|
Tuxman
|
 |
« Reply #100 on: May 04, 2011, 04:48:36 PM » |
|
I started late, so my count is reset, eh?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I bet when Cheetahs race and one of them cheats, the other one goes "Man, you're such a Cheetah!" and they laugh & eat a zebra or whatever. - @VeryGrumpyCat |
|
|
|
Shades
|
|
« Reply #101 on: May 04, 2011, 04:52:43 PM » |
|
Great comment, worstje. +1
The only relief you get from the 'eye for an eye' sentiment...is your money filling the pockets from weapon sellers.
Politics are not the main ingredient from DC. And I for one am happy about that.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
tsaint
|
|
« Reply #102 on: May 04, 2011, 05:51:57 PM » |
|
I have come up with a new heuristic to help people tell whether they should post another reply in an opinion thread, here it is: The probability of making a useful contribution to an opinion thread ~= 1 / (NumberOfRepliesYouPost^3) ( graph). - So your FIRST post has a 100% probability of having a useful impact.
- By the time you make your 3rd post, you are down to a 4% probability.
- By your 5th post you are below 1% probability.
Aren't you overlooking the fact that there should be a summation of probabilities to determine the p of a member posting usefully? Your suggestion runs the risk of encouraging posters to post an infinite number times in their desire to contribute usefully. (To anyone contemplating this course of action, it should be pointed out that as number of posts -> infinity, p(useful contribution) -> .20205) Let the robust discussion begin! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
mouser
|
|
« Reply #103 on: May 04, 2011, 07:00:21 PM » |
|
It's a very interesting hypothesis, but I dont think the probabilities sum in this case -- I think the probability calculation covers ALL replies as a single entity -- i.e. the usefulness probability score covers your entire contribution to the thread. So by posting twice you decrease the likelyhood that ANY of your contributions on the thread are going to be helpful. Good you clarified that though -- otherwise yes i think we might see some infinite posters  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
tsaint
|
|
« Reply #104 on: May 04, 2011, 07:31:49 PM » |
|
If that were true, we'd have to consider the following:
1 post made: p(useful)=1. Therefore a useful contribution HAS been made.
2 posts made: p(a useful contribution has been made|1st post was useful) <1.
Contradiction?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Stoic Joker
|
|
« Reply #105 on: May 04, 2011, 07:34:06 PM » |
|
otherwise yes i think we might see some infinite posters  Me want clown badge too. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Renegade
|
|
« Reply #106 on: May 04, 2011, 07:36:09 PM » |
|
No. Soviet military forces engaged in war are not considered innocent noncombatants. Al Qaeda is engaged in war with the US. Therefore, their leader is a valid military target.
Interesting. Since Obama is the Commander in Chief of the US forces, I suppose he's a legitimate target as well, and not exempt as a head of state. Just musing... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
mouser
|
|
« Reply #107 on: May 04, 2011, 07:59:53 PM » |
|
tsaint,
Very good observation, however as a good statistician you must remember that we are not analyzing a static situation, and a situation at time T may be different than a situation at time T+1.
So after the first post at time T, your total contribution to the thread may have a high probability of being useful at time T.
But after 10 posts at time t+10, your total contribution to the thread may be judged to be MUCH less likely to be useful at time T+10.
Though I will concede that this does mean that people who decide to leave the forum and boycott it after your first post will be immune from your further rantings and will not experience the decaying of your usefulness. I suppose this creates a practical floor on the usefulness of any given person, since people will stop reading the thread at some point.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
tsaint
|
|
« Reply #108 on: May 05, 2011, 01:37:26 AM » |
|
I'm quite aggrieved to be labelled as any sort of statistician - a pox on them all.
In the spirit of some recent threads I'm trying to get really, really angry about it , working myself into an apoplectic state.
Sad to say though, there's a game show on the telly, the hostess looks pretty good and I've a beer in my hand.
Imagine if OBL had been the same..with fruit juice instead of beer of course. Or if the seals had brought chips, nuts and drinks instead of guns.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Renegade
|
|
« Reply #109 on: May 05, 2011, 01:57:59 AM » |
|
Imagine if OBL had been the same..with fruit juice instead of beer of course.
Y'know, that could be a part of the problem. Then again, I'd hate to think what he'd be like if he were an angry, violent drunk~!  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
wraith808
|
|
« Reply #110 on: May 05, 2011, 10:02:03 AM » |
|
Interesting quote about the celebration aspect from someone I really respect: "No, there's no moral justification for the celebration. But no enlightened reason for the fear we felt, either. If the fear was comprehensible, so is the joy. We're only human."
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Tuxman
|
|
« Reply #111 on: May 05, 2011, 10:07:50 AM » |
|
Human does not refer to humanity these days, right?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I bet when Cheetahs race and one of them cheats, the other one goes "Man, you're such a Cheetah!" and they laugh & eat a zebra or whatever. - @VeryGrumpyCat |
|
|
|
wraith808
|
|
« Reply #112 on: May 05, 2011, 12:45:11 PM » |
|
Human does not refer to humanity these days, right?
Now you're just arguing to argue...  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
