Let's take a look at your examples in detail, shall we? The Mexican Revolution lasted 10 years, degenerated into a three-sided civil war and got its start when some rich and powerful people decided they had enough of the dictatorship, bought some weaponry in the US, and started shooting an equally equipped Mexican army. This wasn't a local rebellion organized by people with hunting rifles and revolvers. Egypt's first revolution got started as a military coup. In other words, the military started shooting at the military. Nothing about locals using their rifles and handguns to overthrow an unpopular person at the top. Egypt's second revolution had its military explicitly standing aside. In other words, the army took the side of the people, and left Mubarak out to dry. The Cuban revolution had its start as an uprising by local revolutionaries using their local guns to fight a government they didn't like. But the initial years were failure after failure, until Batista's government lost the support from the US, and more and more people joined the fight. As you point out, Fidel only started to see success when Batista's troops lost the ability to repair and resupply their superior weaponry. That said, this is about as close to a popular revolution toppling a government force as you will get. It's got pretty much everything else: home-grown resistance, local irregulars fighting alongside guerillas, a vastly larger army with better equipment (though not always better trained), and a government that can't kill the guerillas without losing the support of the population. The Iraqi revolution was also more of a military coup than a populous uprising, especially since it had the support of the political and economical elite of the country.
Anyway, it's pretty obvious that even if a government has an air-force, and air superiority, that doesn't keep them from getting overthrown. Some of this is due to the fact that soldiers and pilots are humans too and don't like carpet bombing their own people. Other times, the support infrastructure that air-forces need falls apart. And a lot of places simply don't have enough missiles to shoot all the revolutionaries.
Correct. What happens every time the government loses is two things: it loses the ability to supply its superior weaponry, and it loses control of the army and law-enforcement (or irregulars who perform those roles). Losing air superiority can be achieved through either means. Notice how in every case you listed (Cuba being the closest to being an exception), it never was locals with their local weaponry who succeeded. And if it was locals, they were supplied from the outside with weaponry they didn't have access to internally.
In short, if you want to shoot at the government, you will get weapons, no matter how illegal they are locally. Legal gun ownership has no correlation with successfully overthrowing a government
I would rather not have to rely on air superiority, long after innocent lives have been slaughtered, thank you very much. I'll take defense at the point that is needed over a full scale war any day.
I think you need to reread my comment, think about who has airplanes, and reconsider what armed revolt against the government looks like. Until then, there's no point in arguing.
So where did I cite a flawed statistic?
When you equated anecdotes with statistics. The Wikipedia and Snopes article link to the actual studies. Enjoy. You also continued your sin by linking to the Daily Fail, which cited no studies, and relied on absolute numbers rather than per capita numbers. Please provide some real research.
So, let me get this straight: When fascist and/or communist dictatorships disarm the population (which is always step 1 before profit), it's best just to hand your weapons over to them, since they're just going to bomb you from the air, anyway? That's really your stance?
You should read the books you refer to. You'd then find out that the population in question had mostly a few hunting rifles, and that the number of guns involved where a small fraction of the total population. Furthermore, those inclined to resist had squirreled away their guns anyway. In short - the gun bans had zero impact on the evolution of the dictatorship. So the argument is that owning guns means nothing when planning to fight a tyrannical government. On the other hand, convincing the army and law enforcement to not shoot civilians means everything. Quite frankly, I prefer a plan that has a chance to succeed over one that makes me feel good.
Leftists don't hate guns; remember that. They only hate guns in the hands of anyone who disagrees with them or doesn't follow the groupthink, they thoroughly enjoy using guns on said opposition.
Texas shooting still resulted in one wounded victim, with vital organs having been missed by inches. And this from a guy who was shooting his gun into the air. I don't think you're making a good case for more guns among the population.
I also happen to think our support structure for the mentally ill is horribly broken and needs to be fixed. End the war on drugs, actually combat poverty, treat the sick and we'd be more like Switzerland - awash with guns, but very little crime, not just 'little gun crime'.
You might want to read up a bit more on guns in Switzerland. They are heavily regulated, guns are registered almost without exception, ammo is tracked for military rifles stored at home, and the reason you see them in public is because they're unloaded and people are personally responsible for stolen guns.
There is no way the NRA would let any of that regulation pass. In other words, there is no way to turn the US into Switzerland, so the NRA and gun supporters should stop using Swiss gun statistics to support American gun laws.
So when fascist dictatorships disarm the entire population, and then mass execute people, are you saying that guns would not have prevented that?
