> Dana wrote:
> I think I forgot to post a link about the Drake equation
Here's a CF generated article 'bout all that jazz:
SETI Institute astronomer Seth Shostak: "The lack of precision in
determining these parameters pales in comparison with our ignorance of
L." Similarly, Mars Society presiden
> Denny wrote:
> Maybe a better example, instead of the stuff I wrote, would be, what
> if you come up against a crack coin tosser.
That's the best thing about math - it can describe anything physical
so you could, in fact, describe the crack coin tosser.
But, yeah, that's the problem with statis
ya there are a lot of variables. However, if you really wanted to sit
down and enumerate them, then assign a probablility to each, you can
do that. It's not like trying to decide how likely it is that God
scratched his butt when he woke up this morning.
I think I forgot to post a link about the Dr
On 11/12/06, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Denny wrote:
> > Does math prove that just by counting, we're changing the outcome, or
> > am I conflating different maths?
> >
>
> The point Dana and Robert are making relates to independent events,
> e.g., each flip of a coin. In that case,
> Dana wrote:
> But even though your analogy doesn't prove it, being a bad analogy, I
> agree with your main point, which is that Iraq is a question of
> throwing good money after bad, and it isn't a situation that
> persistence is likely to help.
That what I like about you, you're not a quitter :
> Denny wrote:
> Does math prove that just by counting, we're changing the outcome, or
> am I conflating different maths?
>
The point Dana and Robert are making relates to independent events,
e.g., each flip of a coin. In that case, each flip is it's own event
with the same probability of the "fa
ok as far as I can see the who statistics thing starts here:
"Let's say you play poker at a casino.
It's a low probability bet, but there's a chance you might win. So
you play and you lose $1000. Do you stay at the table? Because your
odds go down the longer you stay."
The odds of a win in pok
the thing that is outstanding here is that you are still
condescendingly explaining where he is wrong ;) Crack a statistics
text, dude.
If the coin toss is a reference model, it's yours, and it sucks. Let
me scroll up and see what your exact argument is, and see if I can't
straighten this out. I t
> RoMunn wrote:
> No, no, no. if 1 in 167 people is killed each year,
Here's where you're stuck: There's a difference between the odds of a
favorable outcome in one iteration and that favorable outcome
**without losing** **multiple times in a row**. So the odds of death
do indeed double the lon
No, no, no. if 1 in 167 people is killed each year, that means each year
your odds of being killed are, at least numerically, 1 in 167. Those odds do
not change the following year. They don't all of a sudden become 1 in 83.5.
On 11/11/06, Gruss wrote:
>
> > G-man wrote:
> > .83^365=.993814 or
> G-man wrote:
> .83^365=.993814 or 99.3814% chance of living. That means a soldier has
>
> 1-.993814=.006186 or 0.6% chance of dying based on current statistics.
>
Oh! So let's see if my "theory" holds up ... the longer a soldier
stays in Iraq the higher I'm saying his probability of being
> RoMunn wrote:
> dude, you are so wrong. what is the desired result? not getting shot or
> blown up in combat?
*sigh* It's a reference model. But, since you're asking, just to
prove me right, let's actually use my "theory" and see what happens:
There's about 120,000 troops in Iraq and there's
Ok, this is going to be the last long one. I swear.
It's easy to be simplistic, as I'm wont to be... I think that in reality a lot
more is always going on. Generally.
Like, with the coin tosses or combat duty, there are issues like, maybe
the practice is making you better at it, maybe you noti
dude, you are so wrong. what is the desired result? not getting shot or
blown up in combat? by your calculations, every US service member would be
dead or injured by now, and that defies not just common sense, by reality.
On 11/11/06, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Dana wrote:
> > sti
> Dana wrote:
> still not, because whether someone shoots and hits is an entirely
> separate issue
LOL, take it to your math lab. I'm right.
The 50% number is only for analogy because it's supposed to be easy
for someone to understand the difference between the probability of
flipping a coin and
still not, because whether someone shoots and hits is an entirely
separate issue from whether someone else was shooting at you
yesterday. Also not sure if your off of getting hit are 50-50. I
suspect not. Sorry. Also, even if you were right the number would be
one half to the tenth power. I am too
> Dana wrote:
> now, your odds of getting a head six times in a row are
> ..5*.5*.5*.5*.5*.5, which is what you are talking about.
