RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (527) < ... 353 354 355 356 357 [358] 359 360 361 362 363 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 5, Return To Teh Dingbat Buffet< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2018,10:57   



--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2018,13:41   

Who's in that clip.

(That's not a question ;) )

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2018,14:28   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Oct. 17 2018,04:09)
It must be Saturday here. Barry had a bit of a meltdown last night:
 
Quote
God help us. Bob, the video is not where she makes the claim. I linked to that earlier in the post. Read the post again. Follow the links provided.

The video is not her claim. It is her effort at damage control after having been caught in the lie. Instead of apologizing, she tries to defend it but only makes it worse.

Bob, try reading for comprehension before you reflexively spew leftist talking points. It probably won’t keep you from spewing leftist talking points, but at least you won’t sound utterly clueless.

Bob, no rational person can defend Warren. That you attempt to do so speaks volumes.
 
Quote


I call BS on you Bob. She did not claim to have a distant practically negligible Native American heritage. She claimed she was an Indian Bob. Get over it.

The report does not back up what she said for the reasons explained in the post. With each passing comment you descend further into hyper-partisan irrational defense mode Bob. Stop it. It is painful to watch.
 
Quote


No one is saying that Dave. The point of JAD’s statement is obvious. I am surprised you are unable to grasp it. Allow me to unpack it for you.

By definition, moral subectivists assert that “good” means nothing other than “that which I prefer.” Surely a moral subjetivist would not attempt to convince someone that his preference for, say, chocolate ice cream is superior to their preference for vanilla. JAD is saying that a moral subjectivist’s opinion on a race issue is — according to their own first principles — fundamentally no different from their taste in ice cream. So, to the extent their first principles are true, their opinions on the race issue are irrelevant to everyone but themselves.

Of course, no sane person actually acts as if subjective morality is true. Thus, your comment.

Barry has honoured you with a new OP.

Bob O’H Sets Us All Straight (Thank You Bob)

  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2018,16:36   

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Oct. 17 2018,12:28)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Oct. 17 2018,04:09)
It must be Saturday here. Barry had a bit of a meltdown last night:
 
Quote
God help us. Bob, the video is not where she makes the claim. I linked to that earlier in the post. Read the post again. Follow the links provided.

The video is not her claim. It is her effort at damage control after having been caught in the lie. Instead of apologizing, she tries to defend it but only makes it worse.

Bob, try reading for comprehension before you reflexively spew leftist talking points. It probably won’t keep you from spewing leftist talking points, but at least you won’t sound utterly clueless.

Bob, no rational person can defend Warren. That you attempt to do so speaks volumes.
 
Quote


I call BS on you Bob. She did not claim to have a distant practically negligible Native American heritage. She claimed she was an Indian Bob. Get over it.

The report does not back up what she said for the reasons explained in the post. With each passing comment you descend further into hyper-partisan irrational defense mode Bob. Stop it. It is painful to watch.
 
Quote


No one is saying that Dave. The point of JAD’s statement is obvious. I am surprised you are unable to grasp it. Allow me to unpack it for you.

By definition, moral subectivists assert that “good” means nothing other than “that which I prefer.” Surely a moral subjetivist would not attempt to convince someone that his preference for, say, chocolate ice cream is superior to their preference for vanilla. JAD is saying that a moral subjectivist’s opinion on a race issue is — according to their own first principles — fundamentally no different from their taste in ice cream. So, to the extent their first principles are true, their opinions on the race issue are irrelevant to everyone but themselves.

Of course, no sane person actually acts as if subjective morality is true. Thus, your comment.

Barry has honoured you with a new OP.

Bob O’H Sets Us All Straight (Thank You Bob)

Bannination can't be far behind.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Lethean



Posts: 292
Joined: Jan. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2018,19:57   

Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 17 2018,16:36)
 
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Oct. 17 2018,12:28)
 
Quote (Bob O'H @ Oct. 17 2018,04:09)
It must be Saturday here. Barry had a bit of a meltdown last night:
     
Quote
God help us. Bob, the video is not where she makes the claim. I linked to that earlier in the post. Read the post again. Follow the links provided.

