Sorry, I have to say it.
"J. R. Molloy" wrote:
> He also observes that it is impossible to set a percentage, because any
> number we choose will be too small.
Even 100%? ^_^;
> Third (and Golden) Law
> A stupid person is someone who causes damage to another person, or a group
> of people, without any advantage accruing to himself (or herself) -- or
> even with some resultant self-damage.
Counterpoint: what about a gambler who rolls the die knowing the
following odds of results:
* 10% - gambler and a certain number of gambler's friends lose $1000
* 90% - gambler and a certain number of gambler's friends gain $1000000
If the gambler rolls and loses, was the gambler stupid, given that the
gambler could only possibly act on the probabilistic knowledge present
before the die was rolled? What about while the gambler is rolling -
is the gambler stupid before the die is rolled, since the action has
been taken but no damage has yet been done, or does the result (after
the gambler has let go of the die) make the gambler stupid? What if
the gambler then rolled again, knowing that the odds were the same; is
the gambler more stupid, and if so, at what point (upon making the
decision to roll, upon rolling, upon and only if another negative
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:59:41 MDT