One of many violent crime trends

The UK's slightly different trend

Note the fact that violent crime was MUCH MORE prevalent (in the US) before first person shooters became popular (Wolfenstein 3D in '92, Doom in '93, Quake in '96, etc.). Based on real data, there is a clear INVERSE correlation between the number of violent video games readily available and the number of violent crimes taking place for any given year.

If I were to use garbage statistics to come up with stupid taxes, I would tax men between the ages of 16 and 24. Simply being a young adult male, across all cultures and for as long as humans have existed, is the biggest risk factor for committing violent crime. Vote Man Tax!

For graduate statistics courses, I had to use R. It's actually extremely good for everything. Check it out here: http://www.r-project.org/

For those interested in on-screen robust statistics, look to the master, Rand Wilcox: http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~rwilcox/

Same here, except my computer is always on and is connected to my 37" LCD HDTV with an HDMI cable. Watching TV via cable or satellite is now annoying and feels primitive. Even when I go somewhere that has an HD receiver hooked up to a similar TV, the quality does not compare to 720p mkv files. Although we may be outliers right now, TV has nothing on what can be accomplished with a computer.

It reminds me of the movie Cube.
From the wiki article on the movie:

Except, in this case, Matt Knox was Big Brother and had a master plan. :s

Science asks "why" questions as well, and answers them based on the evidence gathered from research on "how" and "when" questions. This is the difference between ultimate and proximate questions. Although natural selection answers the "how" question of evolution (making Darwin very popular), selfish gene theory answers the "why" question of evolution (making Dawkins very popular, never mind his recent militant anti-religion stuff).

Also note that the selfish gene theory poses a "why" question as well: why do organisms bother with sex when asexual reproduction seems to better propagate such selfish genes? The best answer to that question, so far, is the Red Queen theory; organisms have sex in order to switch up their offspring's genes so that the parasites that adapted to the parents' will not immediately infect and kill any such offspring.

This is why most scientists are secular, most of the "why" questions of the universe can be answered with empirical evidence almost as effectively as are "how" questions.

Arguing the existence of God with an atheist is more like arguing the existence of Zeus with a Christian. Religious people tend to think the myths they were brought up with as children are fact, and the ones they were introduced to later in life are fiction.

There is nothing daring about believing in anything; there is, however, something daring about believing in nothing.