The video is not her claim. It is her effort at damage control after having been caught in the lie. Instead of apologizing, she tries to defend it but only makes it worse.

Bob, try reading for comprehension before you reflexively spew leftist talking points. It probably won’t keep you from spewing leftist talking points, but at least you won’t sound utterly clueless.

Bob, no rational person can defend Warren. That you attempt to do so speaks volumes.
     
Quote


I call BS on you Bob. She did not claim to have a distant practically negligible Native American heritage. She claimed she was an Indian Bob. Get over it.

The report does not back up what she said for the reasons explained in the post. With each passing comment you descend further into hyper-partisan irrational defense mode Bob. Stop it. It is painful to watch.
     
Quote


No one is saying that Dave. The point of JAD’s statement is obvious. I am surprised you are unable to grasp it. Allow me to unpack it for you.

By definition, moral subectivists assert that “good” means nothing other than “that which I prefer.” Surely a moral subjetivist would not attempt to convince someone that his preference for, say, chocolate ice cream is superior to their preference for vanilla. JAD is saying that a moral subjectivist’s opinion on a race issue is — according to their own first principles — fundamentally no different from their taste in ice cream. So, to the extent their first principles are true, their opinions on the race issue are irrelevant to everyone but themselves.

Of course, no sane person actually acts as if subjective morality is true. Thus, your comment.

Barry has honoured you with a new OP.

Bob O’H Sets Us All Straight (Thank You Bob)

Bannination can't be far behind.




--------------
"So I'm a pretty unusual guy and it's not stupidity that has gotten me where I am. It's brilliance."

"My brain is one of the very few independent thinking brains that you've ever met. And that's a thing of wonder to you and since you don't understand it you criticize it."


~Dave Hawkins~

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2564
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2018,02:40   

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 17 2018,13:41)
Who's in that clip.

(That's not a question ;) )

Poor guy, though. Never got beyond first base.

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
Bob O'H



Posts: 2564
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2018,03:01   

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Oct. 17 2018,14:28)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Oct. 17 2018,04:09)
It must be Saturday here. Barry had a bit of a meltdown last night:
 
Quote
God help us. Bob, the video is not where she makes the claim. I linked to that earlier in the post. Read the post again. Follow the links provided.

The video is not her claim. It is her effort at damage control after having been caught in the lie. Instead of apologizing, she tries to defend it but only makes it worse.

Bob, try reading for comprehension before you reflexively spew leftist talking points. It probably won’t keep you from spewing leftist talking points, but at least you won’t sound utterly clueless.

Bob, no rational person can defend Warren. That you attempt to do so speaks volumes.
 
Quote


I call BS on you Bob. She did not claim to have a distant practically negligible Native American heritage. She claimed she was an Indian Bob. Get over it.

The report does not back up what she said for the reasons explained in the post. With each passing comment you descend further into hyper-partisan irrational defense mode Bob. Stop it. It is painful to watch.
 
Quote


No one is saying that Dave. The point of JAD’s statement is obvious. I am surprised you are unable to grasp it. Allow me to unpack it for you.

By definition, moral subectivists assert that “good” means nothing other than “that which I prefer.” Surely a moral subjetivist would not attempt to convince someone that his preference for, say, chocolate ice cream is superior to their preference for vanilla. JAD is saying that a moral subjectivist’s opinion on a race issue is — according to their own first principles — fundamentally no different from their taste in ice cream. So, to the extent their first principles are true, their opinions on the race issue are irrelevant to everyone but themselves.

Of course, no sane person actually acts as if subjective morality is true. Thus, your comment.

Barry has honoured you with a new OP.

Bob O’H Sets Us All Straight (Thank You Bob)

Amongst his screed he has this "Even though she is not a liar, because even though she is a blonde, blue-eyed white person, you can’t prove she absolutely did not know she was not an Indian.". I guess I should tell my friend Henry that he can't be Jewish because he doesn't have a hooked nose.

More seriously - Warren has never, to my knowledge, claimed to be pure Native American, so Barry's argument is, well,about the level we come to expect from UD.

