<8000 275210 275659.67 99.84%
<12000 413822 413489.50 100.08% no wonder i always lose. damn under 8000 bets. i sense foul chicanery at work You must be a 0.1%er  In seriousness though, I posted the CDF probabiities for the winning bets a while back and even though the < 16 bets seem to be significantly below expected, they're probably (haven't worked it out) still inside a reasonable confidence zone since there's so few expected wins yet. Somewhere many pages back I used binomial distribution to calculate the "confidence zone;" nothing was off enough to suspect foul play. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_distributionI imagine most people here should be able to follow it; the most difficult math used is factorials. |
|
|
|
AT
NO
T
I
DISEASED
I
S
CRÉÉE
S
T
A
B
L
I
S
H
M
E
P N
R BARONETCY
OVEIPEYOMAI A
A V T R
C I CHUCKWILLSWIDOW
HARDIHOOD A
E E I N
ACCOUNTANT I
ON C S
E M
I recommend [pre]. |
|
|
|
|
AT
N
T
I
DISEASED
I
S
E
S
T
A
B
L
I
S
H
M
E
P N
R BARONETCY
OVEIPEYOMAI A
A V T R
C I CHUCKWILLSWIDOW
HARDIHOOD A
E E I N
ACCOUNTANT I
ON C S
E M
Figured I needed some contrast
|
|
|
|
|
Someone had to do it.
A
N
T
I
D
I
S
E
S
T
A
B
L
I
S
H
M
E
P N
R BARONETCY
OVEIPEYOMAI A
A V T R
C I CHU I
H D O A
E E I N
ACCOUNTANT I
O C S
E M
|
|
|
|
|
What formula are you using? How are time, accuracy, and amount weighted?
|
|
|
|
It is all JavaScript based.
precisely... Precisely, what? It works without an internet connection. Don't confuse javascript, the fundamental client-side language, with java, the proprietary software which runs in a virtual machine made of security swiss cheese. |
|
|
|
I would love to take you up on this! I'll PM you to talk about availability. I'm a financial guy in the process of learning all the cryptography and encryption stuff we need to know to operate efficiently in this market. I have read up about both subjects and was just about to create my OTC account, so this would be perfect for me.
This session has been completed. We've rated each other on #bitcoin-otc. Working with Jordan was a pleasure. Free hours are still available, courtesy of MPOE-PR! |
|
|
|
|
People have trouble understanding very small probabilities. When you say "virtual" or "mathematically probable," people think about it in terms of a 1% chance, or the chance of winning the lottery. With Bitcoin, though, the chance is so small that it can be assumed to be zero. The word "certain" can apply.
|
|
|
|
Casimir forces, anyone? (Never mind the "currently impractical" or "improbable" or "lowest energy point" naysayers) |
|
|
|
|
It would depend on your magnet, assuming the video isn't as fake as the other one ("see new vid" -- electricity is coming from under the table or a hidden magnet). I've killed magnets in a matter of months before, and that was just performing party tricks. (One surefire way to kill your magnet is to do that "levitation" trick, then weigh down the floating one).
Presumably there's some heat coming out of this too; anyone who's roasted a magnet over a fire will tell you that the magnet dies.
|
|
|
|
We have something called the Laws of Thermodynamics. Note: they're not even theories; they're laws. In a perfectly friction-less vacuum, perpetual motion is possible, but not harvesting energy from the system. In this case, it's probably complete bullshit. I bet it's bullshit. Even if it's not, it's certainly not "free energy." It's not a scam, perpetual motion has been modeled a lot in the past, and for the most part can work, like those plastic birds with that liquid in them, that always go down and up. Those stop eventually. They run out of water. |
|
|
|
Speaking of high stakes, remember 100 BTC Trust Roulette? Once you received the coin, you were responsible, so if the person you passed it on to stole it, YOU would have to pay back or be labeled a scammer. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=93250.60 |
|
|
|
FirstAscent, do you poop with the door shut?
I think you missed the whole point. I think you've evaded my innocent question |
|
|
|
|
FirstAscent, do you poop with the door shut?
|
|
|
|
When you drive while intoxicated, you put other people's lives at an increased risk. Is this scenario morally different? Is it only immoral if someone gets hurt?
Punishment for killing another driver is out of the question when you're both dead.
Interestingly, when drunk drivers get into an accident, they very rarely are killed by it. It happens, to be sure, but it's actually less likely than if they were sober, at the same speeds. The reason is pretty obvious, if you think about it: being drunk, they're very "loose" when they get into the crash, and thus suffer less damage. Sort of a perverse benefit. If the subject matter were lighter, I'd be chuckling. What this boils down to is a question of whether or not it is morally to force someone not to increase another's risk. Perhaps it qualifies as defense. I'd argue that it's moral to force someone to not push any of the buttons we mentioned earlier. You getting in the car and driving at all increases my risk, if I'm out on the road. Is it morally correct to prevent you from driving while I'm out on the road?
As was said by someone earlier, there must be a line. Just about anything I do increases your risk by some amount, especially if we live near each other. Pressing the button is immoral, building a house is moral, pressing one button out of 3 is immoral, driving on the same road as you is moral, driving drunk is...? Because driving drunk is a preventable cause of other people's deaths, and the risk to other people is rather high, I believe it's immoral. Driving drunk is not an essential part of your livelihood, while driving sober may well be. |
|
|
|
|
I poop with the door shut.
|
|
|
|
Drivers with alcohol in their blood are seven times more
likely to cause a fatal crash; legally drunk drivers pose a risk 13 times
greater than sober drivers. The externality per mile driven by a drunk
driver is at least 30 cents.
Source: pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittPorterHowDangerousAre2001.pdf
In 2011, alcohol-related deaths were 33% of the total traffic deaths, nearly the same as in 2007, 2008 and 2009. In 2009, all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico made it illegal to drive with a BAC of .08 or higher. Of the 10,839 people who died in an alcohol-related crash, 7,281 (67 percent) had drivers with BACs above the legal limit. Source: http://www.edgarsnyder.com/drunk-driving/drunk-driving-statistics.htmlRegardless of myrkul's anecdotal grandfather, driving drunk does in fact increase the risk of a collision. When you drive while intoxicated, you put other people's lives at an increased risk. Is this scenario morally different? Is it only immoral if someone gets hurt? Punishment for killing another driver is out of the question when you're both dead. |
|
|
|
what if cars run by sophisticated computer programs
We're getting there. In some states a computer-driven car can get a license. if i drank coffee i'd spit it out about now You mean peole with computer programmed cars can have their CAR tested to get a license? which state(s) Nevada, California |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