Yep. You're presenting a hypothetical that has actually been tested, and found to fail miserably. Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq and pretty much every cvilian vs government conflict of the past 100 years hinged on air superiority. If you had air superiority, you did well. If you didn't, all the AK-47s and RPGs in the world didn't help you.
Would lack of gun ownership make any difference in these cases?
Possible, though hard to tell, as these are anecdotes, and not scientific experiments. It's impossible to tell how those events would have unfolded without guns at the ready. However, we have some actual statistics to work with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence,http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp, for just a few examples of large scale statistics. At a minimum, they indicate that gun ownership does not correlate with reduced crime, but that instead they are a common response to increased crime rates.
I have no shame in my own opinions, why do you have so much in yours?
Sometimes, shame is a good thing. Your knowledge of statistics would definitely benefit from it.
Interestingly, it was partially true. Both the Romney and the Obama campaign heavily leveraged Salesforce, for the precise reason they didn't have to build out everything themselves. A good chunk of the infrastructure and the business logic was already built out and ready to go once they signed on the dotted line.
Specifically, for those of us who have figured out what we want. No more spelunking in bars, hoping the local gaming night has a single female available, or hitting up women in sports clubs. Just a simple hang-out shield. Also helps when being hopelessly shy - email/messaging is much easier than just randomly walking up to someone.
All in all, this is looking really hard for a drawback to online dating. Kinda like the people who argue about how bad it is to have 1 million in the bank, and how simple life was when they had only 1000 dollars in the bank.
But, you know, I would like to know why Congressman Walden voted against limiting funding for the war in Afghanistan [votesmart.org]? Probably because he's actually for spending taxpayer money, increasing the debt and then trying to stick the president with the bill at the end of the night so he looks like a dumbass.
This right here is the problem. The problem is that the debt ceiling has no impact on reducing spending. Why? Because only APPROVED budgets count against the debt ceiling. In other words, if a budget passes but the debt ceiling isn't raised, it's because some members of congress want to have their cake and eat it too by passing huge budgets and then complaining about them.
The real solution to the debt ceiling problem is to either remove the debt ceiling discussion, or have it automatically follow the budget. Anyone who complains about the debt ceiling is either a moron or wants to score political points with morons.
No - but the odds that the normal mutations will change the potato that I buy from the supermarket to one that produces its own insecticide is exceedingly low. With a GM crop, the odds are merely dependent on whether someone wanted to do it or not. It's a question of probability, that is all. And we're not given any information to make an educated guess as to what the GMO probabilities are.
My point was, that in spite of the odds, women can and have succeeded as much as, even better than, men.
Anecdotal evidence What you're presenting is a truth that is on par with "water is wet". Yep, we know individuals can succeed despite facing huge odds. We can even qualify those individuals with attributes like male, female, black, white, hindu, fat, bald, blind, one-armed, etc. What that doesn't tell us is what the odds were that they surmounted, how likely it is for someone similar to repeat, or anything else that might actually be useful information.
No, seriously. What is it that we can actually from Marie Curie, other the banality that "she succeeded in science, therefore women can succeed in science"? Or was that all that was to your post?
If you think Madame Curie is an anecdote, you're clearly not getting enough education.
Anecdote can be used in several contexts. You might want to look those up, Sherlock.
No. I know what those are like, and what they contain. I have no idea what a genetically modified garlic clove may contain. The issue is that with GMOs, there could be absolutely anything in the organism. The only restrictions in place are what can actually be produced by the cellular machinery of the organism, and no one outside some highly specialized biologists knows that. And since there is nothing that is forcing companies to label products as genetically modified, it becomes impossible to make an educated judgment about what you're ingesting.
That's the difference between a lab-built organism, and an organism created through selective breeding. One creates in one generation what would have normally taken the other process a few million.
Marie Curie is an anecdote about a woman excelling in a field and time where men were on average getting a far better education than women and didn't have to fight any misconceptions about mental capacities. In other words, just because one woman succeeded doesn't mean that the odds were even.
Someone give this guy mod points. If you have one child, and you're entire purpose in life is to have a successful son, it's awfully hard to just kick them out and sever ties. Even if that would be the best course of action.
One definite advantage of a big family is that it easy to boot out the sociopath who is just mooching off of everyone else. Tough if you are stuck with one of them as your only off-spring.
I don't know. The way I read it, he was first an anti-GMO crusader, and now he has become a pro-GMO crusader. Neither one I'm too fond of.
