Dropbears:#1 Cause of Death In Australia. Koalas are almost as bad as sloths. When itbu say. "9 out of 10 Bushisms hatar is, "l.' Thist. e' s an Koala out there
Home Funny Pictures YouTube Funny Videos Funny GIFs Text/Links Channels Search

Dropbears:#1 Cause of Death In Australia

Koalas are almost as bad as sloths

Tags: koala
When itbu say. "9 out of 10 Bushisms
hatar is, "l.' Thist. e' s an Koala out there
let - Ar
...
+1266
Views: 50110
Favorited: 77
Submitted: 07/31/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to dracomancer E-mail to friend submit to reddit
Share image on facebook Share on StumbleUpon Share on Tumblr Share on Pinterest Share on Google Plus E-mail to friend

Comments(64):

[ 64 comments ]
Show:   Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest Per page:
Order:

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Anonymous commenting is allowed
User avatar #68 - kolpster (08/01/2013) [-]
Bushfires fires
What about ordinary bushfires? or fires?
User avatar #67 - ManInKilt (08/01/2013) [-]
If 4 out of 5 people suffer from diarrhea,the fifth must enjoy it.
#64 - vonspyder (08/01/2013) [-]
yeah....
yeah....
#56 - cinematicbrix (08/01/2013) [-]
Most bushfires are caused by combusting koalas.

If a koala get's lost outside of it's pack, there are no other koalas around to clean it's head and thereby removing eucalyptus oil from its head.
If exposed to extreme heat, the koalas will explode.
This is legit, I heard it in the radio, also, google it.
#58 to #56 - luquaz (08/01/2013) [-]
that's... 						*******					 hilarious   
   
>unrelated
that's... ******* hilarious

>unrelated
#46 - zackvee (08/01/2013) [-]
dat title
dat title
User avatar #45 - werfgh (08/01/2013) [-]
**** you Josh, I'm sick of your ****
#65 to #45 - Tekchanei (08/01/2013) [-]
I didn't do it. I swear on me mum.

btw my name is josh
User avatar #38 - lokiwins (08/01/2013) [-]
Gum trees need bushfires to spread their seeds because their seed pods explode when exposed to extreme heat.
#37 - taurusguy (08/01/2013) [-]
All i hear is that nature is suicidal.
#27 - feolthenos (08/01/2013) [-]
Read it AGAIN. "9 out of 10 Bushfires fires."
#39 to #27 - vampyrate (08/01/2013) [-]
I know. I stared at it for like two minutes getting all mad.
I know. I stared at it for like two minutes getting all mad.
0
#21 - whiplasher has deleted their comment [-]
#19 - happyfatkid (08/01/2013) [-]
**happyfatkid rolled a random image posted in comment #158 at Americans vs Brits **
User avatar #14 - elyiia (08/01/2013) [-]
Fun fact, Eucalyptus oil is super flamable and has a tendancy to make trees explode during a bush fire.
User avatar #12 - mrwightproductions (08/01/2013) [-]
Or tibbers
#18 to #12 - xoyv (08/01/2013) [-]
HAVE U SEEN MAH BUR TIBBERS?
#11 - lean (08/01/2013) [-]
User avatar #10 - shadowhorn (08/01/2013) [-]
lightning, guys.
#9 - shrolen (08/01/2013) [-]
I really doubt the legitimacy of that statistic.
User avatar #25 to #9 - demandsgayversion (08/01/2013) [-]
Lightning
#20 to #9 - amuzen ONLINE (08/01/2013) [-]
I doubt the legitmacy of every statistic and whether the variation is just random chance or actually caused by a real tangible thing because it's become a common habit to say **** like "1 out of 3 guys is gay because interviewed these three guys and one of them was waaaaaaaaaaay gaaaaaaaaaaaaaay" or to even just pull statistic out of ones ass.
User avatar #26 to #20 - demandsgayversion (08/01/2013) [-]
And you don't know how statistics work. They may have asked a group of about 100 people if they were gay. Maybe 45% were gay. Then they asked another group and, say, 25% were gay. They do this with multiple groups, then average the results. The average of the results was 33%, sounds like not a lot, so they changed it to 1 in 3.

It's not "1 man in every group of 3 men is gay", that's retarded. It means that of the entire population, there is about 1 gay dude for every 3 straight dudes.
User avatar #59 to #26 - arizonastar (08/01/2013) [-]
That would actually be 1 in 4 is gay
User avatar #60 to #59 - demandsgayversion (08/01/2013) [-]
Close enough.
#29 to #26 - amuzen ONLINE (08/01/2013) [-]
like : Used with reference to a person or thing of the same kind as another
I didn't say they literally take 1 out of 3 and find that I'm saying it's LIKE that as in it's in the same field as that with that field being the idea of someone taking a small group of a whole interviewing that group then applying the statics of that same group to said whole. IE interviewing 3 men out of all the men in the world and saying that men are gay 33% of the time. The main thing behind this is that they don't take into account the other things people taking that survey have in common that they might not have in common with the rest of the world.
User avatar #31 to #29 - demandsgayversion (08/01/2013) [-]
Except that nobody does that. You said it in a way that inferred that that's how statistics are made, not that you hate that one rare instance that someone ever does that.