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2018,07:20   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Oct. 18 2018,11:01)
Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Oct. 17 2018,14:28)
Quote (Bob O'H @ Oct. 17 2018,04:09)
It must be Saturday here. Barry had a bit of a meltdown last night:
   
Quote
God help us. Bob, the video is not where she makes the claim. I linked to that earlier in the post. Read the post again. Follow the links provided.

The video is not her claim. It is her effort at damage control after having been caught in the lie. Instead of apologizing, she tries to defend it but only makes it worse.

Bob, try reading for comprehension before you reflexively spew leftist talking points. It probably won’t keep you from spewing leftist talking points, but at least you won’t sound utterly clueless.

Bob, no rational person can defend Warren. That you attempt to do so speaks volumes.
   
Quote


I call BS on you Bob. She did not claim to have a distant practically negligible Native American heritage. She claimed she was an Indian Bob. Get over it.

The report does not back up what she said for the reasons explained in the post. With each passing comment you descend further into hyper-partisan irrational defense mode Bob. Stop it. It is painful to watch.
   
Quote


No one is saying that Dave. The point of JAD’s statement is obvious. I am surprised you are unable to grasp it. Allow me to unpack it for you.

By definition, moral subectivists assert that “good” means nothing other than “that which I prefer.” Surely a moral subjetivist would not attempt to convince someone that his preference for, say, chocolate ice cream is superior to their preference for vanilla. JAD is saying that a moral subjectivist’s opinion on a race issue is — according to their own first principles — fundamentally no different from their taste in ice cream. So, to the extent their first principles are true, their opinions on the race issue are irrelevant to everyone but themselves.

Of course, no sane person actually acts as if subjective morality is true. Thus, your comment.

Barry has honoured you with a new OP.

Bob O’H Sets Us All Straight (Thank You Bob)

Amongst his screed he has this "Even though she is not a liar, because even though she is a blonde, blue-eyed white person, you can’t prove she absolutely did not know she was not an Indian.". I guess I should tell my friend Henry that he can't be Jewish because he doesn't have a hooked nose.

More seriously - Warren has never, to my knowledge, claimed to be pure Native American, so Barry's argument is, well,about the level we come to expect from UD.

Where as Barry is related to frogs by virtue of (alt) Pepe.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2927
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2018,15:13   

Quote
I consider that trollish behavior.

I request an apology or else I will request that you be banned.

On second thought, since you insulted practically everybody on UD, forget the apology.

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2564
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2018,08:18   

Woohoo! It's Friday, so after his week-long warm up, Barry can finally get his meltdown going. It's just a wild guess, but I don't think his meltdown will be about the US president supporting violence against journalists.

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2018,10:48   

Quote
you can’t prove she absolutely did not know she was not an Indian.
The triple-negative is always a sign of quality writing.  :D  :D  :D

   
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2018,11:47   

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 19 2018,09:48)
Quote
you can’t prove she absolutely did not know she was not an Indian.
The triple-negative is always a sign of quality writing.  :D  :D  :D

No! No! No!

(How's that for a triple negative?)

  
KevinB



Posts: 525
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2018,12:12   

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 19 2018,11:47)
 
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 19 2018,09:48)
 
Quote
you can’t prove she absolutely did not know she was not an Indian.
The triple-negative is always a sign of quality writing.  :D  :D  :D

No! No! No!

(How's that for a triple negative?)

Saying something three times does not make it true, just snarky.

  
Lethean



Posts: 292
Joined: Jan. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2018,16:15   

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Oct. 18 2018,15:13)
 
Quote
I consider that trollish behavior.

I request an apology or else I will request that you be banned.

On second thought, since you insulted practically everybody on UD, forget the apology.




--------------
"So I'm a pretty unusual guy and it's not stupidity that has gotten me where I am. It's brilliance."

"My brain is one of the very few independent thinking brains that you've ever met. And that's a thing of wonder to you and since you don't understand it you criticize it."


