tar

probably close to the odds of flipping 100 heads in row possible, but its not going to happen tomorrow, unless the coin is weighted to highly favor a head dimreepr, as to the thread question, it is possible for extremely long odds to hit, but the longer the odds, the less likely At a certain point, the odds are so long, as to be considered close enough to zero, to be functionally zero.

dimreepr, but if there is a 50 50 chance you are going to make the free throw, each time you make the attempt, there is still a 50 50 chance you are going to make it after you missed 76 in a row...and if you make it, the count starts again at zero any shot, today, tomorrow or after 99 misses or 99 hits has a 50 percent chance of going in earlier calculations on the thread were based on a 1 in 3 hit rate, and later it was acknowledged that 70 percent hit rate is more likely among good basketball players the worst NBA foul shooters shoot better than 50 percent what are the odds that a 50 percent foul shooter will miss 100 in row?

so I am changing my answer There are 500 million people in the world that play basketball. Most have probably taken 100 free throws, if not standing at the same foul line, without moving, at least one can consider any run of 100 foul shots they took. A one in a trillion possibility, given 500,000,000 people, would look more like a 1 in 2,000 possibility. Given that for our purposes we could take any string of 100 shots they took. Somebody, somewhere, at some point, could have missed 100 in a row. Might have already, might happen again. of course after missing 99 in a row, one might have switched to another sport Or, what is the probability of missing 100 free throws in a row, and staying on the team?

dimreepr, sure people fall down, but not 100 times in a row, unless they are crippled or drunk or the field is iced dimreepr, equally possible it happened yesterday, and neither coach saw it, or will, for another 3 trillion years Regards, TAR

I think infinite probability theories miss the reality of the situation. Like the infinite number of monkeys typing out the works of Shakespeare. Most likley the typewriters would all be jammed or broken, long before any one monkey changed even one piece of paper following a flawlessly typed first page.

Thread, But, within the scope of the debate, between two coaches that coach basketball players probably more adept at free throws than John Cuthber the once in 3 trillion year possibility of missing 100 in a row, is for all intents and purposes close enough to zero to grant the argument to the coach that thought it would not ever happen, on their watch. However, if you were coaching 5 year olds that did not have the strength to reach the rim from the foul line, the odds would be pretty good, indeed. So given the 1 in three shooter as the caliber of foul shooter the coaches are coaching, I would still say that neither will ever see a guy or gal without a handicap, that is trying to make each shot, miss 100 in a row. Regards, TAR It is possible that the shooter could miss 100 in a row, but it is also possible the gym could be torn down, before she missed 100 in a row. More possible, that the gym will be torn down, within 3 trillion years, than that she will miss 100 in a row. Besides, anyone that could miss 100 in a row, needs a better coach. However, I am not sure random chance is involved, because skill is involved and muscle memory and the predictive motor simulator, that knows which muscles to activate at what time and with what force to get the ball to follow a successful trajectory. Reminds me of a sponge bob square pants episode where he accidently ties his shoes together and falls down EVERY step he takes, all the way home. Once you learn to thread a needle, and have the right light and the right technique, you will get it. It is not a random chance operation. so the idea that a foul shooter could miss 100 in a row, is similar to the idea that you would fall down every time you took a step, attempting to get from goal line to goal line on a football field possible, but if you know how to walk, and you are not injured or impeded in some way, you are not going to fall down EVERY step

so the 1 in three shooter should miss all 100, if it takes about 5 minutes to shoot a hundred, once every 2.3 trillion years I think it safe to consider the event highly unlikely. However, if the guy or girl has an unknown strain or pull or eyesight issue and his predictive motor simulator has him missing in the same manner each time, and he or she does not correct for the issue, you could get 100 misses the first time. Or if he or she had a bet for 10 bucks that he could miss 100 in a row, he or she could probably miss all 100 the first try. Regards, TAR

To be in error we fear. The righteous we endear. Aligned with truth and beauty we endure, against the horrible and impure. The world waits for our enlightenment... Or do we wait, to be enlightened by her?

No, they haven't posted on this thread, as far as I know. Do you know their Scienceforum names?