Genetic manipulation is a tool. It's neither good nor bad. There's all kinds of baggage associated with GMO (hi, Monsanto patents!), and some GM techniques I find highly questionable (plants that produce their own insecticide and which we're supposed to eat?). All are things that can make GMOs bad - but they are things that need to be considered in the context of creating GMOs, not as being a fundamental characteristic of GMOs.
I really wish that people would stop fighting over whether something is genetically modified, and focus on what the modification is, what its impact is on organisms consuming it, its impact on non-GMOs of the same family, and whether there are any patents on it that can escape into the wild (still waiting for someone to sue Gaia because she is copying stuff that someone has a patent on).
Unfortunately, I don't see too much discussion around this, and just a lot of yelling around GMO bad! GMO good!
Eh, I'm pretty sure there's some embellishment going on there with respect to grades. It's easy to see the many Bs you got and forget about quite a few Cs and Ds, and remember the Cs that the people ahead of you got, but forget about the As they also pulled.
So in short, you were a lazy fuck and got left behind, and they worked hard and got ahead? Wow, I'm shocked by that outcome. I'm sure once you join the workforce, you'll find that's totally not the case, and that people will reward you for your innate ability to pull B-level work with no effort.
You're using the fact that women didn't receive the same education as men until.... well, the 1970s in the US as an excuse to continue in your misogyny. Not to mention that until about the 1920s, women's jobs were housewives, house maids and possibly cooks. After that, it expanded to secretary.
So yeah, you're not really doing well in your argument.
Ah, I see your mistake. You think that from IF A THEN B follows If B THEN A. Rookie logic mistake. Not to mention that something can be damaging to a reputation without being strictly false, through merely presenting an unsavory association that is difficult to prove to be incorrect.
I think you answered your own post. You said the material is not libelous -- ie: it's true.
Not libelous and false are not two sides of the same coin. You can't infer one from something not being the other. Example: site gets opened with the name of someone in the URL, and the site owner than proceeds to post timecube and NAMBLA articles. Not libel, but not fun either. Or, just reposts random porn to that site. Or of frat parties. Or posts about how great coke and pot are.
There are great ways to ruin reputations, none of which involve explicit falsehoods. Lets hope you never have to find out first-hand.
Ok, I can see it for baseball. There is close to no interplay between players (even on the pitching team, coordination is restricted to whether you can catch what someone throws at you), and strategy is restricted to positioning players where a batter tends to hit and to how aggressively you go after a pitcher or batter. You're also playing 162 games a year - you can get some pretty good numbers in that time. Basketball is a bit harder, but with only four other teammates on the floor and a fairly static match-up (guards don't face centers much, you have zone or man-defense, and strategy revolves around how much you go for inside battles versus outside shots), the possible factors that influence whether a shot is made or not is still pretty small. You're also playing 82 games and taking a significant number of shots in a game. Again, you have a decent data set to work with.
But football? There are 10 teammates on the field, quite a few of which get switched out every other snap. You have 52 people on the roster, with many of them active during every game (especially on defense). Strategic decisions can take specific players completely out of the game for long stretches (simplest example: you're behind in the game, and start throwing - does that mean your running backs now suck?). And finally: there's only 16 games in a season. Some people may see action only 2-3 times a game or see action in trivial circumstances (see: kicker, long snapper). So not only do you have a huge amount of variables influencing a single player's success, you will also have a hard time creating a metric for success (touchdowns and sacks are rare outcomes of a long string of events), and on top of that, you're frequently dealing with a data set that maybe consists of 100 data points for an entire year, and maybe of 10 points for some lower-rung players. And it's exactly in the lower rungs of the players where moneyball was so wildly successful. Everybody knows an Adrian Peterson and Derek Jeter when they see one, but what about the journey players who switch teams once a year? Moneyball pretty much addressed that problem in baseball, but I don't see it working in football.
The Bills might prove me wrong, but I see this instead turning into the problem Girardi had with the Yankees: making player decisions based on stats that are calculated with 5 data points leads to decisions that will come back to bite you in the long run. You might as well save the money and just flip a coin.
I think you logged in with the wrong account. This isn't one of the many 2.8M+ UID accounts that you posted under.
It must really eat you up from the inside that you not only picked the least popular platform to tie your self-worth to, but that on top of that, no one really cares you did. You, sad, sad, lonely loser.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's take a look at your examples in detail, shall we?