~Dave Hawkins~

  
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2018,19:43   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 17 2018,08:57)

Quite enjoying the new Doctor. :-)

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2018,20:16   

Quote (fnxtr @ Oct. 19 2018,18:43)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 17 2018,08:57)

Quite enjoying the new Doctor. :-)

Yeah, that last regeneration did have side effects, didn't it?

  
Cubist



Posts: 558
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2018,22:31   

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 19 2018,20:16)
 
Quote (fnxtr @ Oct. 19 2018,18:43)
 
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 17 2018,08:57)

Quite enjoying the new Doctor. :-)

Yeah, that last regeneration did have side effects, didn't it?

What side effects? There's been some Gallifreyans who showed up on camera and made mention of having changed gender from one regeneration to the next. Seems like a perfectly normal thing to me!

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2018,22:43   

Yep, I guess it happens in some percentage of cases. I've no idea what the percentage is, or whether the average based on those on the planet would apply to somebody who flies around the universe (and space-time) and gets in big trouble a few dozen times each year.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2018,09:34   

Quote
Ayn Rand had misgivings about “evolution”
October 19, 2018 Posted by News under Darwinism,


Oh god in heaven.

   
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2018,11:05   

As I understand it, for several decades after it was published many scientists had what could be called "misgivings", too.

Seems likely that most if not all currently accepted theories went through a similar phase.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2018,11:31   

jdk bitch-slaps Barry

Quote
17
jdkOctober 18, 2018 at 9:37 pm
Thanks to Old Andrew for pointing out, indirectly, that the OP is a dishonest, inaccurate portrayal of whatever Bob has said.

FWIW, I’ve paid zero attention to the threads on this subject. However the technique of paraphrasing someone’s comments in such a distorted fashion is is really not acceptable, in my opinion.

My 2 cents.
linky

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2018,12:56   

Quote
If thinking so makes a man a woman…

October 20, 2018 Posted by News under Culture, Genetics, Intelligent Design, Naturalism
No Comments
… not only is the mind real but it is so real that nature doesn’t even matter. Barry Arrington wrote here recently, Elizabeth Warren says that a DNA report that shows she is between 1/1024th and 1/64th Colombian, Mexican or Peruvian absolutely scientifically proves her claim that she was a Cherokee Indian, so President Trump […]


ID Trans Studies  :D  :)  :p

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2018,15:49   

BarryMath:

Quote
Saturday Fun: When the Lottery Bet Has a Positive Expected Value
October 20, 2018 Posted by Barry Arrington under Intelligent Design
No Comments
This is one of those very rare times when the lottery bet has a positive mathematical expected value. Expected value is calculated as: (Amount possibly won * probability of winning) minus (Amount of bet * probability of losing).

The probability of winning Mega Millions is 1 in 302,575,350. The next jackpot is $904 million (cash value of $1.6 billion annuity). The expected value is ($904,000,000 * 1/302,575,350) minus ($2.00 * .9999999999999999999) = $0.98.

This means on average in the long run, for every $2.00 ticket you buy, you would expect to win $2.98 if the jackpot were always $904 million.  Of course, you still lose the whole $2.00 every time you lose, which is almost always.  Still, on average, over the long run, the expected value is positive ($2.98 – $2.00 = $0.98).

In the long run, it is a good bet. Of course, the problem is there is no long run. You only have a single shot at it. To achieve the long run average expectation, you would have to play several hundred million times.


he's not doing the math right.

   
Patrick



Posts: 666
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2018,16:24   

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 20 2018,16:49)
BarryMath:

Quote
Saturday Fun: When the Lottery Bet Has a Positive Expected Value
October 20, 2018 Posted by Barry Arrington under Intelligent Design
No Comments
This is one of those very rare times when the lottery bet has a positive mathematical expected value. Expected value is calculated as: (Amount possibly won * probability of winning) minus (Amount of bet * probability of losing).

The probability of winning Mega Millions is 1 in 302,575,350. The next jackpot is $904 million (cash value of $1.6 billion annuity). The expected value is ($904,000,000 * 1/302,575,350) minus ($2.00 * .9999999999999999999) = $0.98.

