Search results

Actually it's the knowledge that the box you initially picked has 1/n chance of being right and a (n-1)/n chance of being wrong. When given the chance to move off of my (n-1)/n chance of being wrong, you should take it, especially as n gets larger. Hence my illustration of an infinite number...

Let's change what's in the boxes just for illustrative purposes (it actually doesn't change the odds). I'm going to put number 1 - 20 under 20 different boxes. You're goal is to pick the box with a 20 under it. After you make your first pick, I remove 18 "wrong" choices, showing you 18...

Texas A&M University School of Law It was Texas Wesleyan when I attended, then A&M bought them. And you've been wrong the whole time. The math works better to illustrate the idea when there are an infinite number of boxes to choose from. If there are an infinite number, your first choice is...

Independent. Juris Doctor. Now, refute the statement that the game ends up the same every time no matter which box you initially picked. You have a 50/50 in the second choice. The first choice is meaningless whether you picked the winner or not.

Given the way the problem is laid out, the first choice is a false choice. The game ends up the same whether you beat the odds the first time and chose the winning box or not. In the end you have the choice of TWO boxes. The one you initially picked and the box the host didn't open. One is...

Belicheat getting cheated somehow seems poetic, not a controversy.

His kids probably already have them.... he's been dead for 3 years.

I guess if you play for the money, then that is an appropriate response. Some organizations play for the ring.

The New York Yankees over the past 4 years?

Don't give up too quick. You are still in a division with a rookie head coach from college, Romo and Mike Shannahan. The NFC East champion could be a 7 win team.

LeBron Predicts - Not 2, Not 3, Not 4... - YouTube Eli took this entirely the wrong way....

At least Romo has something that Eli doesn't.... A WIN! Or 2.

Watching Eli play just makes me thankful my team has Romo as the QB. (low blow, but had to be said)

I basically had this conversation with a very liberal Constitutional Law professor at the law school I attended. Her position was that affirmative action is still necessary because of years of systemic racism keeping blacks disadvantaged. Her reasoning as to why white peoe today should be denied...

Maybe a bit more accurate?

Well it could have been Obama. And what African-American is going to think killing the President is justified?

Well you did side with the British in 1812. Seems like a natural progression to me.

Don't worry guys. John McCain is on the case. And while states are at it, maybe they should review teen curfew laws also. Since they had as much to do with the Zimmerman case as SYG did. http://www.huffpost.com/us/entry/3631171

This is probably a question for a different thread, but I think given the track of this thread I'll plop it here anyway. If we agree (or do we) that the media is more sensational than informative and more myopic in each individual outlets political/social view, do we need to rethink the...

God made man. Sam Colt made them equal.

Erm, yes. Zimmerman was required to complete a firearms safety course. By definition he was trained to use a firearm which constitutes training in use of deadly force.

Almost every single "fact" you sight is wrong. 1). He was defending himself. 2). He was following a suspicious person which is a very good reason. 3). He was trained in the use of deadly force. 4). Martin did go looking for Zimmerman following their initial contact.

Ah then yes I was missing something. Stupid case laws always limiting jurisdiction. Oh well. Carry on. I would read it all but I couldn't bill for it so ill take your word on it. :-)

Zimmerman deprived him of hit right to live. The statute doesn't require racism at all to apply. Should I link it?

Cad, are you familiar with 42 USC Sec 1983? The only case I have worked that dealt with it involved a state funded hospital so we had a state actor that would obviously be covered by Federal statute in violating civil rights, but I'm curious if you think the statute as written could be applied...

Here I won't even make you goggle it. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/.../0776.032.html

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/.../0784.011.html Actually there is MORE than enough evidence to prove Martin guilty of assault.

While carrying an AR-15 and decked out like Rambo in First Blood. Lets not forget that part.

Riiiiiight. Because criminals will obviously obey the law and not carry guns illegally at all. And outlawing murder has obviously stopped all wrongful killings across America. Your arguments are thick on emotion and light on logic. Are you a Florida DA by chance?

If you believe the prosecution's line of events (which you don't, but just saying), you should not speak to, approach, or in any way draw the attention of young black men. By doing so you are provoking a violent confrontation.

Actually if he did that I would expect the State to seek an indictment on Murder 1. No double jeopardy would apply in that case.

Are we playing Price is Right rules? I will take 3 pm edt Monday. Edit: forgot tomorrow is Saturday.

If you feel sad, Zimmerman is bad!!

However in an amazing twist of historic irony a lynch mob of exactly 100 years ago today would have seen a very progressive Democrat in the White House.

Sure he did. He just ignored it and responded to what he wanted it to say.

What the prosecution needs is a Johnny Cochran moment. "If you feel sad then Zimmerman is bad!!"

Which as you well know, juries have been known to do. Predicting verdicts is like betting 00 on a single spin of a roulette wheel. Which is why I laugh anytime I actually see someone trying to predict the outcome. (I know you aren't but others here have.)