So, you are still incapable of any serious discussion. The only thing you are capable of is ad-hominem attacks and avoiding the issue. I feel sorry for you. For future discussions I would suggest you try to back up your religious theories with some fact and some data. I hope you get well, though I know recovering from a cerebrectomy is hard.
Me? You call me a child murder. You have been arguing an utterly tangential point to avoid admitting the fact that your position as to the topic of the discussion has no supporting data. You are quite sad. You can appear less sad by actually arguing for your point.
No, you actually did not, you still treated such an event in the same way that you treat random events like coin tosses. You are still under the impression they are similar. They are not.
My pre-condition is that there will be an event, and that it is statistically 100% certain. You see, in that case statistical analysis is valid. Given the amount of events, and the time span we have before us, the chances of there being an event at some point in the future is 100%. If there is an event in our future, chances that is tomorrow increases each day that goes by. Irrespective of when that event will occur and our (or anyone else's knowledge of this).
I'll accept your apology.
None will be offered until you stop raping children. And no, the fact that your father and grandfather raped you continuously through your childhood while your mother and grandmother stood on the sideline and cheered is not an excuse. Again, to keep the debate at a level you appear to be comfortable with.
I am also looking forward to any data supporting your position from the original discussion. No such data has ever been presented since you don't have any. None that goes beyond religious notions that is.
So, there is ONE weakness in my statement, the weakness others pointed out but you have not yet. My statement is true, mathematically, if, and only if, the chance of getting hit by an asteroid at some point in the future, that is, before the earth is eaten by the sun, is 100%. You could have gone for that, but you didn't. You should have. The fact that you didn't just shows you are a moron. But hey, everybody else got it. You see, if there is a 100% chance we get hit some time in the future, I am actually correct, but you wouldn't know it, because you still think that whether we get hit is a random event. It isn't.
It is also interesting to see that you are entirely incapable of posting without a personal attack and utterly incapable of providing data that supports your position. Jesus freaks like you are pretty sad. Maybe one day you'll grow up, but more likely, one day you will go out and rape young boys and then kill your self (just to put the debate at a level you appear to be comfortable with).
Was it hard during your formative years, having your dad and your grand dad raping you repeatedly with your mother and grandmother standing by cheering?
You have quite a lot in common with Anders Breivik, don't you.
Oh what a sad and pathetic individual you are. Really, really sad. I feel really sorry for you.
So far not a single post without a personal attack. So far not a single post containing data points supporting your position. Honestly, I pity you, and the mother who will have to put up with you living in her house for the rest of your life.
Again, slowly, if there is a time in the future when something will happen, we can, if the event happens with some sort of regularity, calculate the probability for it happening within a certain time frame. We use this type of calculation because we lack information. This doesn't give us much, but it is a fun game. It is also irrelevant in this case, since what we are discussing is not when something will happen. What is being debated is whether there is an increase in probability when nothing happens.
So, I'll try again. If there a 100% chance that something will happen at some point in time T1 as measured from a starting point T0 defined as now, every day between T0 and T1, chances of it happening that day increases a little bit.
There are so many objects spinning around here that we know one will hit sooner or later. We have no clue when, but we can guesstimate it based on previous events. That guesstimate is, for this exercise irrelevant. What is relevant, and self-evidently true, is as you move through time from T0 towards T1, irrespective of the actual value of T1, the chances for today being T1 increases ever so slightly. More if T1 has a large value, less with a smaller value. Irrespective of any information we have about T1, we do know that as we move away from T0 we are moving towards T1 and therefore increasing the probability T1 is today. It is linear maths involving nothing but addition. It is also self-evident.