I hate it when a guy at a shooting range gets startled by a wasp and shoots into the air, and that bullet flies a few miles and as it falls hits a baby in the dick, but I don't say that, because that would be stupid.
#33 to #31 - amuzen ONLINE (08/01/2013) [-]
Except that's how ******* everyone that's not 12 uses a simile and you ******* know it so acting like I didn't mean what I'm flat out saying I meant because you interpreted differently is ******* stupid.
User avatar #34 to #33 - demandsgayversion (08/01/2013) [-]
I interpreted it exactly as you said. You really didn't make a point in that comment, you just took a long route to call me stupid. And it's not a simile, it's more of an analogy.
#35 to #34 - amuzen ONLINE (08/01/2013) [-]
yes I ******* did I pointed it out EXACTLY where in my initial comment I was using that was a simile, so that it's a little clearer how does this work for you?

I doubt the legitmacy of every statistic and whether the variation is just random chance or actually caused by a real tangible thing because it's become a common habit to say **** LIKE "1 out of 3 guys is gay because interviewed these three guys and one of them was waaaaaaaaaaay gaaaaaaaaaaaaaay" or to even just pull statistic out of ones ass.
User avatar #36 to #35 - demandsgayversion (08/01/2013) [-]
"It's become a common habit to say" Well no it ******* hasn't!
#40 to #36 - amuzen ONLINE (08/01/2013) [-]
That's not the same point you were arguing at the beginning of this
and also yes it has, you yourself just said a second ago about how this EXACT same process is carried out, you tried to EXPLAIN it to me for christs sake.

"They may have asked a group of about 100 people if they were gay. Maybe 45% were gay. Then they asked another group and, say, 25% were gay. They do this with multiple groups, then average the results. The average of the results was 33%, sounds like not a lot, so they changed it to 1 in 3. " ~you,
What do you think they do with those average results? and how many people do you think they actually survey on these things? 1 out of 3 billion isn't that much of a difference from 1000 in 3 billion not to mention there are biases to how they carry out these surveys, certain people who are more likely take it than others which further curropts the data you're example to try and defeat my first point completely crumbles your second point
User avatar #41 to #40 - demandsgayversion (08/01/2013) [-]
There's NO bias in that data! Some people might not answer the question? Then they won't be counted! And that's not what ******* bias means!

And 2, yes I explained to you the meaning of '1 in 3'. And it's a completely rational way to do a study and present the results. If you say "33% of" it doesn't sound like WHAT THE STATISTIC MEANS! Everyone bases % on grades, so anything below 70% is bad, and therefore not a lot. That's what people think, but it's wrong. 33% actually MEANS 1 in 3, they're not lying about what it means, they're just expressing the real quantifiable amount that the results MEAN.

So if you actually understood what that meant when you made your first ****** little comment, you were saying "I hate it when they *do this completely rational thing*".

Also, 1 in 3 billion is WAY different than 1000 in 3 billion. You're ******* retarded.
#42 to #41 - amuzen ONLINE (08/01/2013) [-]
No you ******* the bias is that not every single male in the world is given, the bias would be things like the survey being given out where others might not have access to it or that the only sort of people who get to vote are the sort that would do those scientific surveys, and the difference between 1 in 3 billion and 1 1000 is still what would be considered a neglible amount because 3 billion is still so much ******* bigger than 1000 that you're not even speaking for 1% of the population you're claiming to be speaking for and thus the statistic is useless because between 1000 and 3 billion the overall % of gay man can move from .000042% (or something in that range) to 99.99999$ (or something in that range not doing the actual math for it because it's something called an approximation which is actually the second reason I gave that I don't trust statistics like this)
That means that the variation from the actual TRUTH and the survey results can be as much as 99.99999% and that's ******* ridiculously inaccurate.
User avatar #43 to #42 - demandsgayversion (08/01/2013) [-]
You're incredibly stupid. You think you're smart, but you're not. That's the worst kind of stupid.

The point of the experiment is that they took MULTIPLE GROUPS and got similar statistics. That's why they took the AVERAGE of the results. No single survey accesses every ******* person on the planet, so don't be such an ignorant **** .

Secondly, the difference between 1 in 3 billion and 1000 in 3 billion is massive. You say "hurr ******* 3 bilon is BIG NUBAR", well that doesn't ******* matter, now does it.