The Mexican Revolution lasted 10 years, degenerated into a three-sided civil war and got its start when some rich and powerful people decided they had enough of the dictatorship, bought some weaponry in the US, and started shooting an equally equipped Mexican army. This wasn't a local rebellion organized by people with hunting rifles and revolvers.
Egypt's first revolution got started as a military coup. In other words, the military started shooting at the military. Nothing about locals using their rifles and handguns to overthrow an unpopular person at the top. Egypt's second revolution had its military explicitly standing aside. In other words, the army took the side of the people, and left Mubarak out to dry.
The Cuban revolution had its start as an uprising by local revolutionaries using their local guns to fight a government they didn't like. But the initial years were failure after failure, until Batista's government lost the support from the US, and more and more people joined the fight. As you point out, Fidel only started to see success when Batista's troops lost the ability to repair and resupply their superior weaponry. That said, this is about as close to a popular revolution toppling a government force as you will get. It's got pretty much everything else: home-grown resistance, local irregulars fighting alongside guerillas, a vastly larger army with better equipment (though not always better trained), and a government that can't kill the guerillas without losing the support of the population.
The Iraqi revolution was also more of a military coup than a populous uprising, especially since it had the support of the political and economical elite of the country.
Anyway, it's pretty obvious that even if a government has an air-force, and air superiority, that doesn't keep them from getting overthrown. Some of this is due to the fact that soldiers and pilots are humans too and don't like carpet bombing their own people. Other times, the support infrastructure that air-forces need falls apart. And a lot of places simply don't have enough missiles to shoot all the revolutionaries.
Correct. What happens every time the government loses is two things: it loses the ability to supply its superior weaponry, and it loses control of the army and law-enforcement (or irregulars who perform those roles). Losing air superiority can be achieved through either means. Notice how in every case you listed (Cuba being the closest to being an exception), it never was locals with their local weaponry who succeeded. And if it was locals, they were supplied from the outside with weaponry they didn't have access to internally.
In short, if you want to shoot at the government, you will get weapons, no matter how illegal they are locally. Legal gun ownership has no correlation with successfully overthrowing a government
I would rather not have to rely on air superiority, long after innocent lives have been slaughtered, thank you very much. I'll take defense at the point that is needed over a full scale war any day.
I think you need to reread my comment, think about who has airplanes, and reconsider what armed revolt against the government looks like. Until then, there's no point in arguing.
So where did I cite a flawed statistic?
When you equated anecdotes with statistics. The Wikipedia and Snopes article link to the actual studies. Enjoy. You also continued your sin by linking to the Daily Fail, which cited no studies, and relied on absolute numbers rather than per capita numbers. Please provide some real research.
So, let me get this straight: When fascist and/or communist dictatorships disarm the population (which is always step 1 before profit), it's best just to hand your weapons over to them, since they're just going to bomb you from the air, anyway? That's really your stance?
You should read the books you refer to. You'd then find out that the population in question had mostly a few hunting rifles, and that the number of guns involved where a small fraction of the total population. Furthermore, those inclined to resist had squirreled away their guns anyway. In short - the gun bans had zero impact on the evolution of the dictatorship. So the argument is that owning guns means nothing when planning to fight a tyrannical government. On the other hand, convincing the army and law enforcement to not shoot civilians means everything. Quite frankly, I prefer a plan that has a chance to succeed over one that makes me feel good.
Leftists don't hate guns; remember that. They only hate guns in the hands of anyone who disagrees with them or doesn't follow the groupthink, they thoroughly enjoy using guns on said opposition.
Oh, you're one of THOSE people. Nevermind.
Texas shooting still resulted in one wounded victim, with vital organs having been missed by inches. And this from a guy who was shooting his gun into the air. I don't think you're making a good case for more guns among the population.
I also happen to think our support structure for the mentally ill is horribly broken and needs to be fixed. End the war on drugs, actually combat poverty, treat the sick and we'd be more like Switzerland - awash with guns, but very little crime, not just 'little gun crime'.
You might want to read up a bit more on guns in Switzerland. They are heavily regulated, guns are registered almost without exception, ammo is tracked for military rifles stored at home, and the reason you see them in public is because they're unloaded and people are personally responsible for stolen guns.
There is no way the NRA would let any of that regulation pass. In other words, there is no way to turn the US into Switzerland, so the NRA and gun supporters should stop using Swiss gun statistics to support American gun laws.
So when fascist dictatorships disarm the entire population, and then mass execute people, are you saying that guns would not have prevented that?