Wow, that is all you have. Personal attacks. From a fucking communist no less (just to stoop to your level as a demonstration of how moronic it is down there). Sorry, your post just proves you are a moron with nothing to say. You can fuck off and continue to suck Stalin's dick (again, to stay at a level you are comfortable with).
and what you are missing is this. If the probability of the earth being hit at some point in the future is 100%, and it actually is, then it doesn't matter. It is irrelevant. If there is a point in the future where the earth will be hit by an asteroid, any day that passes increases the probability that tomorrow is the day. The time in the future where the asteroid is going to hit is irrelevant, it is also irrelevant whether we can calculate it. If it is there, every day we get closer to it, and every day, chances of it being tomorrow increases.
the odds for a strike are not influenced by the time since the last strike
Nobody ever said they were. What the odds are influenced by is the time until the next strike. The future is influenced by the future, not the past. In the case of a deterministic situation. A future coin toss is not deterministic at all (unless you go into metaphysics), since it is not governed by known laws of physics as you claim. If it is, please tell me which laws of physics applies, prior to the toss, to the person tossing the coin. Which laws of physics govern his choice of time for tossing the coin? Which deterministic laws of physics determine the force, angle and spin with which the tosser will toss? Answer is none. The coin analogy is nothing like an analogy.
Let's examine time T, where there is an asteroid strike in our future, and there is also a coin toss in our future. Given perfect information about the coin and the asteroid, is it in any way possible to calculate anything about the two? For the asteroid, yes, I can calculate it's position at any time in the future. How about the coin? No, I can not. Whether the coin ends up heads or tail is impossible to know, even if I know everything about the coin. I do not, you see, know anything about the toss. Nothing at all. Also, it is not possible to find out anything about the toss.
So, no, the coin toss analogy does not apply in any way at all.
Stalin was an evil man, he was Atheist, and he killed people because they were religious. Period.
"Stalin was an evil man, he had brown hair, and he killed people because they were religious. Period." - that makes as much sense. You are dancing on thin ice and it is breaking. I can even do one better. Hitler was a devout Christian. He was evil. He killed people for their religious convictions. I would never dream of claiming he did those things because he was a Christian, I am not completely retarded. He did however, as opposed to any atheist, have justifications within his faith for his actions.
Don't be a moron.
and Atheist logic to do so
That is simply a lie. I thought you superstitious lunatics were not supposed to lie. Oh, I forget, lying comes natural to you. It is when OTHER people lie you have problems.
To suggest that Atheism isn't the reason why Atheist states persecute those that have faith, is simply delusional on your part
Not only is it not delusional, it is pure logic. There is nothing in atheism that can be used to justify anything at all, not killing, not stealing, nothing. Atheism has no beliefs and can therefore not be used to justify anything but non-belief. The problem here is that you are showing that you have no ability to think at all. You are regurgitating nonsense spouted by some father figure you adore, no thought process behind it whatsoever.
You can prove me wrong by explaining which specific tenets of atheism can be used to justify murder. I can list many, many from Christianity.
You can also spend some time explaining to the rest of the world why the vast majority of people in jail are Christians Please don't use "jail time conversion" as an argument, their religiosity was registered prior to them entering prison. If people go Christian in Jail the number of Christians in jail is even higher than the official.
It would also help if you could explain why murder, abortion, divorce and (apparently) telling lies is so much more prevalent among Christians than atheists. Please, explain it.
Of all the asteroids that strike earth of a given size, one of them is the last.
You are quite right, but then again, the probability of earth having seen the last one (given the number of asteroids in orbit around the sun) that probability is so low that it can be easily set to zero. I mean, we are still talking billions of bodies, most obviously not big enough for an extinction event, but still. That is a lot of rocks (pr ice cubes).
one of them is the last
Yes, but that is, with a probability that is equal to 100% in reality, quite a bit further into the future. In fact, the most likely reason they are going to stop dropping onto earth is that the earth is no longer there to receive them, having been vaporized by the giant star the Sun has turned into.
This appears to be hard for you to understand. I'll do it slowly. Try to put aside your notions for a moment.
There is a very, very small chance that an asteroid will never again hit earth. The probability of this is so fantastically small that we can basically discard it out of hand. It's going to happen.
