Congratz to the US Military Forces!

[Tuxman]

I started late, so my count is reset, eh?

[Shades]

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.

[tsaint]

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.

-mouser (May 04, 2011, 04:44 PM)

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!

[mouser]

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

[tsaint]

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?

[Stoic Joker]

otherwise yes i think we might see some infinite posters

-mouser (May 04, 2011, 07:00 PM)

Me want clown badge too.

[Renegade]

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.

-edbro (May 04, 2011, 04:00 PM)

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...

[mouser]

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.

[tsaint]

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.

[Renegade]

Imagine if OBL had been the same..with fruit juice instead of beer of course.

-tsaint (May 05, 2011, 01:37 AM)

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~!

[wraith808]

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."

[Tuxman]

Human does not refer to humanity these days, right?

[wraith808]

Human does not refer to humanity these days, right?

-Tuxman (May 05, 2011, 10:07 AM)

Now you're just arguing to argue...