Yep. You're presenting a hypothetical that has actually been tested, and found to fail miserably. Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq and pretty much every cvilian vs government conflict of the past 100 years hinged on air superiority. If you had air superiority, you did well. If you didn't, all the AK-47s and RPGs in the world didn't help you.
Would lack of gun ownership make any difference in these cases?
Possible, though hard to tell, as these are anecdotes, and not scientific experiments. It's impossible to tell how those events would have unfolded without guns at the ready. However, we have some actual statistics to work with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence,http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp, for just a few examples of large scale statistics. At a minimum, they indicate that gun ownership does not correlate with reduced crime, but that instead they are a common response to increased crime rates.
I have no shame in my own opinions, why do you have so much in yours?
Sometimes, shame is a good thing. Your knowledge of statistics would definitely benefit from it.
Interestingly, it was partially true. Both the Romney and the Obama campaign heavily leveraged Salesforce, for the precise reason they didn't have to build out everything themselves. A good chunk of the infrastructure and the business logic was already built out and ready to go once they signed on the dotted line.
Specifically, for those of us who have figured out what we want. No more spelunking in bars, hoping the local gaming night has a single female available, or hitting up women in sports clubs. Just a simple hang-out shield. Also helps when being hopelessly shy - email/messaging is much easier than just randomly walking up to someone.
All in all, this is looking really hard for a drawback to online dating. Kinda like the people who argue about how bad it is to have 1 million in the bank, and how simple life was when they had only 1000 dollars in the bank.
But, you know, I would like to know why Congressman Walden voted against limiting funding for the war in Afghanistan [votesmart.org]? Probably because he's actually for spending taxpayer money, increasing the debt and then trying to stick the president with the bill at the end of the night so he looks like a dumbass.
This right here is the problem. The problem is that the debt ceiling has no impact on reducing spending. Why? Because only APPROVED budgets count against the debt ceiling. In other words, if a budget passes but the debt ceiling isn't raised, it's because some members of congress want to have their cake and eat it too by passing huge budgets and then complaining about them.
The real solution to the debt ceiling problem is to either remove the debt ceiling discussion, or have it automatically follow the budget. Anyone who complains about the debt ceiling is either a moron or wants to score political points with morons.
No - but the odds that the normal mutations will change the potato that I buy from the supermarket to one that produces its own insecticide is exceedingly low. With a GM crop, the odds are merely dependent on whether someone wanted to do it or not. It's a question of probability, that is all. And we're not given any information to make an educated guess as to what the GMO probabilities are.
My point was, that in spite of the odds, women can and have succeeded as much as, even better than, men.
Anecdotal evidence What you're presenting is a truth that is on par with "water is wet". Yep, we know individuals can succeed despite facing huge odds. We can even qualify those individuals with attributes like male, female, black, white, hindu, fat, bald, blind, one-armed, etc. What that doesn't tell us is what the odds were that they surmounted, how likely it is for someone similar to repeat, or anything else that might actually be useful information.
No, seriously. What is it that we can actually from Marie Curie, other the banality that "she succeeded in science, therefore women can succeed in science"? Or was that all that was to your post?
If you think Madame Curie is an anecdote, you're clearly not getting enough education.
Anecdote can be used in several contexts. You might want to look those up, Sherlock.
You mean like garlic? Or peppers? Cinnamon?
No. I know what those are like, and what they contain. I have no idea what a genetically modified garlic clove may contain.
The issue is that with GMOs, there could be absolutely anything in the organism. The only restrictions in place are what can actually be produced by the cellular machinery of the organism, and no one outside some highly specialized biologists knows that. And since there is nothing that is forcing companies to label products as genetically modified, it becomes impossible to make an educated judgment about what you're ingesting.
That's the difference between a lab-built organism, and an organism created through selective breeding. One creates in one generation what would have normally taken the other process a few million.
Marie Curie is an anecdote about a woman excelling in a field and time where men were on average getting a far better education than women and didn't have to fight any misconceptions about mental capacities. In other words, just because one woman succeeded doesn't mean that the odds were even.
Clearly you didn't get the idea.
Someone give this guy mod points. If you have one child, and you're entire purpose in life is to have a successful son, it's awfully hard to just kick them out and sever ties. Even if that would be the best course of action.
One definite advantage of a big family is that it easy to boot out the sociopath who is just mooching off of everyone else. Tough if you are stuck with one of them as your only off-spring.
I don't know. The way I read it, he was first an anti-GMO crusader, and now he has become a pro-GMO crusader. Neither one I'm too fond of.