Now to the actual event. The asteroids in question are governed by basic orbital physics, there are some slightly more complex pieces to this, namely the mass of the asteroid, which changes ever so slightly, but not randomly at times. So, given perfect information, it is possible to determine which asteroid will hit us, and when. Sadly we do not have perfect information, we probably are not even able to get it. We don't need it for you to be wrong.
There is an asteroid A out there that will hit us at time T. Both A and T are well defined, and both A and T are deterministic, not random and they do not change over time. They are determined by the current orbital velocity and mass of A, Earth and other celestial bodies (who are also governed by orbital mechanics). Not random. Deterministic. So, T is set. Every day that is not T brings us closer to T in unknown increments. The increments, as well as T are only available to us through statistics, but that is not due to the nature of A, T and Earth, it is due to our lack of information.
Are you saying that the path of a given asteroid is entirely random? Are you saying that the current location and orbital velocity of the asteroid that eventually will hit earth is random? They are not.
Who knows when the asteroid hits? Probably nobody. Physics does though. The asteroid that eventually will hit earth is currently in an orbit that will make it crash into earth. You could say that the asteroid it self, in it's current orbit "knows" that it will hit earth in so far that it, in its current position and orbital velocity holds the answer to that.
The fact that we do not know when the asteroid will hit doesn't mean it is random, it only appears that we think it is random because you have no knowledge of physics, orbital mechanics or basic astronomy. The date for the impact has been set. It was set a long time ago. We just don't know it. That is irrelevant. Though it does make it necessary for us to use probabilities in calculating. Not because the hit is random, but simply because we do not know all the parameters. That doesn't mean it is random though. Far from it.
Now you can try to argue your point since you have been proven wrong in all your attacks on my position.
Oh, and I thought I'd elaborate a little more about Uncle Bob, since you seem not to understand why we, as in "earth scientists" use probabilities in dealing with Uncle Bob's visit when it is governed entirely by deterministic maths. Let me try to explain.
Uncle Bob has decided on a date of arrival. He is 20 years old. We do not know the date of his arrival, but we know that each day it is getting slightly more probable that he will arrive. We can not know by how much it increases, but we do know that it does. So, what can we do to be prepared for his arrival? We can find out when it is more likely he will arrive. Bob's 20, he'll be able to make visits like this until he's 80. So, that gives us a 60 year time span. On average, he'll pop by in 30 years, or about 11000 days. So, on average, the chances of tomorrow being the day for the visits increases by 1/11000.
Remember, again, the date for Uncle Bob's visit is set. It isn't going to change. It isn't random by any measure. Therefore every day he doesn't drop by, chances of it being tomorrow increases ever so slightly.
Now, instead of continuing to be an arrogant moron and spouting nonsensical rubbish. Try with some data please. Preferably some that support your claims. If you can find them.
Already covered. The only fool here is you. You are essentially claiming that asteroid hits are random events in the same way that coin tosses are. That is an absurd notion. Absurd in the extreme. The date for the impact is well known and pre determined. It is just not known by us.
Unlike the coin or the asteroids or the lottery, Uncle Bob DOES have a memory
Ah, but you see, asteroids, like coins, can have memories when selection is involved. There are a few asteroids that sooner or later are going to hit us. They follow certain rules, and it isn't a question of if, but simply of when. Their "memory" is basically the laws of physics. The fact that we do not KNOW which orbit it is the asteroid will hit us doesn't mean that each orbit is random. It isn't. This means that between now and some unknown point in time (unknown to us just because we have not bee able to calculate it yet) the asteroid will hit. So, if there is, irrespective of our knowledge of it, a point in time in the future when it will hit, each round it doesn't, the probability it is the next passing will go up.
Whether you, me or uncle Bob KNOWS the time is irrelevant. As long as there is a time it will hit, each day will bring us inexorably closer to that time, and each day will have a higher likelihood of being "the" day.
