jcd11235

Code name "Humpty Dumpty". Don Don't listen to them, Ron. You're a good egg! Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Yes, because the loser pays the vigorish. That's an indication of the effectiveness of the models developed by the oddsmakers. If the models weren't reasonably accurate and unbiased, the sportsbooks in Las Vegas could make no money, because most bettors would wager on the side that provides the highest expected value. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

As does a healthy labor force. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Bing is. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

A proud graduate of the Klingon Language Institute? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Source Article This could be an interesting case, for surprising reasons. "A new lawsuit is boldly going where no man has gone before. "Paramount Pictures and CBS are suing the producers of a Star Trek fan film for copyright infringement. The studios own the copyright to the Star Trek franchise, including six television shows and 12 movies. … "The reason this matters — whether you can copyright a language — is related to programming. Is computer code a language, and can you copyright it? It goes to a long-running case between Oracle and Google. The Hollywood Reporter summarizes: 'In a nutshell, Oracle looks to protect its Java API code from Google's attempt to use some of it for its Android software. A federal appeals court ruled in May 2014 that one could indeed copyright an API, leading to a collective freak-out by many in the tech industry.' Charles Duan at Slate explains that 'computer networking technology depends on languages, like the Wi-Fi protocol, so that multiple computers can communicate and understand one another.' If languages can be copyrighted, it would stifle innovation and create monopolies, he argues. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

So 6000 years, less five days? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I think you are assuming quite a bit. In particular your use of the word "clearly" in your first sentence. What evidence is there which makes it clear? He was given zero chance by most pundits when he threw his hat in the ring, and he's now the last man standing. He has played the media like a violin to receive free airtime. He defeated Jeb Bush, who was a fairly well like governor in an important swing state, to say nothing of his political pedigree. He defeated Kasich and Rubio, two other sane candidates. He also defeated Cruz who, while perhaps accurately described as Lucifer by John Boehner, was a Tea Party darling. Everything Trump has done thus far, he has done on his terms, making everyone else play by his rules. Trump has managed to blatantly lie without repercussion, even when called out on it. Incredibly, in doing so, he has retained support from prospective voters who are, as one described himself to me recently, "tired of lying politicians." He escapes criticism for flip-flopping into nearly all possible positions of an issue, depending on the group to which he happens to be pandering in that moment. I'm reminded of The Russian And Molokov, from Anderson, Ulvaeus, & Rice's Chess: MOLOKOV: The man is utterly mad. You're playing a lunatic. THE RUSSIAN: That's the problem. He's a brilliant lunatic, and you can't tell which way he'll jump. Like his game he's impossible to analyse. You can't dissect him, predict him. Which of course means he's not a lunatic at all. … THE RUSSIAN: I don't need my army of so-called 'advisors' and helpers to tell me the man who's revitalised chess single-handed is more or less out of his brain, when it's very clear he's sane. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

It will be interesting to see what changes Trump makes after the Republican convention. Once he has the nomination, I'll not be surprised if he becomes the more liberal of the two candidates, attacking Clinton from the left. He clearly has a plan. Less clear is what that plan is. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Considering the thinly veiled racist clickbait article to which you linked as though it is a credible source of information, I'm not surprised you feel that way. Nonetheless, the article to which I linked provides credible supporting sources, something you've failed to do. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Metalslug provided a link to a Windows 7 ISO download in post 12 of this thread. At this point, it sounds like you're simply looking for an excuse to buy another computer. If that's what you want to spend your money on, you shouldn't need validation from anyone here. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

No it wouldn't. Bet on a coin toss in Vegas, and you'll have to lay down $110 for a chance to win $100. That extra $10 is the vigorish. The vigorish is the primary source of gambling profits. Without it, Vegas would be a ghost town because oddsmakers tend to be pretty good at developing accurate estimators. That's their goal (in the majority of cases, where they don't possess information not available to the general public), because bettors are allowed to wager on either side. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

No, it absolutely does not. If it did, then we could simply wait until after the election and then claim that the probability of [insert winning candidate's name] winning the election was exactly 1 all along. That would be absurd. The true probability changes as the available information changes. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

An immortal jellyfish seems unlikely, right? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

That depends on how much confidence the bookmaker has in the estimator. It also depends on whether previous wagers are part of the model. As more information is fed into the model, the resulting estimate can change. Which would apply to closing odds, not opening odds which was what OP posted. You're talking about two different probabilities as though they should be the same. The probability that Clinton wins the election given the information publicly available in May is different from the probability that Clinton is elected given the information publicly available in early November. The two values do not have to be similar to both be accurate. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Assuming you have a link to a legal, downloadable copy of Windows, your local public librarian will more than likely be happy to download it for you. 2 day shipping from Dell; windows 10. Earlier in the thread, a link to download Windows 7 was provided. There's no need to order from Dell. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Assuming you have a link to a legal, downloadable copy of Windows, your local public librarian will more than likely be happy to download it for you. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