>
That's ALWAYS BEEN what I'm talking about!!
Here's the point: let's say a soldier has a 50% chance of being blown
up on any given day. That means she's got a 50% c
try looking at this.
http://shazam.econ.ubc.ca/flip/
On 11/11/06, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> no it's still 50-50, sorry. The coin does not care how many times it's
> been heads already. It still has a fifty-fifty shot of being tails the
> next time.
>
> now, your odds of getting a head six
no it's still 50-50, sorry. The coin does not care how many times it's
been heads already. It still has a fifty-fifty shot of being tails the
next time.
now, your odds of getting a head six times in a row are
..5*.5*.5*.5*.5*.5, which is what you are talking about.
On 11/11/06, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL
> Dana wrote:
> I understand your point.
No you don't, but you think you do because you worked in a math lab or
something. I did the math for you and it's right on the page. What
you're pointing out is totally different.
You: The odds of the NEXT flip being heads is 50%. True.
Me: The odds of
I understand your point. I used to work in a community college math
lab once in another lifetime and every statistics student in the world
thinks this. But it is wrong.
if you flip a coin your odds are 50-50. Doesn't matter how many times
you have done it.
now if you flip it six times your odds o
> RoMunn wrote:
> but that is totally irrelevant to your odds of being successful or
> unsuccessful in any single event. you don't get hot or blown up ten days in
> a row, just once.
>
Ha, I know I'll take the odds one one day in combat over 100. But,
please, you go 1000 and prove me wrong.
but that is totally irrelevant to your odds of being successful or
unsuccessful in any single event. you don't get hot or blown up ten days in
a row, just once.
On 11/10/06, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > RoMunn wrote:
> > intuitively, you might think it works that way, but it just is
> RoMunn wrote:
> intuitively, you might think it works that way, but it just isn't the case.
> basic math.
>
I guess you missed the part where I actually did the basic math to
prove it to you:
> > The odds of flipping a heads in one toss of a coin is: 1 in 2 or 50%
> >
> > The odds of flipping 5
intuitively, you might think it works that way, but it just isn't the case.
basic math.
On 11/10/06, Gruss wrote:
>
> > RoMunn wrote:
> > More geek moments. Dana is right. Casinos make money on very, very small
> > margins (51% chance of the house winning at blackjack, is that right?)
> Each
> >
> RoMunn wrote:
> More geek moments. Dana is right. Casinos make money on very, very small
> margins (51% chance of the house winning at blackjack, is that right?) Each
> hand, each throw, each spin is a separate event and the house makes money on
> volume.
>
But only because she doesn't understan
More geek moments. Dana is right. Casinos make money on very, very small
margins (51% chance of the house winning at blackjack, is that right?) Each
hand, each throw, each spin is a separate event and the house makes money on
volume.
Further geek moment learned at MAX- the dealers want you to win.
ummm... I have never been in favor of national health care. I've seen it up
close and personal and I didn't like it. I might have said it would be better
than the mess we have now, but that isn't saying much.
I do like the small business insurance pool Richardson started over here, but
that is
No! Every throw is a separate event independent of previous events. Odds are
always 50-50 (assuming a fair throw).
You are using the formula for a sequence, the odds say off getting ttth.
>> Dana wrote:
>> negative, your odds do not improve if you stay at the table.
>
>Correct, they do not
> Dana wrote:
> negative, your odds do not improve if you stay at the table.
Correct, they do not improve. They decrease as it's a function of sample size.
For example, the probability of flipping a coin once and having it
come up heads is 1 in 2. The probability of 5 heads in a row is 1 in
32
negative, your odds do not improve if you stay at the table. Each bet
is a separate event. This has been a geek moment, brought to you by
Dana.
On 11/9/06, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sam wrote:
> > In my opinion this will make or break Bush, if he gives up on
> > democracy now then
On 11/9/06, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Like always your analogy doesn't fit.
> And the casino dealer claims victory when you lose a hand.
He most certainly does not. Have you ever played?
Does that
mean you play until you're bankrupt or go make a $1 billion elsewhere
and buy the casino
> Sam wrote:
> The insurgents declared victory yesterday when Rumsfeld quit.
>
And the casino dealer claims victory when you lose a hand. Does that
mean you play until you're bankrupt or go make a $1 billion elsewhere
and buy the casino?