The problem for us is that we do not know it, so we can not calculate the possibility, we can know that the probability increases but not by how much. Let's get back to Bob. Some event, process unknown to us, sets the date for Bobs arrival. Bob doesn't know. The only thing known is that it will happen. Does that change anything? Yes, it does. It removes the knowledge of how much chances increases each day that Bob will drop by. We know it increases, but not by how much. Same with the asteroid. There is one out there. Physics says it'll hit. It is "pre-determined". We know this. We also know that if we can find all candidates, we will be able to tell which asteroid and at what time. Orbital physics isn't that hard. So, yes, today we know that there is a fixed time and place in the future where i big whopper is going to hit. Each day that passes brings that day closer (or in other words, increases chances it is tomorrow).
Let me do this slowly for you once again. The asteroid will hit. It will hit at a set, well-known, pre-determined date in the future. The only problem is the "well-known" part. We don't know that. Is that relevant? Again, with uncle Bob, if we did not know the date he was dropping by, would it change the fact that each day he didn't drop by increase the chance that tomorrow is the day? No, it doesn't. Lack of knowledge on our part is irrelevant. It only means we can no calculate how the probability changes. We still know that the change is positive, in other words, the probability increases. Asteroid hits are not random events, they follow very specific, very well known, rules.
you are unable to differentiate between stiffness of gun control legislation stats, and guns per person stats
What is the purpose of gun control legislation of the type enacted in the UK? Does it have anything to do with reducing the number of guns per person?
But hey, you can continue with retarded ad-hominems, or you can actually present some data supporting your notions. Your inability to do so thus far puts you in the "sad and pathetic" category when coupled with the dumb stuff you actually write.
No, it isn't really. It is in fact quite correct. The chance of getting hit by an asteroid is infinitesimally small. Chances of getting killed by one is a lot higher. According to Alan Harris, any persons lifetime odds of being killed by an asteroid is about 1:700 000. Not high, but higher than getting killed by a terrorist.
History doesn't really matter. What is relevant is future. Remember, if a big one hits, that is about 6 billion people dead. So, that drives the odds up quite significantly.
No, not likewise, and you are the one not understanding statistics here. Let me try to explain. On Sunday you receive the following information: Uncle Bob will be dropping by this week. On Sunday, the possibility he will drop by is 1/7 for each day of that week. What is the case on Monday if Bob didn't stop by on Sunday? Still 1/7? No, of course not. The only one not understanding statistics here is you. You use statistics the same way Creationists use it, not understanding the simple process of "selection".
Here is another example of selection that for most people is counter intuitive.
You are at a game show. You have three doors (A, B and C) in front of you, one contains a price, the other two are empty. The host knows which door the price is behind. You select door C.
The host then tells you that the price is NOT behind door A. The question then becomes, what should you do now? There are three possibilities. 1/ You can do nothing or you can change your selection, it doesn't matter. 2/ You can stay with C, it has an increased chance of being the correct one or 3/ You can change, B has an increased chance of being the correct one.
The majority of mathematicians will say that nothing has changed, you can stay or change, it doesn't matter. Presumably so would you. The correct answer is 3, you must change door, it now has a significantly higher probability of being the correct one. That is what happens with selection. Things change and probabilities change.
If there is an event that is inevitable within a certain time frame, each day it doesn't happen chances are it will increase the following day. If the time span is very long, the increase is very slight, but it is still there.
This bears on your pro-gun arguments
If you had any data you would of course present it rather than engaging in rather dumb ad-hominem attacks. Sadly for you, you don't have data, just opinion and conviction. Rather lame places to argue from. I would hope you could do better, but you probably can't, so it probably isn't your fault. Hope you get better though. Dumb-ass-conviction-counter-to-data is difficult to recover from. It usually requires a total brain transplant.
Yes, you do. Remember the four boxes. Soap. Ballot. Jury. Ammo. If the mob is not awakened, you have nobody to shoot if you have to resort to the final box.
Slashdot Mirror
So, you are still incapable of any serious discussion. The only thing you are capable of is ad-hominem attacks and avoiding the issue. I feel sorry for you. For future discussions I would suggest you try to back up your religious theories with some fact and some data. I hope you get well, though I know recovering from a cerebrectomy is hard.
