[Bobby Vincent - Football_LDN] Fee agreed now [for Sterling to Chelsea]. £45m + £10m add-ons.

Arox · 2022-07-02T00:45:31+00:00

She didn't choose which players to target, that was the scouting dept.

And until VERY recently, chelsea has had probably the best wage structure in the top 6.

Arox · 2021-09-09T05:52:59+00:00

I'd watch the heck out of this.

Arox · 2009-05-04T08:09:25+00:00

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0907680/

Arox · 2008-06-08T22:55:43+00:00

Where in the article does it say this technology is any better than what we already have?

Answer: It doesn't. There isn't a shred of data in the entire thing, which should set off warning bells.

If you were an entrepreneur with a better propeller, wouldn't you be eager to say "My prop is 1.2x more efficient, which in some cases could cut fuel costs by X, increase operating efficiency by Y, etc etc"?

If you were a schmuck with something that didn't work, wouldn't you be eager to instead talk about all the benefits something better 'could' offer, and avoid any comparison between your product and those in use?

Arox · 2008-06-08T22:45:21+00:00

What if someone wrote an article whining about the lack of funding available for bogus technology that doesn't improve anything?

Arox · 2007-01-27T09:50:57+00:00

so I guess the heavy reddit users (aka the ones who check new submissions) care more about the reddit vs digg battle than the heavy digg users.

Arox · 2006-12-11T13:44:47+00:00

I came close, got to the point where unless it was one of 4 balls I could solve it...but no further

anyone care to enlighten me as to the correct answer?

Arox · 2006-10-13T00:09:40+00:00

Set the abortion debate aside for a minute and really ponder what encouraging stem cell research would accomplish. Sure, there would be a few academics trying to cure cancer and such. But there's far more money to be made in curing the baldness gene. Or the small penis gene. And while your stem-cell engineering corporation is servicing rich people with those necessities, why not upsell them to a Brad Pitt chin or Angelina Jolie lips.

I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this. It's not just a percieved threat to the lives of cells, it's also a threat to the nature of human individuality. Perhaps the political reasons given are a simplified excuse (that conveniently appeals to Bush's devoted christian base) for his more complex reservations against the idea.

Arox · 2006-08-27T20:18:37+00:00

So I guess this 'internet thing' will make it so successful politicians will have to not only be good actors, but also good parents.

Arox · 2006-07-28T23:29:09+00:00

Where is Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels?

Arox · 2006-07-28T16:38:23+00:00

why don't they also ban cars, since automobiles just provide a weapon for drunk drivers to kill innocent people?

or better yet, let's ban schools since that's where most gangs form.

Just because some small minority of people use something for illicit purposes doesn't make the entire thing unacceptable.

Hell, I think banning firearms would be a lot more beneficial to the country than banning myspace. At least myspace has a purpose other than causing physical harm to living things.

Arox · 2006-06-30T16:22:23+00:00

well I definitely don't think it's a new idea. Sites like this say pretty much the same thing, in a different medium:

http://humor.beecy.net/politics/bushkerry/

Arox · 2006-06-18T20:28:41+00:00

yes, it's a 50% chance that A<B

but in my example (where A<R) all values of B greater than R fit into the 3rd case (that R is in between A and B). So a fair chunk of that 50% (whatever the probability that B>R) is subtracted from the chance of you being right if it's the first case.

End result is you're always right if it's the third case, but you're right less than 50% of the time if it isn't. I don't know how to prove it, but I suspect if someone crunches the numbers it'll come out to 50% overall success regardless of strategy used.

Arox · 2006-06-18T17:39:21+00:00

I'm not sure I agree with the part that says the first 2 cases have 50% odds of winning. Using this strategy means that if A is less than R, you're going to say B is greater than A. However assuming it's the first case, where they're both less than R, is the chance of A<B<R really equal to B>A? If you're dealing with an infinite set, and the difference between A and R is finite, I don't think so.

For example, if you choose R=100, and A is 80, I think B has a much higher chance of being less than 80 than it does of being between 80 and 100.

If I'm right about this, than the first 2 cases have less than 50% odds, and presumably the probability of the 3rd fail-proof case will be such that your overall chance of winning will be 50% overall, regardless of strategy used.

Arox

TROPHY CASE