Genetic manipulation is a tool. It's neither good nor bad. There's all kinds of baggage associated with GMO (hi, Monsanto patents!), and some GM techniques I find highly questionable (plants that produce their own insecticide and which we're supposed to eat?). All are things that can make GMOs bad - but they are things that need to be considered in the context of creating GMOs, not as being a fundamental characteristic of GMOs.
I really wish that people would stop fighting over whether something is genetically modified, and focus on what the modification is, what its impact is on organisms consuming it, its impact on non-GMOs of the same family, and whether there are any patents on it that can escape into the wild (still waiting for someone to sue Gaia because she is copying stuff that someone has a patent on).
Unfortunately, I don't see too much discussion around this, and just a lot of yelling around GMO bad! GMO good!
Eh, I'm pretty sure there's some embellishment going on there with respect to grades. It's easy to see the many Bs you got and forget about quite a few Cs and Ds, and remember the Cs that the people ahead of you got, but forget about the As they also pulled.
Anecdote != data. Anecdotes != data. Outliers are not indicative of a trend. Etc. I'm sure you get the idea.
So in short, you were a lazy fuck and got left behind, and they worked hard and got ahead? Wow, I'm shocked by that outcome. I'm sure once you join the workforce, you'll find that's totally not the case, and that people will reward you for your innate ability to pull B-level work with no effort.
Totally.
You're using the fact that women didn't receive the same education as men until.... well, the 1970s in the US as an excuse to continue in your misogyny. Not to mention that until about the 1920s, women's jobs were housewives, house maids and possibly cooks. After that, it expanded to secretary.
So yeah, you're not really doing well in your argument.
I see your debating skills are on par with your logic skills.
Ah, I see your mistake. You think that from IF A THEN B follows If B THEN A. Rookie logic mistake. Not to mention that something can be damaging to a reputation without being strictly false, through merely presenting an unsavory association that is difficult to prove to be incorrect.
I think you answered your own post. You said the material is not libelous -- ie: it's true.
Not libelous and false are not two sides of the same coin. You can't infer one from something not being the other. Example: site gets opened with the name of someone in the URL, and the site owner than proceeds to post timecube and NAMBLA articles. Not libel, but not fun either. Or, just reposts random porn to that site. Or of frat parties. Or posts about how great coke and pot are.
There are great ways to ruin reputations, none of which involve explicit falsehoods. Lets hope you never have to find out first-hand.
Ok, I can see it for baseball. There is close to no interplay between players (even on the pitching team, coordination is restricted to whether you can catch what someone throws at you), and strategy is restricted to positioning players where a batter tends to hit and to how aggressively you go after a pitcher or batter. You're also playing 162 games a year - you can get some pretty good numbers in that time. Basketball is a bit harder, but with only four other teammates on the floor and a fairly static match-up (guards don't face centers much, you have zone or man-defense, and strategy revolves around how much you go for inside battles versus outside shots), the possible factors that influence whether a shot is made or not is still pretty small. You're also playing 82 games and taking a significant number of shots in a game. Again, you have a decent data set to work with.
But football? There are 10 teammates on the field, quite a few of which get switched out every other snap. You have 52 people on the roster, with many of them active during every game (especially on defense). Strategic decisions can take specific players completely out of the game for long stretches (simplest example: you're behind in the game, and start throwing - does that mean your running backs now suck?). And finally: there's only 16 games in a season. Some people may see action only 2-3 times a game or see action in trivial circumstances (see: kicker, long snapper). So not only do you have a huge amount of variables influencing a single player's success, you will also have a hard time creating a metric for success (touchdowns and sacks are rare outcomes of a long string of events), and on top of that, you're frequently dealing with a data set that maybe consists of 100 data points for an entire year, and maybe of 10 points for some lower-rung players. And it's exactly in the lower rungs of the players where moneyball was so wildly successful. Everybody knows an Adrian Peterson and Derek Jeter when they see one, but what about the journey players who switch teams once a year? Moneyball pretty much addressed that problem in baseball, but I don't see it working in football.
The Bills might prove me wrong, but I see this instead turning into the problem Girardi had with the Yankees: making player decisions based on stats that are calculated with 5 data points leads to decisions that will come back to bite you in the long run. You might as well save the money and just flip a coin.
I think you logged in with the wrong account. This isn't one of the many 2.8M+ UID accounts that you posted under.
It must really eat you up from the inside that you not only picked the least popular platform to tie your self-worth to, but that on top of that, no one really cares you did. You, sad, sad, lonely loser.
The irony. It is.... overwhelming.