Ah, you've lost your rationality again
Me? You call me a child murder. You have been arguing an utterly tangential point to avoid admitting the fact that your position as to the topic of the discussion has no supporting data. You are quite sad. You can appear less sad by actually arguing for your point.
The fact is I DID point this out to you
No, you actually did not, you still treated such an event in the same way that you treat random events like coin tosses. You are still under the impression they are similar. They are not.
My pre-condition is that there will be an event, and that it is statistically 100% certain. You see, in that case statistical analysis is valid. Given the amount of events, and the time span we have before us, the chances of there being an event at some point in the future is 100%. If there is an event in our future, chances that is tomorrow increases each day that goes by. Irrespective of when that event will occur and our (or anyone else's knowledge of this).
I'll accept your apology.
None will be offered until you stop raping children. And no, the fact that your father and grandfather raped you continuously through your childhood while your mother and grandmother stood on the sideline and cheered is not an excuse. Again, to keep the debate at a level you appear to be comfortable with.
I am also looking forward to any data supporting your position from the original discussion. No such data has ever been presented since you don't have any. None that goes beyond religious notions that is.
So, there is ONE weakness in my statement, the weakness others pointed out but you have not yet. My statement is true, mathematically, if, and only if, the chance of getting hit by an asteroid at some point in the future, that is, before the earth is eaten by the sun, is 100%. You could have gone for that, but you didn't. You should have. The fact that you didn't just shows you are a moron. But hey, everybody else got it. You see, if there is a 100% chance we get hit some time in the future, I am actually correct, but you wouldn't know it, because you still think that whether we get hit is a random event. It isn't.
Touched a nerve? Really? Wow, I didn't think it was actually possible to get this stupid while still being able to write.
It is also interesting to see that you are entirely incapable of posting without a personal attack and utterly incapable of providing data that supports your position. Jesus freaks like you are pretty sad. Maybe one day you'll grow up, but more likely, one day you will go out and rape young boys and then kill your self (just to put the debate at a level you appear to be comfortable with).
Was it hard during your formative years, having your dad and your grand dad raping you repeatedly with your mother and grandmother standing by cheering?
You have quite a lot in common with Anders Breivik, don't you.
Oh what a sad and pathetic individual you are. Really, really sad. I feel really sorry for you.
So far not a single post without a personal attack. So far not a single post containing data points supporting your position. Honestly, I pity you, and the mother who will have to put up with you living in her house for the rest of your life.
Again, slowly, if there is a time in the future when something will happen, we can, if the event happens with some sort of regularity, calculate the probability for it happening within a certain time frame. We use this type of calculation because we lack information. This doesn't give us much, but it is a fun game. It is also irrelevant in this case, since what we are discussing is not when something will happen. What is being debated is whether there is an increase in probability when nothing happens.
So, I'll try again. If there a 100% chance that something will happen at some point in time T1 as measured from a starting point T0 defined as now, every day between T0 and T1, chances of it happening that day increases a little bit.
There are so many objects spinning around here that we know one will hit sooner or later. We have no clue when, but we can guesstimate it based on previous events. That guesstimate is, for this exercise irrelevant. What is relevant, and self-evidently true, is as you move through time from T0 towards T1, irrespective of the actual value of T1, the chances for today being T1 increases ever so slightly. More if T1 has a large value, less with a smaller value. Irrespective of any information we have about T1, we do know that as we move away from T0 we are moving towards T1 and therefore increasing the probability T1 is today. It is linear maths involving nothing but addition. It is also self-evident.