This means on average in the long run, for every $2.00 ticket you buy, you would expect to win $2.98 if the jackpot were always $904 million.  Of course, you still lose the whole $2.00 every time you lose, which is almost always.  Still, on average, over the long run, the expected value is positive ($2.98 – $2.00 = $0.98).

In the long run, it is a good bet. Of course, the problem is there is no long run. You only have a single shot at it. To achieve the long run average expectation, you would have to play several hundred million times.


he's not doing the math right.

An Intelligent Design Creationist gets the math wrong?  My mind is boggled!

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2018,16:27   

Is that like taking average over all players, and then pretending that this average somehow applies to one particular player?

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2018,16:33   

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 20 2018,17:27)
Is that like taking average over all players, and then pretending that this average somehow applies to one particular player?

Expected Value is a useful part of probability analysis. But Barry's not factoring in a) taxes or b) multiple winners reducing the pot.

It's almost like creationists aren't good with numbers.  :p  :)  :D

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2018,18:38   

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 20 2018,09:05)
As I understand it, for several decades after it was published many scientists had what could be called "misgivings", too.

Seems likely that most if not all currently accepted theories went through a similar phase.

Good point.

   
Jkrebs



Posts: 590
Joined: Sep. 2004

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2018,12:33   

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 20 2018,15:49)
BarryMath:

Quote
Saturday Fun: When the Lottery Bet Has a Positive Expected Value
October 20, 2018 Posted by Barry Arrington under Intelligent Design
No Comments
This is one of those very rare times when the lottery bet has a positive mathematical expected value. Expected value is calculated as: (Amount possibly won * probability of winning) minus (Amount of bet * probability of losing).

The probability of winning Mega Millions is 1 in 302,575,350. The next jackpot is $904 million (cash value of $1.6 billion annuity). The expected value is ($904,000,000 * 1/302,575,350) minus ($2.00 * .9999999999999999999) = $0.98.

This means on average in the long run, for every $2.00 ticket you buy, you would expect to win $2.98 if the jackpot were always $904 million.  Of course, you still lose the whole $2.00 every time you lose, which is almost always.  Still, on average, over the long run, the expected value is positive ($2.98 – $2.00 = $0.98).

In the long run, it is a good bet. Of course, the problem is there is no long run. You only have a single shot at it. To achieve the long run average expectation, you would have to play several hundred million times.


he's not doing the math right.

Hmmm. What's wrong with Barry's math. Is not the expected value for a ticket $0.98???

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2018,13:02   

Quote (Jkrebs @ Oct. 21 2018,13:33)
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 20 2018,15:49)
BarryMath:

 
Quote
Saturday Fun: When the Lottery Bet Has a Positive Expected Value
October 20, 2018 Posted by Barry Arrington under Intelligent Design
No Comments
This is one of those very rare times when the lottery bet has a positive mathematical expected value. Expected value is calculated as: (Amount possibly won * probability of winning) minus (Amount of bet * probability of losing).

The probability of winning Mega Millions is 1 in 302,575,350. The next jackpot is $904 million (cash value of $1.6 billion annuity). The expected value is ($904,000,000 * 1/302,575,350) minus ($2.00 * .9999999999999999999) = $0.98.

This means on average in the long run, for every $2.00 ticket you buy, you would expect to win $2.98 if the jackpot were always $904 million.  Of course, you still lose the whole $2.00 every time you lose, which is almost always.  Still, on average, over the long run, the expected value is positive ($2.98 – $2.00 = $0.98).

In the long run, it is a good bet. Of course, the problem is there is no long run. You only have a single shot at it. To achieve the long run average expectation, you would have to play several hundred million times.


he's not doing the math right.

Hmmm. What's wrong with Barry's math. Is not the expected value for a ticket $0.98???

his analysis is missing a few terms. Taxes reduce the EV, and he's got no terms for winning a lower pot cuz multiple winners.

   
Jkrebs



Posts: 590
Joined: Sep. 2004

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2018,13:17   

I see. I wasn't thinking about those practical considerations.

  
  15792 replies since Dec. 29 2013,11:01 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (527) < ... 353 354 355 356 357 [358] 359 360 361 362 363 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]