The Lounge is rated PG. If you're about to post something you wouldn't want your
kid sister to read then don't post it. No flame wars, no abusive conduct, no programming
questions and please don't post ads.
You have that and those poor insane people who drive 2hrs. to work each way.
In all seriousness, I think people like inconvenience and hardship. In my mind it's the only thing that wraps up the change in healthcare and people waiting in line to watch a game. People like lines, noise, expense, confusion, disarray and discomfort. Perhaps each person is just a little bit suicidal are they feel bad when things go well, hence the need to turn it over to government so it can get good and elephanted up.
I'll never understand why a nation full of people
upset at how they are treated by the IRS and the DMV would vote to commit their
health care system to the same people. Despite the complaining, it's clear that
people like inefficient service, long lines, ridiculous rules, and great
Err...have you had a great deal of experience with the current system?
One can suppose that the current system is efficient - for the insurance companies. One can further suppose that those same companies do not care about the efficiency for the patients. Nor the cost.
As an example of this one need look no further than why hospitals are closing their emergency rooms.
A different system might be worse. But the current system is getting worse and there is no evidence that it will not continue to get worse. So something else needs to be tried.
To get health care you need to have a doctor helping a patient.
Trim the vast majority of the bureaucracy from the system and have the patient pay the doctor directly.
Currently our health care has to cover a huge insurance industry, tons of government officials, boatloads of lawsuits and other overhead. Ultimately, the patients are paying for all of that because the money has to come from somewhere. Once you realize that all the money comes from the patients - all of it - then the illusion of a $10 co-pay lie is revealed.
Because each doctor visit also includes 3 laywers they all have to be paid.
Adding two more lawyers, three government officals, and support staff to the equation cannot make the price go down or improve the system. That is impossible.
Cut 'em out entirely.
Obama is adding to the overhead - whether through taxes, increased premiums, compromised service, or some back door tax we will be paying for that additional overhead one way or another. NO way to avoid it.
Go the other way.
Everyone knows this is true instinctively, unfortunately, people are so invested in their political choices that they'd compromise their own health to make sure their guy wins.
Why can't I be applicable like John? - Me, April 2011 ----- Beidh ceol, caint agus craic againn - Seán Bán Breathnach ----- Da mihi sis crustum Etruscum cum omnibus in eo! ----- Just because a thing is new don’t mean that it’s better - Will Rogers, September 4, 1932
Assuming a total of six colours in a bag, with an even distribution of colours, the odds of pulling out six different colours are approximately:
5/6 * 4/6 * 3/6 * 2/6 * 1/6 = 120/7776 = 0.0154... = 1.5%
Assuming your Lotto is the same as ours (pick 6 numbers from 49 to win), the odds of winning are:
1 / 13983816 = 7.15E-08 = 0.00000715%
Sounds like a good bet to me!
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
"All packages were 1.69 ounces and were from the same 48-count box. "
There's the flaw in his research; using samples from one box. Thousands of boxes are filled hourly, and the stated percentages are composites measured over a much longer span. The process variability is probably within the Mars company's quality limits, when measued over a month or a quarter, even though some days the line may produce significant deviations.
A better experiment could be designed, purchasing a single bag from multiple vending machines in different parts of town, to minimize the probability that all bags came from the same box, and to repeat the purchasing over a span of several weeks to fill the sample set of 48 bags. This would probably agree more closely with company published expected percentages.
I suspect I shall have to perform this experiment myself, if we are to get to the bottom of this, as the experimenter appears to be satisfied with his faulty thinking and results, and is unlikely to refine the experiment. It's an onerous task, but inquiring minds want to know!
[Edit] This cannot be true, as the result must necessarily be dependent on the total number of m&m's in the bag : if you have six m&m's in a bag, each one of different color, then the probability of picking 6 m&m's of different color is ... 100%, not 1.5%.
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus
Do not feed the troll ! - Common proverb