Wow, that is all you have. Personal attacks. From a fucking communist no less (just to stoop to your level as a demonstration of how moronic it is down there). Sorry, your post just proves you are a moron with nothing to say. You can fuck off and continue to suck Stalin's dick (again, to stay at a level you are comfortable with).
and what you are missing is this. If the probability of the earth being hit at some point in the future is 100%, and it actually is, then it doesn't matter. It is irrelevant. If there is a point in the future where the earth will be hit by an asteroid, any day that passes increases the probability that tomorrow is the day. The time in the future where the asteroid is going to hit is irrelevant, it is also irrelevant whether we can calculate it. If it is there, every day we get closer to it, and every day, chances of it being tomorrow increases.
the odds for a strike are not influenced by the time since the last strike
Nobody ever said they were. What the odds are influenced by is the time until the next strike. The future is influenced by the future, not the past. In the case of a deterministic situation. A future coin toss is not deterministic at all (unless you go into metaphysics), since it is not governed by known laws of physics as you claim. If it is, please tell me which laws of physics applies, prior to the toss, to the person tossing the coin. Which laws of physics govern his choice of time for tossing the coin? Which deterministic laws of physics determine the force, angle and spin with which the tosser will toss? Answer is none. The coin analogy is nothing like an analogy.
Let's examine time T, where there is an asteroid strike in our future, and there is also a coin toss in our future. Given perfect information about the coin and the asteroid, is it in any way possible to calculate anything about the two? For the asteroid, yes, I can calculate it's position at any time in the future. How about the coin? No, I can not. Whether the coin ends up heads or tail is impossible to know, even if I know everything about the coin. I do not, you see, know anything about the toss. Nothing at all. Also, it is not possible to find out anything about the toss.
So, no, the coin toss analogy does not apply in any way at all.
Stalin was an evil man, he was Atheist, and he killed people because they were religious. Period.
"Stalin was an evil man, he had brown hair, and he killed people because they were religious. Period." - that makes as much sense. You are dancing on thin ice and it is breaking. I can even do one better. Hitler was a devout Christian. He was evil. He killed people for their religious convictions. I would never dream of claiming he did those things because he was a Christian, I am not completely retarded. He did however, as opposed to any atheist, have justifications within his faith for his actions.
Don't be a moron.
and Atheist logic to do so
That is simply a lie. I thought you superstitious lunatics were not supposed to lie. Oh, I forget, lying comes natural to you. It is when OTHER people lie you have problems.
To suggest that Atheism isn't the reason why Atheist states persecute those that have faith, is simply delusional on your part
Not only is it not delusional, it is pure logic. There is nothing in atheism that can be used to justify anything at all, not killing, not stealing, nothing. Atheism has no beliefs and can therefore not be used to justify anything but non-belief. The problem here is that you are showing that you have no ability to think at all. You are regurgitating nonsense spouted by some father figure you adore, no thought process behind it whatsoever.
You can prove me wrong by explaining which specific tenets of atheism can be used to justify murder. I can list many, many from Christianity.
You can also spend some time explaining to the rest of the world why the vast majority of people in jail are Christians Please don't use "jail time conversion" as an argument, their religiosity was registered prior to them entering prison. If people go Christian in Jail the number of Christians in jail is even higher than the official.
It would also help if you could explain why murder, abortion, divorce and (apparently) telling lies is so much more prevalent among Christians than atheists. Please, explain it.
Of all the asteroids that strike earth of a given size, one of them is the last.
You are quite right, but then again, the probability of earth having seen the last one (given the number of asteroids in orbit around the sun) that probability is so low that it can be easily set to zero. I mean, we are still talking billions of bodies, most obviously not big enough for an extinction event, but still. That is a lot of rocks (pr ice cubes).
one of them is the last
Yes, but that is, with a probability that is equal to 100% in reality, quite a bit further into the future. In fact, the most likely reason they are going to stop dropping onto earth is that the earth is no longer there to receive them, having been vaporized by the giant star the Sun has turned into.
Cool, didn't know 5m would be enough. From what I had read eons ago, it seemed more was needed. 5m is cool though.
and I have corrected you... and you still have not shown us a single data point supporting your religious notions.
Oh, and are you ever going to present data that supports your notions?
This appears to be hard for you to understand. I'll do it slowly. Try to put aside your notions for a moment.
There is a very, very small chance that an asteroid will never again hit earth. The probability of this is so fantastically small that we can basically discard it out of hand. It's going to happen.
