a spending cut is dangerous. Because it only encourages the government to continue to live way beyond its means instead of reining in costs and spending. It is like someone quitting their second job and instead taking out another credit line. All the free time at home with the family may be nice, but in the long run you're destroying your future. Now, is that an endorsement of taxation? Certainly not. Taxation is theft. But is it an argument that tax cuts have to be done the right way? Absolutely.
    121 replies | 1386 view(s)
  • PierzStyx's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:49 PM
    What kind of rambling, nonsensical, garbage are you even spouting? Thinking that you have to actually pay for what you're doing isn't "progressive." No less a luminary than Dr. Ron Paul has said exactly what The Count is saying. If you even bothered to pay attention you will notice that Ron Paul said that unless you cut spending you are not cutting taxes because the government either borrows to make up the difference or prints more money, both situations which end up costing the taxpayer. "You cannot have a true tax cut without cutting spending....It won't work unless you cut spending," Ron Paul says. So, unless you're about to call Ron friggin' Paul a liberal, which he is not, then you need to face some facts. You're wrong being at the top.
    121 replies | 1386 view(s)
  • PierzStyx's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:17 PM
    You're correct. I mislabeled things. Socialists are internationalists. It is the National Socialist variety that favors big government economic protectionist programs to limit the free market exchange of capital, both goods and people. If it waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, and shits like a duck, then its a duck. So, keep quacking.
    70 replies | 1066 view(s)
  • PierzStyx's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:28 PM
    Closed borders is Socialism. The only libertarian position on national borders is that they must be open. Bernie Sanders, the avowed Socialist Progressive agrees with closed borders. He has repeatedly said that America needs to "secure the borders" and that the government needs to "protect American jobs." In fact, other than opposing mass deportations -something even Ron Paul opposes and is again another unlibertarian program- Sanders sounds more or less like Donald Trump. Why, that sounds like he even shares Trump's opinion on H-1B visas. So, you see, Bernie Sanders OPPOSES opening the borders and believes in economic protectionism through big government border regulation. Why? Because he is a Socialist and those programs are Socialist too.
    70 replies | 1066 view(s)
  • HitoKichi's Avatar
    40 replies | 752 view(s)
  • HitoKichi's Avatar
    04-27-2017, 10:06 PM
    I assume catfish tastes like chicken?
    41 replies | 1467 view(s)
  • HitoKichi's Avatar
    04-27-2017, 10:05 PM
    4238 replies | 198375 view(s)
  • HitoKichi's Avatar
    04-27-2017, 02:17 PM
    3 replies | 135 view(s)
  • PierzStyx's Avatar
    04-27-2017, 01:47 PM
    It doesn't appear getting rid of Ryan would even matter. Ryan isn't a RINO, he is exactly what Republicans have always been since Lincoln was elected President, the party of big government solutions.
    61 replies | 1071 view(s)
  • HitoKichi's Avatar
    04-27-2017, 01:09 PM
    Neil deGrasse Tyson has released a new video aimed at a what he sees as a growing anti-intellectualism problem in the United States. It was released at the same time as the March for Science and many Earth Day demonstrations. He reflects on what he thinks made America great and what’s stalling progress today. Science used to be respected, but today, there is a growing crowd of science-deniers who threaten our “informed democracy.” The real anti-intellectual move, however, is conflating science, the scientific method, and truth to be one and the same. Fundamentally, science is any human attempt at discovering truth. What is true exists independently from what humans believe to be true or how humans arrive at truth claims. The scientific method, the process of using repeated experiments in an attempt to validate or falsify the conclusions of previous experiments, is but one way humans attempt to discover truth. The purpose of the video was to call out the obstinate, ignorant voters who deny what many regard as certain truths handed to them by a body of elite, trustworthy scientists. Yet Tyson and the marchers border on an equally dangerous view: scientism. Scientism isn’t scientificScientism is the over-reliance on or over-application of the scientific method. Scientism has many forms, one of which is the use of empirical methods to do economic science, or the dismissal of claims not based on experiment results that question other claims that are based on experiment results. Mises dealt with scientism repeatedly, and closely guarded the boundary between economics and other sciences. The scientific method is not universally appropriate. Consider an extreme case: if you measured a few right triangles and observed that the sides did not correspond to what the Pythagorean theorem says, would you toss the Pythagorean theorem, or would you reexamine your measurement method? Would you dismiss the logical geometric relation in favor of the scientific method? The scientific method is particularly suited for the natural sciences. It’s hard to recommend a different method than experimentation and observation to answer questions about chemical reactions, astrophysics, quantum mechanics, and biology. The scientific method is unnecessary or even ill-suited in other areas, however. Consider these questions, and what sort of approach is appropriate to answer them: What is 17 divided by 3? All else held equal, what are the effects of an increase in demand for blue jeans? Who should I invite to my party? What are the effects of expansionary monetary policy on employment, prices, incomes, production, consumption, and borrowing? How should I treat people? Of course, Neil deGrasse Tyson wouldn’t recommend using the scientific method to answer all of these questions (hopefully), but the point is that empiricism and experimentation are limited in their appropriate applications. The scientific method does not have a monopoly on truth. Always open to falsificationThe scientific method has another large limitation: conclusions derived solely by experimentation are always susceptible to falsification by just one aberrant observation. For this reason and others, even wide consensus among scientists should be met with at least some skepticism before the heavy hand of the government gets involved. In 1992, the government, backed by the scientific community, told you that you needed 6-11 daily servings of bread, cereal, rice, and/or pasta to maintain good nutrition (and that saturated and animal fats are to be avoided). Many government policies and public school food offerings were based on this recommendation, including, suspiciously, agricultural subsidies and import tariffs. But then, years later, new information revealed this to be terrible advice, after a big jump in diabetes diagnoses and obesity rates.
    3 replies | 135 view(s)
  • HitoKichi's Avatar
    04-27-2017, 12:38 PM
    4238 replies | 198375 view(s)
  • HitoKichi's Avatar
    04-27-2017, 12:26 PM
    Maybe if we run for the hills and the pine forests and live like hitchhikers the situation will resolve itself
    61 replies | 1071 view(s)
  • HitoKichi's Avatar
    04-27-2017, 11:27 AM
    4238 replies | 198375 view(s)
  • HitoKichi's Avatar
    04-27-2017, 04:33 AM
    HitoKichi replied to a thread I'm worried... in Open Discussion
    Dio threw a steam roller at him
    36 replies | 1089 view(s)
  • HitoKichi's Avatar
    04-26-2017, 07:55 PM
    31 replies | 781 view(s)
More Activity