Winning has nothing to do with emotions and everything to
The insurgents declared victory yesterday when Rumsfeld quit.
On 11/9/06, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sam wrote:
> > They need a police force and right now we're it.
>
> So after 4 years the Iraqis can't build a police force?
>
> > We need to slap them around and force them to do th
> Sam wrote:
> They need a police force and right now we're it.
So after 4 years the Iraqis can't build a police force?
> We need to slap them around and force them to do the job themselves
> but not walk away.
>
Attacks on US troops started at 200/wk. They went up to 400/wk.
They're now over 8
On 11/9/06, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The reality is clear: there's no way we can move forward via
> occupation because there's no battle for us anymore. We're caught
> between about 20 competing forces who all want us out of the way and
> have unlimited money and men.
Most Iraqi's
> Sam wrote:
> In my opinion this will make or break Bush, if he gives up on
> democracy now then this will have been a huge waste of lives, time and
> money
Well let's talk about waste. Let's say you play poker at a casino.
It's a low probability bet, but there's a chance you might win. So
you
They're not Murtha-esque
The ideas are to forget democracy and put in a strongman government or
let the Shiite take over. Make nice with Iran and Saudi Arabia and
force them to take on the problem.
This is the worse possible thing we could do. Remember Baker is the
one that pulled back support dur
On 11/9/06, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > gMoney wrote:
> > I'm more worried about the Dems domestic plans, which reads like a Dana
> wish
>
> Well the good news here is 2-fold:
>
> (1.) The Dems that got elected basically ran on a fiscally
> conservative platform. The Dems are well
> gMoney wrote:
> I'm more worried about the Dems domestic plans, which reads like a Dana wish
Well the good news here is 2-fold:
(1.) The Dems that got elected basically ran on a fiscally
conservative platform. The Dems are well placed to steal this issue
from the Republicans and, if they're sm
I'm more worried about the Dems domestic plans, which reads like a Dana wish
list: raise the minimum wage, raise everyone's taxes, make it too expensive
to operate a business, take my money and give it to someone else in the name
of "national healthcare", dogs and cats, living togethermass hyst
> RoMunn wrote:
> win votes in congress at the cost of american lives in iraq? i certainly
> hope not.
>
Their secret plan is this: Baker-Hamilton. Turns out that's Bush's
plan too. Otherwise why would he install Bob Gates?
~|
> Sam wrote:
> I think Baker and Gates will have opposite approaches to the war.
>
Well, apparently you're wrong because they've already put out ideas
that are unanimous to the group. And those ideas are very
Murtha-esque.
If the Dems are smart they'll sit back and wait for Baker-Hamilton,
let M
read your own comments.you are still assuming that the dems have a plan that
doesn't suck. they didn't have to run on a plan to win. does that mean they
have some secret killer plan that they withheld from the public in order to
win votes in congress at the cost of american lives in iraq? i certai
ah is that what that means. I suspected he was saying the current
regime was not extreme enough for him when he said there had not been
any partisanship in Washington for the past few years.
On 11/8/06, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> RINO's (Republicans in name only)
>
>
> On 11/8/06, Dana <[EMA
RINO's (Republicans in name only)
On 11/8/06, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was just looking at the Rush Limbaugh site. He says he didn't like
> the Repubicans anyway
>
> On 11/8/06, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > RoMunn wrote:
> > > You are putting way too much faith in a Dem
I think Baker and Gates will have opposite approaches to the war.
On 11/8/06, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Democrats will run behind the Baker-Hamilton plan which,
> SURPRISE!! calls BOB GATES a member! Does that name sound familiar?
> He's SecDef nominee!
>
~~
I was just looking at the Rush Limbaugh site. He says he didn't like
the Repubicans anyway
On 11/8/06, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > RoMunn wrote:
> > You are putting way too much faith in a Democratic Party that has been
> > totally devoid of real ideas in this arena for years.
>
> T
On 11/8/06, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sam wrote:
> > Okinawa would be surrender. Not going to happen.
>
> Every week! (you say something and I have no idea what you're talking about)
Do you even pay attention to your own comments?
You said they're going with Murtha's plan. His pla
> RoMunn wrote:
> You are putting way too much faith in a Democratic Party that has been
> totally devoid of real ideas in this arena for years.
THEY DIDN'T NEED TO RUN ON ANYTHING!