Now to the actual event. The asteroids in question are governed by basic orbital physics, there are some slightly more complex pieces to this, namely the mass of the asteroid, which changes ever so slightly, but not randomly at times. So, given perfect information, it is possible to determine which asteroid will hit us, and when. Sadly we do not have perfect information, we probably are not even able to get it. We don't need it for you to be wrong.
There is an asteroid A out there that will hit us at time T. Both A and T are well defined, and both A and T are deterministic, not random and they do not change over time. They are determined by the current orbital velocity and mass of A, Earth and other celestial bodies (who are also governed by orbital mechanics). Not random. Deterministic. So, T is set. Every day that is not T brings us closer to T in unknown increments. The increments, as well as T are only available to us through statistics, but that is not due to the nature of A, T and Earth, it is due to our lack of information.
Are you saying that the path of a given asteroid is entirely random? Are you saying that the current location and orbital velocity of the asteroid that eventually will hit earth is random? They are not.
Who knows when the asteroid hits? Probably nobody. Physics does though. The asteroid that eventually will hit earth is currently in an orbit that will make it crash into earth. You could say that the asteroid it self, in it's current orbit "knows" that it will hit earth in so far that it, in its current position and orbital velocity holds the answer to that.
The fact that we do not know when the asteroid will hit doesn't mean it is random, it only appears that we think it is random because you have no knowledge of physics, orbital mechanics or basic astronomy. The date for the impact has been set. It was set a long time ago. We just don't know it. That is irrelevant. Though it does make it necessary for us to use probabilities in calculating. Not because the hit is random, but simply because we do not know all the parameters. That doesn't mean it is random though. Far from it.
Now you can try to argue your point since you have been proven wrong in all your attacks on my position.
Oh, and I thought I'd elaborate a little more about Uncle Bob, since you seem not to understand why we, as in "earth scientists" use probabilities in dealing with Uncle Bob's visit when it is governed entirely by deterministic maths. Let me try to explain.
Uncle Bob has decided on a date of arrival. He is 20 years old. We do not know the date of his arrival, but we know that each day it is getting slightly more probable that he will arrive. We can not know by how much it increases, but we do know that it does. So, what can we do to be prepared for his arrival? We can find out when it is more likely he will arrive. Bob's 20, he'll be able to make visits like this until he's 80. So, that gives us a 60 year time span. On average, he'll pop by in 30 years, or about 11000 days. So, on average, the chances of tomorrow being the day for the visits increases by 1/11000.
Remember, again, the date for Uncle Bob's visit is set. It isn't going to change. It isn't random by any measure. Therefore every day he doesn't drop by, chances of it being tomorrow increases ever so slightly.
Now, instead of continuing to be an arrogant moron and spouting nonsensical rubbish. Try with some data please. Preferably some that support your claims. If you can find them.
Already covered. The only fool here is you. You are essentially claiming that asteroid hits are random events in the same way that coin tosses are. That is an absurd notion. Absurd in the extreme. The date for the impact is well known and pre determined. It is just not known by us.
So, sorry, you have made a fool out of your self.
Now, to your points.
Unlike the coin or the asteroids or the lottery, Uncle Bob DOES have a memory
Ah, but you see, asteroids, like coins, can have memories when selection is involved. There are a few asteroids that sooner or later are going to hit us. They follow certain rules, and it isn't a question of if, but simply of when. Their "memory" is basically the laws of physics. The fact that we do not KNOW which orbit it is the asteroid will hit us doesn't mean that each orbit is random. It isn't. This means that between now and some unknown point in time (unknown to us just because we have not bee able to calculate it yet) the asteroid will hit. So, if there is, irrespective of our knowledge of it, a point in time in the future when it will hit, each round it doesn't, the probability it is the next passing will go up.
Whether you, me or uncle Bob KNOWS the time is irrelevant. As long as there is a time it will hit, each day will bring us inexorably closer to that time, and each day will have a higher likelihood of being "the" day.
