That's a very poor attempt at an inflammatory image, we've had much worse.

The best are people that drive SUVs.

HAY WATCH OUT I GOTTA SUV I HAVE FOUR WEHEL DRIVE I CAN STOP FASTER

I've posted a more inflammatory image than that.

Heh, good one. Also, wasn't there a huge thing over a -youknowwhose- mom picture?

wth... I can't type ****'s mom

Now I'll never know whose mum it is

Mostly because the people who might be insulted can't read the chart.

That's because the road is only slippery while the snow is fresh. Once it settles in, it forms a fairly grippy surface. That's why you only need chains during a blizzard.

Unless it melts and then freezes again. Woohoo, black ice!

Well damned, I thought it was a guarantee for at least 18 pages of flame war, ending with a lock and several permanent bans. What the hell happened to massassi???

The Massassi Elite triumphed in their war on all forms of discussion.

Oh the place is still just as prone to explosion, you just don't quite have the right trigger

The Massassi Elite were too busy devoting their efforts to JK: Source to take much notice of this thread.

Does this thread qualify as trolling?

The filter CM put on my mom produced some epic lulz. I want to say it epically owned Jep, but I can't remember.

Nice user title

Did you take my post seriously?

Ah jokes on me

FYI, generosity score is based on charity donations, and church donations qualify so utah being on top doesnt surprise me

Does this count as mini-modding?

[QUOTE= Massassi Rules Page]No "mini-modding" - The Admins and Mods do not need any help. If someone un-intentionally breaks a rule, it is ok to politely inform them. However, when someone intentionally breaks a rule, simply use the "Report Post" function, and then move on. Do not take it upon yourself to handle things on your own.[/QUOTE]

:p

Does this count as mini-modding?

Yes, that's what the percentage does [Correction thanks to BobTheMasher. I originally misread this post. Population Percentage is what was used in the majority of the headers, so it should be used for all of them for consistency. If you wanted to do Population density, you should break it down by city instead due to variances in density distribution across entire states]. So if we look at New Hampshire's murder rate of 1 and New York's murder rate of 4, what does that mean? Does that mean that it's more likely to be murdered in New York than New Hampshire? The answer is "No".

As of 2006, the population of these states were estimated at:
NH = 1,315,000
NY = 19,306,000

If we take the Murder rates above as:
NH = 1
NY = 4

Then we can find the Murder rate as a percentage of population using the formula:
(Murder Rate/Population)*100

We find that:
NH = 7.6e^-5% OR 0.000076%
NY = 2.1e^-5% OR 0.000021%

As you can see, while NY's murder rate looks alarming compared to NH's, you are actually more likely to be murdered in NH than NY.

Divorce Rate (Per 1,000 people):
NH = 3
NY = 3

Divorce by Percentage of Population:
[Corrected formula is (Divorce Rate/(Population/1,000))*100]
NH = 2.3e^-4% OR 0.00023% [Corrected = 0.23%]
NY = 1.5e^-5% OR 0.00002% [Corrected = 0.02%]

Theft Rate:

NH = 1892
NY = 1976

Theft by Percentage of Population
NH = 0.14%
NY = 0.01%

Though, I have to say that those divorce rates don't look right for those states. The murder rates don't look right either. I'll do some fact checking...

[edit]
Okay, the murder rate is accurate. The divorce rate is not. The divorce rate is per 1,000 people. So, I will correct the formula above to compensate.

Population is not the same thing as population density, though. I remember talking about this in another thread a while back.

That's true. However, effectively breaking those densities out in a meaningful way can be tricky. For instance, do you take the population density of the entire state at face value? Or do you look at states like New York ware there's an extremely heavy population density in one small area and in the rest of the state the density is considerably thinner? How do you measure that against states who's density is more evenly distributed? At that point, you're better off looking at individual cities instead of entire states.

Yes, it absolutely does

Last time, we discovered that there's some measure of the population density of the top 10 biggest cities in that state. I don't remember what that criterion is called.

Another thing to tell me how West Virginia is in such poor shape.

I believe it did.

FLAME YOU STUPID THREAD, FLAME!

Yeah, that was the exact issue we talked about last time, how a very large state with generally low population density containing a few areas of extremely high population density where a significant majority of the total population live can easily skew a population density rating. If 9 people all live in one room and a 10th person lives on the border of some 200 square mile area, then that area's density will look like .05 people per square mile, when in effect it is much much higher.

I do remember finding part of an article about an equation or method of quantifying this, but I ended up just looking at what Mort-Hog is talking about, something like highest urban densities by state (i also forget exactly what it was).