Let me restate that for clarity: The President's policy sucked so bad
that between the choice of the anything else
> Sam wrote:
> Okinawa would be surrender. Not going to happen.
>
Every week! (you say something and I have no idea what you're talking about)
If you're commenting on Bush, this lose means AT BEST he's a failure,
at worst he's a disaster. Here are the possibilities:
1.) Iraq improves due to th
You are putting way too much faith in a Democratic Party that has been
totally devoid of real ideas in this arena for years. You are assuming the
Democrats have a plan and that their plan is more competent than anything
the Republicans have fielded. Let's see it.
The only plans I have heard from D
Okinawa would be surrender. Not going to happen.
On 11/8/06, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This is President fighting to stay relevant. He had to send a message
> to the American people that he'd heard them and that he was changing.
> And he had to stay in the press.
>
> The Dems ran
> gMoney wrote:
> While I think he should have fired him months, maybe years ago, I find it
> hard to believe that he fired him at all. Knowing the way these cronies
> operate, I imagine it was one of those "mutual decisions".
>
This is President fighting to stay relevant. He had to send a messag
Rummy offered to resign twice in the past and Bush told him to stay. He
should have just gone regardless of what Bush wanted, but that says to me
that Rummy really wanted to stay before and the offers of resignation were
just pro forma. Does that mean Bush fired him this time? Who knows.
On 11/8/0
Bush would ;)
On 11/8/06, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bush said he planned it last week
>
> On 11/8/06, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > i can't imagine that the election had nothing to do with it. On the
> > other hand, if he were operating for the good of the party, he should
> > have do
Bush said he planned it last week
On 11/8/06, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i can't imagine that the election had nothing to do with it. On the
> other hand, if he were operating for the good of the party, he should
> have done it weeks ago. For the good of the country, months ago. I
> think h
i can't imagine that the election had nothing to do with it. On the
other hand, if he were operating for the good of the party, he should
have done it weeks ago. For the good of the country, months ago. I
think he probably fell on his sword to make it look like Bush is
responsive
On 11/8/06, G Mon
While I think he should have fired him months, maybe years ago, I find it
hard to believe that he fired him at all. Knowing the way these cronies
operate, I imagine it was one of those "mutual decisions".
On 11/8/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The Post is saying that Bush fir
Linky?
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 1:51 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Drudge reporting Rumsfeld to re-sign
>
> The Post is saying that Bush fired him..
>
> Post article
&
Subject: Re: Drudge reporting Rumsfeld to re-sign
> Mainly, I think Rummy didn't want to face a verbal beating by Nancy
Pelosi,
> et. al. on the floor of the House.
Can't really blame him, as well deserved as I fell that beating may be...
--
will
"If my life
> Mainly, I think Rummy didn't want to face a verbal beating by Nancy Pelosi,
> et. al. on the floor of the House.
Can't really blame him, as well deserved as I fell that beating may be...
--
will
"If my life weren't funny, it would just be true;
and that would just be unacceptable."
- Carrie F
No, and Democrats would be extremely foolish to pull a Murtha at this point.
Last night they were talking in very moderate terms about providing
"oversight", but not about taking any drastic action (like cutting off
funding for the war). We'll see.
Mainly, I think Rummy didn't want to face a verba
Sam wrote:
> You think Bush is going to cave to the Dems and abandon Iraq?
He didn't say that.
But with the dems in control of the house and senate (probably), they'll
have sepina (sp?) power and will control the congressional hearings and
will probably order more in depth investigation into th
Robert Munn wrote:
> About time, I guess he figures it is better to re-sign than to get
> humiliated by the Dems in Congressional hearings...
>
It's not on drudge.com but it IS on cnn.com
rick
~|
Introducing the Fusion Authori
You think Bush is going to cave to the Dems and abandon Iraq?
Scary.
On 11/8/06, Robert Munn wrote:
> About time, I guess he figures it is better to re-sign than to get
> humiliated by the Dems in Congressional hearings...
~|
In
that is resign, not re-sign
On 11/8/06, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> About time, I guess he figures it is better to re-sign than to get
> humiliated by the Dems in Congressional hearings...
>
--
---
Robert Munn
www.funkymojo.com
~
About time, I guess he figures it is better to re-sign than to get
humiliated by the Dems in Congressional hearings...
~|
Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting,
up-to-date ColdFusion informat
68 matches
Mail list logo