The problem for us is that we do not know it, so we can not calculate the possibility, we can know that the probability increases but not by how much. Let's get back to Bob. Some event, process unknown to us, sets the date for Bobs arrival. Bob doesn't know. The only thing known is that it will happen. Does that change anything? Yes, it does. It removes the knowledge of how much chances increases each day that Bob will drop by. We know it increases, but not by how much. Same with the asteroid. There is one out there. Physics says it'll hit. It is "pre-determined". We know this. We also know that if we can find all candidates, we will be able to tell which asteroid and at what time. Orbital physics isn't that hard. So, yes, today we know that there is a fixed time and place in the future where i big whopper is going to hit. Each day that passes brings that day closer (or in other words, increases chances it is tomorrow).
Let me do this slowly for you once again. The asteroid will hit. It will hit at a set, well-known, pre-determined date in the future. The only problem is the "well-known" part. We don't know that. Is that relevant? Again, with uncle Bob, if we did not know the date he was dropping by, would it change the fact that each day he didn't drop by increase the chance that tomorrow is the day? No, it doesn't. Lack of knowledge on our part is irrelevant. It only means we can no calculate how the probability changes. We still know that the change is positive, in other words, the probability increases. Asteroid hits are not random events, they follow very specific, very well known, rules.
you are unable to differentiate between stiffness of gun control legislation stats, and guns per person stats
What is the purpose of gun control legislation of the type enacted in the UK? Does it have anything to do with reducing the number of guns per person?
But hey, you can continue with retarded ad-hominems, or you can actually present some data supporting your notions. Your inability to do so thus far puts you in the "sad and pathetic" category when coupled with the dumb stuff you actually write.
Incorrect
No, it isn't really. It is in fact quite correct. The chance of getting hit by an asteroid is infinitesimally small. Chances of getting killed by one is a lot higher. According to Alan Harris, any persons lifetime odds of being killed by an asteroid is about 1:700 000. Not high, but higher than getting killed by a terrorist.
History doesn't really matter. What is relevant is future. Remember, if a big one hits, that is about 6 billion people dead. So, that drives the odds up quite significantly.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/10/13/death-by-meteorite/#.UMotd2_BGSo
As I said, if you had anything more than ad-hominem, you would have presented it. Clearly you do not.
Likewise
No, not likewise, and you are the one not understanding statistics here. Let me try to explain. On Sunday you receive the following information: Uncle Bob will be dropping by this week. On Sunday, the possibility he will drop by is 1/7 for each day of that week. What is the case on Monday if Bob didn't stop by on Sunday? Still 1/7? No, of course not. The only one not understanding statistics here is you. You use statistics the same way Creationists use it, not understanding the simple process of "selection".
Here is another example of selection that for most people is counter intuitive.
You are at a game show. You have three doors (A, B and C) in front of you, one contains a price, the other two are empty. The host knows which door the price is behind. You select door C.
The host then tells you that the price is NOT behind door A. The question then becomes, what should you do now? There are three possibilities. 1/ You can do nothing or you can change your selection, it doesn't matter. 2/ You can stay with C, it has an increased chance of being the correct one or 3/ You can change, B has an increased chance of being the correct one.
The majority of mathematicians will say that nothing has changed, you can stay or change, it doesn't matter. Presumably so would you. The correct answer is 3, you must change door, it now has a significantly higher probability of being the correct one. That is what happens with selection. Things change and probabilities change.
If there is an event that is inevitable within a certain time frame, each day it doesn't happen chances are it will increase the following day. If the time span is very long, the increase is very slight, but it is still there.
This bears on your pro-gun arguments
If you had any data you would of course present it rather than engaging in rather dumb ad-hominem attacks. Sadly for you, you don't have data, just opinion and conviction. Rather lame places to argue from. I would hope you could do better, but you probably can't, so it probably isn't your fault. Hope you get better though. Dumb-ass-conviction-counter-to-data is difficult to recover from. It usually requires a total brain transplant.
You don't want to wake up the mobs.
Yes, you do. Remember the four boxes. Soap. Ballot. Jury. Ammo. If the mob is not awakened, you have nobody to shoot if you have to resort to the final box.