You wanna talk about a difference in numbers, 1 in 3 billion is 3.3333333333333334e-8% while 1000 in 3 billion is 0.000033333333333333335

If you can't fathom the difference between those two numbers, you're an idiot.
#44 to #43 - amuzen ONLINE (08/01/2013) [-]
0.000033333333333333335
which means the overall amount of variation is 99.99993% which is actually pretty ******* close to what I said it would be because its .000007 difference which is actually considered a negligible amount LIKE I SAID.. if you were to die in either 1000/3billion moments of your life and 1/3billion moments of your life in neither one of those would be able to continue your cancerous trolling across the internet.
also again even if they were to give this survey to 100 different groups it would be still mean they couldn't get any sort of accuracy on the overal results of their survey so the statistics would be ******** when held in comparison to the actual subject they are comparing it to. Saying 1000 people of out all men in the world is significantly more than 1 man out of all the men in the world is like saying the amount of water in a lake is significantly more than a cup of water out of all the water in the world, it's the difference between the two subjects matters is dramatically less than the difference between them and the thing they are being compared to.
and thus a ******* SIMILIE is born which is a PERFECTLY ******* ACCEPTABLE form of human speech
User avatar #47 to #44 - demandsgayversion (08/01/2013) [-]
You're an idiot. Do you not understand that if you test that cup of lake water 50 times and average the results, you more than likely have the exact result as the entire lake? That's what an average IS. It's the similar results between multiple tests. Whether it's 100 or 9000 tests of the same subject, the average is going to be the ******* same.
#49 to #47 - amuzen ONLINE (08/01/2013) [-]
I'm pretty sure that I highlighted the word like for you so that you couldn't say that I didn't mean it as a simile this time you uneducated little **** , the simile was clearly one to emphasize a difference in the sheer scale between the two things, if you want to use that analogy as one inspired from my simile it would be closer to taking a cup of lake water from 50 lakes and saying what the average results for the entire world are based on that.
Since you clearly DON'T possess the education of your basic 12 year old by knowing what a god damn simile is that means you are either trolling me, you're 10, or you're a ******* retard, regardless of which I'm done with this.
User avatar #51 to #49 - demandsgayversion (08/01/2013) [-]
"IT'S A SIMILE, IT'S A SIMILE", THAT DOESN'T ******* MATTER! YOU'RE STILL WRONG! I don't know what point you're trying to make! You're arguing that any and all trials are grossly inaccurate because they don't account for every ******* special snowflake of a human.
#52 to #51 - amuzen ONLINE (08/01/2013) [-]
NO I'M ******* NOT I'M ARGUING THAT I DON'T TRUST RANDOM ASS STATISTICS OUT OF BLIND ******* FAITH BECAUSE OF HOW GOD DAMN OFTEN IT IS THAT PEOPLE BOTH
A. EXAGGERATE THE SCOPE OF THE STATISTIC THEY ARE PRESENTING
AND
B. HAVE A TENDENCY TO MAKE ESTIMATIONS AT THE ACTUAL PERCENTAGE OF THINGS
You are arguing that this NEVER ******* HAPPENS and you sir are ******* WRONG.
User avatar #61 to #52 - demandsgayversion (08/01/2013) [-]
It doesn't happen as often as you think it does.
#62 to #61 - amuzen ONLINE (08/01/2013) [-]
It happens about 90% of the time.
User avatar #72 to #62 - demandsgayversion (08/01/2013) [-]
Only if you count non-collegiate studies, and those shouldn't even be acknowledged. Saying you hate things as those would be redundant.
User avatar #8 - rubixium (08/01/2013) [-]
I know this is a joke, but people do know that a lot of forest fires are caused by lighting right?
#17 to #8 - steeedan (08/01/2013) [-]
Unfortunately the really big ones that make it onto the news actually are started by arsonists
User avatar #22 to #17 - threeeighteen (08/01/2013) [-]
******* ********* , they should be deported... to the middle of the Pacific.
User avatar #24 to #22 - departed (08/01/2013) [-]
They should be deported to the best place on earth, the ant arctic. Good luck starting a fire there, ******* .
User avatar #13 to #8 - YllekNayr (08/01/2013) [-]
Indeed. And a few just by it being REALLY ******* HOT.
#7 - delphine (08/01/2013) [-]
great chicago fire of 1871
#6 - smashmenao (08/01/2013) [-]
I knew this would be relevant one day.
I knew this would be relevant one day.
#48 to #6 - squeejee (08/01/2013) [-]
Just add text that says i don't give a **** and now it is even more relevant.
#15 to #6 - butchersteve (08/01/2013) [-]
They all will be relevant one day.
They all will be relevant one day.
#28 to #15 - esmebuffay (08/01/2013) [-]
I've been holding onto this one for over a year just waiting for the time when it's finally appropriate.
#69 to #28 - officechair (08/01/2013) [-]
I found this one awhile back and am still waiting to use it.
User avatar #4 - thereoncewasaman (08/01/2013) [-]
I have been stuck talking in an Australian accent for a week. I talked in it all night at a party and since then I can't stop. And I have been talking about wallabies and drop bears the whole time.
[ 64 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)