Damnit, I promised I wouldn't get involved in this absurd and
off-topic thread, but I've got to set the record straight here:
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Tetsuo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Normal pot doesn't cause hallucinations, exceptions have to be made with
>allergies towards it, or not
"David C. Ullrich" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 21:14:44 -0700, Chas F Brown
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >That seems to be the type of correlation that was reported here - some
> >distribution of MJ smoking, and its *temporal* correlation with heart
> >attacks.
> >
> >Now, that s
"David C. Ullrich" wrote:
>
>
> I wonder if there's any data about correlation between alcohol
> use and traffic fatalities? Probably not, I certainly don't see
> why there would be any connection. I mean if alcohol were
> more dangerous than pot in just about any way a person could
> name t
in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tetsuo at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 24-06-2001 00:17:
> in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David C. Ullrich at
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 23-06-2001 16:06:
>
>> On Fri, 22 Jun 2001 20:49:02 GMT, Steve Leibel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>
>>> Hallucinating? On pot?
in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David C. Ullrich at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 23-06-2001 16:06:
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2001 20:49:02 GMT, Steve Leibel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> Hallucinating? On pot? What are YOU smokin'? Pot doesn't cause
>> hallucinations
>
> Where are you getting your fac
--20209B611F2A68F79DC95EE5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
You say the X1...Xn are independent. Are they also identically distributed?
If not, you will have some very cumbersome expressions.If we use f(Xk) as
the density and F(Xk) as the cdf
On 17 Jun 2001 14:47:14 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (EugeneGall)
wrote:
>On Slate, there is quite a good discussion of the meaning and probabilistic
>basis of the statement that 1 in 3 teen smokers will die of cancer. It is
>written by a math prof and it is one of the most effective lay discussions I
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001 20:49:02 GMT, Steve Leibel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Rich Ulrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 22 Jun 2001 18:45:52 GMT, Steve Leibel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (E