No it isn't. A $10 billion bet, if accepted at a bettinghouse, would dramatically change the payout ratios. It won't drastically change the mind of voters and hence the odds of election don't actually change. No, it wouldn't. Not directly, anyway. This isn't parimutuel betting. It's fixed odds betting. The odds are changed manually and only apply to future wagers. Such a bet as you propose would not be accepted, because the bookmaker knows that there's either a 75% probability of losing $3.33 billion or a 25% probability of losing $30 billion (depending only upon which candidate the bettor bets). It's too much risk. It's no different from an insurance company electing to not sell a $10 billion life insurance policy on a single individual. Selling the policy or not doesn't affect the probability of the individuals death (by a covered cause) during the coverage period. It just represents too much financial risk. It's a meaningless distinction between true probabilities and probability estimates because most real world probabilities are based on parameter estimates; true parameter values are unknown and, largely, unknowable, since the entire population cannot be measured. That doesn't mean the estimates are inaccurate or biased. Quite the opposite, they are usually quite good. Consider Nate Silver's electoral college predictions for the last two presidential elections. Do you really believe he just flipped a coin for each state and got lucky? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Here's an informative, well-cited, and objective article on the topic. It's much less sensationalist than the tabloid quality piece provided by the OP. Neighborhood-Based Subsidy Caps Can Make Housing Vouchers More Efficient and Effective "The voucher program’s performance in broadening housing choices for participants can profoundly affect children’s long-term well-being. Research finds that children whose families used vouchers to move to low-poverty neighborhoods when they were young were more likely to attend college, less likely to become single parents, and earned significantly more as adults. In addition, adults who moved to lower-poverty neighborhoods experienced substantial gains in mental and physical health. … "In practice, voucher subsidy costs have fallen in areas where SAFMRs have been implemented, although it is possible that factors other than SAFMRs may have played a role in those declines. The average annual cost of a voucher in the Dallas area fell by $375 or about 5 percent from 2010 (just before SAFMRs went into effect) through 2014, without adjusting for inflation, HUD administrative data show. Average voucher costs rose by 2 percent both in the neighboring Fort Worth area and nationally during that period. At the five agencies in the SAFMR demonstration, average voucher costs fell by 5 percent from 2012 through 2014." Amazingly, the OP is trying to spin lower costs and better outcomes as a bad thing. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

One also has to factor in their tax contributions, e.g., sales tax, property tax, income tax, much of which they can receive no return on, e.g., social security. "At the federal level, undocumented immigrants tend to contribute more money in taxes than they consume in services, however, the net economic costs or benefts to state and local governments varies throughout the U.S." Source I don't know where the quote is - but the IRS actually encourages illegals to obtain false SSNs. And yes - they do send refunds out to those false ones as well. I don't want to take the time to Google it, but you can if you want. Interesting straw man you've built up. I suspect it's lost on you that it actually supports my point rather than discrediting it. It just shows that undocumented immigrants often pay income taxes. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

That's a meaningless distinction. The true probability, and hence the true odds, cannot be calculated and are not known. It's not like selecting red and white ball from urns in which we know the proportion of each color. It's much more like trying to calculate the probability of the Buffalo Bills beating the Seattle Seahawks on Monday, November 7, 2016. In the real world (as opposed to ball and urn problems), we rarely know true population parameters. We have to rely on estimates. The best estimates we have of the true probability are the probability provided by sportsbooks and other statistical analysts, e.g., Nate Silver. They've put significant time and energy (and, in most cases, money) into making sure their estimators as accurate and unbiased as possible. In the case of the probability provided by oddsmakers via the sportsbooks, if a bettor believes that the given probability that, for example, Clinton wins, is too high, then they place a wager on Trump. If they think it's too low, then they place a wager on Clinton. Or, perhaps a bettor feels like the probability of a Clinton win is going to approach 0.5 as voters get more information about the candidates and their policies. In that case, they might place a wager on Trump now and a similar sized wager on Clinton in early November. If Trump wins, their winnings will more than cover the loss from their wager on Clinton, and if Clinton wins, they'll still (approximately) break even. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

As determined by; 1) People who place bets. 2) People NOT US citizens (since it's illegal for them to place those bets). None of that is particularly scientific in terms of determining who will win. Actually, it's determined by the oddsmakers who work for the bookies. It's a safe bet (so to speak) that their methodology is more scientific than nearly all of the individual bettors. The line can move, and often does in response to more people placing bets on one side than the other (among other reasons), but it's still fixed odds betting, not parimutuel betting. The bettors don't directly set the odds collectively. The odds are fixed at time of betting. If you place a bet at 1:3 on Clinton, you'll win $1 for each $3 you lay, even if the odds change to 1:4 later (at which point you'd need to lay $4 to win the same $1). Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

For example, 1/3, i.e., one to three against, means you pay $3 for a chance to win $1 (plus the return of your $3) if Clinton wins. In other words, the odds suggest Clinton has a 75% chance of winning in November (disregarding the bookie's rake). Just a reminder that the bolded part is false. Odds are set based on expected betting as well as actual betting. They have very little to do with the actual possibility of an outcome. No, it was correct as I wrote it. Probability can be directly obtained from odds and vice versa. ETA: http://www.had2know.com/academics/calculate-odds-probability.html Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

One also has to factor in their tax contributions, e.g., sales tax, property tax, income tax, much of which they can receive no return on, e.g., social security. "At the federal level, undocumented immigrants tend to contribute more money in taxes than they consume in services, however, the net economic costs or benefts to state and local governments varies throughout the U.S." Source Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Why do you find it disturbing when people conduct their business ethically? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!