Delta1212, My argument is not for me personally, only, it is for all the people that are reduced to garbage in someone's mind, because a bad label has been placed on them, and they have, I have, you have many redeeming social characteristics, that would suggest we should not be thrown in the garbage. This board has a bias against religious people because some are deniers of fact, and are creationists, and association is made with stupid people, with deniers of global warming, with KKK, with Fox news, with homophobes, racists, Republicans, Xenophobes, Misogynists, Racists, and any other labels that fit in the basket of deplorables. My arguments are purely from the fact that there are deplorable people that vote democrat as well. Drug addicts, rapists, criminals, child pornographers, gang members, union hit men, or whatever, which do not indict the whole organization, nor half its members. Straw men arguments against republican policies are fair, because the whole group is so hateful and stupid, you can't go wrong calling them the devil. (right?) But say a few things that align oneself with anything that was ever mentioned by a Republican, and suddenly you are spouting Fox talking points, and using all sorts of invalid logic. My points are not that I take offense at being called a racist, when I am not, my point is that there is a bias on this board against so many different capable, loving people, that fall into the basket of deplorables in one way or another, that there is nobody left, to run the country. That is, if you add up all the people the Democrats hate, and all the people the Republicans hate you have more people worthy of hate, then you have people worthy of the benefit of the doubt, and worthy of ones love and support. Which leads me to consider it better to think of the other U.S. Citizen as on your side, no matter what, than to look for ways to prove them wrong. I defend myself against incorrect character assassination attempts as a proxy for everyone else that deserves your love and support, and do not deserve you contempt. Regards, TAR At the least, one should consider a deplorable person as a charity case, that deserves your pity. There is absolutely no reason to love a leper and hate a republican. We have families and bleed red same as any other American.

Hilary, Biden, Obama, Warren... to name a few.

'How can you be president if you are against the democrats, against the poor, against the middle class, against women, etc.?' Exactly my point SwansonT. Exactly my point. Anything you think I am arguing inappropriately against Hilary has already been argued by Hilary against Trump. The claim of divisiveness is easily made against your opponent, but impossible to make such a charge against your own candidate. Hilary can not understand why she is not 50 points ahead of Trump. Neither can her supporters. Neither Hilary or her supporters can imagine their political rivals as being good people, with good intentions, capability and love of country and what the country stands for. That is a disadvantage for a president.

Well known to be racists, like you called me a racist, because that is your opinion of me? If I were to say Blue lives matter too, you would call me a racist again. Because of the narrative that would make you right, and me wrong. I reject your narrative, for two reasons. One because I am not a racist. And two because I am looking for a narrative that makes all good people right, and no one right because the other good person is wrong on this or that perceived notion. My line of argument here, goes to the OP in suggesting that it is a disadvantage for Hilary to engender the support of one segment of the population of the U.S. at the expense of another segment. This is not presidential. You cannot be against the Republicans, against the Drug companies, against the police, against the rich, against males, against corporations, against the Iranians, and be president of the U.S. The U.S. is composed of all those things. Good people in all those areas that she is "against". I think it a disadvantage to have a president, that hates her countrymen and wants to see them change, at her command. I didn't say eradicating poverty would be a bad thing. Although I do believe it is in general an unworkable plan. Primarily because it is not my fault that I have something that someone else does not. And it is not within your power to eradicate poverty, by taking from the rich and giving to the poor. It is not legal. It is not ethical. And it destroys wealth, which provides the capital to get anything done in the first place.

No, connected to iNow's post of Hilary's plan to end poverty in the inner cities. And further connected to an earlier charge of mine that Hilary backs the black lives matter cause as a pander to the voting block, and she blames cops for racism, when she should be praising them for enforcing the law. The president of the U.S. is chief law enforcement officer. If she is going to go into office with an agenda of cleaning up the police departments of the county, and not with an agenda of making the inner cities safe for law abiding citizens, I would call that a disadvantage, pertaining to the OP.

Really guys? I post a response to Hilary's plan to pull people out of extreme poverty and you wonder what that has to do with Hilary or the OP. Seems rather central, to me. I have two daughters, I rather adore women and want to see them both make good salaries. I do not hate women. I have always treated people with respect, and according to the content of their characters, without regard for the color of their skin.

SwansonT, Sorry the Post article was recent and not presented as evidence in this thread, but there is a general implied evidence value to current affairs, what is being talked about on the News, on Radio and TV and what we see happening on the streets of our cities. It is not helpful for race relations, to break windows, loot stores, surround and trash police cars, for instance, it gives evidence that the cause is not on target in what it is trying to promote. Evidence does not only come in the form of a study or a 40 year chart. It is evident that we have a problem in Chicago with drug gangs killing each other, but your evidence shows that homicides are down over the last 40 years, and we should look at that evidence and ignore the fact that drug gangs are killing each other in Chicago. So Hilary deplores the violence, but she takes no responsibility for being part of the systemic racism that has cornered so many blacks in the Ghetto. And in my opinion (not evidence of anything, granted) she is pandering to the poor black community, by saying she will correct their plight, and fight against all the nasty bigots in the place and for the victims of systemic racism. She never once suggests that TCP might have caused the "bad dude" to be the "bad dude". It had to be, systemic racism. Even when the shooting officer in another incident was black himself. I know you don't go by this kind of evidence, but the rest of the world does. Is it plain as day to me, when drugs affect a guy's judgement and causes him to feel on top of the world and impervious to harm. That white, female officer did not want to shoot that guy, and she did not shoot him because he was black. She shot him because he was big and strong, and high enough on whatever, to not answer her questions, and not comply with her commands to stop. The other officer that fired the taser felt the same threat, at the same time. I take offence at the brother of one of the guys recently shot to death by police of calling all police devils, and all white people devils. If there is some battle of right against wrong going on in this country, and it is framed as systematic racism against the poor black victim, then I am evil in that equation, and I do not agree with that assessment. It is plain to me that drugs cause bad judgement, and people should not loot and burn and destroy. I would rather we were one tribe. Black, white, brown, red, yellow, and we worked and lived and played together, looking out for one another and obeying the laws of the U.S. Evidence of systemic racism is available. Evidence of criminality in the black community is available. Neither needs to be posted in a thread, for the facts to be clear to everybody. Regards, TAR