8 Visitor Messages

  1. View Conversation
    I'll certainly post the article!
  2. View Conversation
  3. View Conversation
    A Liberty candidate needs your help!

    Donate today to Thomas Massie with $20.12 or something bigger!

    For Liberty!
  4. View Conversation
    People have the capacity to reason. You don't need to always show them the whole thing. A strong statement telling them that they are wrong is often all you need to do. Then they do the rest, at least when the other person can think.

    If they're feeling like idiots, they will feel bad. Feeling bad makes people try to do something different to feel better. So they might just go ahead and think and stop being idiots.
  5. View Conversation
    Damnit. I'm trying to keep people from getting banned here, including you. And no, you're wrong. Being attacked in a forum is part of being a part of it. Get thicker skin.
  6. View Conversation
    If you can't "let it pass" then that is your problem. You should resolve it through private messages. When you use public threads you make it everyone else's problem. Just use your head is all.
Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 8 of 8
About PierzStyx

Basic Information

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Activist Reputation (Self-Rated):


“Maybe I forgot to mention something to you: I don’t believe in queens. You think freedom is something you can give and take on a whim. But to your people, freedom is as essential as air. And without it, there is no life. There is only darkness.” -Zaheer

"A man chooses. A slave obeys."-Andrew Ryan

"There are three things the parasite hates: free markets, free will, and free men."-Andrew Ryan


Total Posts
Total Posts
Posts Per Day
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
Most Recent Message
01-13-2013 09:15 AM
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 05:05 PM
Join Date

3 Friends

  1. HitoKichi HitoKichi is offline


  2. TER TER is offline


  3. Voluntary Man Voluntary Man is offline


    Voluntary Man
Showing Friends 1 to 3 of 3
View PierzStyx's Blog

Recent Entries

Rand Paul Is not Ron Paul

by PierzStyx on 03-27-2017 at 12:30 PM
Here are some areas where they differ, even if slightly:

Russia: After Russia invaded Ukraine last year, Rand Paul called for sanctions against the invading nation. Ron Paul warned against that, saying it could sink the U.S. dollar.

The NSA: Ron Paul wants the National Security Agency eliminated. Rand Paul says he's more interested in reining it in.

NSA leaker Edward Snowden: Rand Paul thinks Edward Snowden should receive a light punishment—such as a

Read More


The End of the Libertarian Dream?

by PierzStyx on 03-09-2017 at 06:09 PM
Quote Originally Posted by undergroundrr View Post
Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
Wake up.

False (but pretty hard to prove either way)

False (but again hard to prove)
Hispanics, more so than the general public, believe in the efficacy of hard work. Three-in-four (75%) Hispanics say most people can get ahead if they work hard. By contrast, just 58% of the general public say the same.

Very False (very

Read More


Bestest picture thread evaar! (The trilogy)

by PierzStyx on 12-06-2016 at 02:45 PM
Quote Originally Posted by LibertyClick View Post


Snowden, The Drone Papers: ...a cache of secret documents...

by PierzStyx on 10-16-2015 at 07:32 PM
Quote Originally Posted by presence View Post

The Drone Papers

The Intercept has obtained a cache of secret documents detailing the inner workings of the U.S. military’s assassination program in Afghanistan, Yemen, and Somalia. The documents, provided by a whistleblower, offer an unprecedented glimpse into Obama’s drone wars.˅

Illustration by The Intercept

Read More






  • 07:18 PM - Hidden


Page 1 of 28 12311 ... LastLast







Page 1 of 28 12311 ... LastLast