iNow, "Tim Kaine and I will model our anti-poverty strategy on Congressman Jim Clyburn’s 10-20-30 plan, directing 10 percent of federal investments to communities where 20 percent of the population has been living below the poverty line for 30 years. And we’ll put special emphasis on minority communities that have been held back for too long by barriers of systemic racism." How is this not picking winners and losers and causing divisiveness? How about a poor white child in W. Virginia? Why concentrate on race and give-awaways? A strong economic plan will lift all boats. Redistribution of wealth, is not an economic plan. She promises equal pay for women? How can she promise such a thing, when she is not writing the pay checks? Access to good schools, suggests that the local schools in depressed areas are sub-standard. How did we let them get that way? And by "we" I mean the local school boards. Regards, TAR

DrmDoc, http://freebeacon.com/politics/estee-lauder-exec-received-special-appointment-donating-clinton-foundation/ Talks about what access to power Estee Lauder's donation to the Clinton foundation, might have achieved. Regards, TAR

Ten Oz, The accusation is that Hilary used her power as Secretary of State, to fund her husband's charity. Whether the "plans" that the charity promotes are effective or unique is not central to the argument. It is the going from broke to millionaire on a senator's salary and a state department salary that looks fishy. If her and her husband's speeches gain them personally millions of dollars, it is not because people are unaware of the Clinton's power to do something for them. Regards, TAR

http://nypost.com/2016/08/23/majority-of-foundation-donors-got-special-access-to-hillary/ "At least 85 of the 154 nongovernment fat cats who got access to Clinton donated to her family charity or promised to back its programs, either personally or through businesses or other groups, according to a review of State Department documents by The Associated Press." SwansonT, What is wrong with evidence like this? Regards, TAR

imatfaal, Sounds like you are in good shape. I wonder about the far too much time on the internet fora. It's sort of a subset of my dopamine theories to consider victory or "being right", as a source of dopamine. In a debate, you pretend you are right and the other is wrong, or at least not as right as you. I am thinking evolutionarily, as humans, we were rewarded by dopamine when we got it right. Solved a problem, remembered where a food source was, outtsmarted an animal, or in some way did a thing right, it made us feel good (dopamine) so we did it again, shared the idea with family and tribe, and basically did things that "felt" good to do. We reward each other with smiles and laughter and song and praise, when we do "good" things. When we get it right. Regards, TAR

koti and imatfaal, Yeah, I am over smoking, and have pledged to myself to follow the Phi rule and make it not an option...but like koti says, imatfaal, you are lucky to be built the way you are...just two days ago driving home from a meal out with my wife, I said I would like a cigarette. Not anywhere close to meaning it, but one remembers the good feelings associated with an after dinner smoke. Regards, TAR it actually felt good to say it, and not mean it like a little victory dopamine coursing through my brain by NOT smoking

dimreepr, But its a continuation question. One has to empathize with the towns that ISIS has rolled into... and consider that if possible in Syria and Iraq and Libya...it might come to your town at some point. That is, unless it is dissuaded from continuing. Delta1212, I don't think ISIS will make it to my town, but the halfway situation of 1000s of refugees entering an area and having a slice of my state, however small put aside for them, opens the possibility that some strongman could take over the compound, and impose the Sharia laws, in some other than U.S. constitutional way. How much religious freedom do we allow, once it tips over into the political? Regards, TAR

Airbrush, I think that would be good. However, just deleting them, I don't know about. Like a freedom of speech thing. Who says the delete people would not delete the sites he or she was not found of, other than Al Awlaki's. Maybe you could tag the site, with like an FBI warning or something, and let visitors know they were on a site that was deemed to be a Jihad site, that was contrary to human interests in general and the author was dead, and would not be notably pleased if you died for him. Regards, TAR

koti, No I have not traveled to any Arabic countries although my father was close friends with a Muslim family and I spent some time with the father of that family. Perfectly nice, although a bit sexist toward his wife and daughter. A good friend and workmate years ago was from Syria. I had Muslim friends at my most recent work, that prayed several times a day and followed certain evening rules from time to time. I have some Turkish buddies at a local gas station. I have no idea what religion they are. No, I am not religious, although I was raised Presbyterian and went to schools that were founded by Lutherans. I am not sure how these answers, nor your experiences give us the blueprint for fighting terrorism. Seems to me, our most pressing issue is the lone wolf attackers and the ISIS inspired attackers, that have been radicalized by those that would use Islam as an ideology with which to go against the West and the Zionists. Regards, TAR