Even if you’ve never won an office raffle, a sports pool or a lottery, consider yourself supremely lucky. Unlike the atomic bomb victims who were recognized by President Barack Obama’s visit to Hiroshima, you’ve never experienced the horrors of nuclear war.
You can't spell "fail" without O-B-A-M-A. Hope/change--gag.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Never forget the sound effects...
Worry about Trump? Hillary scares me, her irrational remarks about Putin being Hitler, her friendship with Vickie, the cookie lady, Nuland, wife of king Neocon Robert Kagan, one of the founders of PNAC, and endorser of Hillary, and instigator of the Coup in Ukraine. Then there is Hillary's intention of creating a no fly zone in Syria, which would bring about a direct hostile confrontation with Russia. Russia is no more likely to accept NATO missiles in Crimea than the U. S was willing to permit U. S. S. R.'s missiles in Cuba, Crimea is closer to Russia, much closer, than Cuba is to the United States, not to mention Crimea's 300 year history as being part of Russia. Clinton's saber rattling should scare all sane people.
I want to believe the good things Trump has to say on some issues like foreign policy, but I just can't. Still it's interesting to read, from John Pilger::
“Only Donald Trump has said anything meaningful and critical of US
foreign policy,” wrote Stephen Cohen, emeritus professor of Russian
History at Princeton and NYU, one of the few Russia experts in the
United States to speak out about the risk of war.
In a radio broadcast, Cohen referred to critical questions Trump
alone had raised. Among them: why is the United States “everywhere on
the globe”? What is NATO’s true mission? Why does the US always pursue
regime change in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Ukraine? Why does Washington treat
Russia and Vladimir Putin as an enemy?
The received wisdom seems to be “hold your nose” and vote for Clinton:
anyone but Trump. That way, you stop the monster and preserve a system
gagging for another war.
"Russia is no more likely to accept" - imo, it may be years away, but I think the Russians will act on those missiles at some point. From this article: "More recently some US officials have conceded the move is meant as a “show of force” against Russia"
Here is Professor Cohen on The John Batchelor Show. Irony of ironies, John Batchelor, a sophisticated conservative, is about the only outlet Professor Cohen has for his studied, rational, and expert analysis of Russia:
Trump is no fool. He is RANDOM, however. There is a very deep game being played.
"You and I are not in the big club." --George Carlin
exactly. like in pacific 'theatre'...we daily antagonize China which MAKES all our disposable sh!t. very 'smart' as drumpf would say. WE are the only nation continually arm!ng everybody and destabilizing planet for geopolitical reasons....we are FORCING nations such as Russia and China to work together b/c of our aggress!on...only constant brainwashing and propaganda could persuade anybody otherwise....and of course israel are the 'pac!fists' says AIPAC...ignore reality of teens throw!ng rocks for f98uCk sake and then razing entire neighborhood or preventing flotilla from reaching starving people in open air ghetto israel created....that is all just 'proportionate' response says Congress!!! if they say anything at all.
most ignore how dysfunctional GOP Congress has become due to racism and petty bullsh!t. now supreme court is dysfunctional...MSM won't report how NOTHING has been done in supreme court and they just say 'no comment' essentially which GOP dont care about until something affects them or there is some anti something bill and they cant reverse something positive....THEN they will care....but by then due to GOP everything is too partisan to prob ever be remedied in this generation.
As a student of probability and statistics, I didn't learn a lot about the real world. But I did learn one this:
If you play Russian roulette long enough you'll blow your brains out.
Good one!, but what's the probability of 1000 rolls with no 6? Or what's the probability of 100 incidents with no disaster? )
No, the probability ON THE HUNDREDTH REPEAT is still 1%.
But the author is correct. The probability on a SERIES OF REPEATS is more than one percent, and goes up the longer the series.
You're not actually not understanding that, are you?
You are being a spoilsport arguing about a trivial difference. In this very rough example, the odds compute to 0.182, which is nearly 1 in 5 (0.20). This assumes, of course the odds of individual events are independent, which they aren't.
No, i understand perfectly, you are being an intentionally obtuse ass.
By your "statistics" if i play Russian Roulette a million times, my total odds of shooting myself in the head are 1 in 6.
The Bushes and Obama have both worked to increase the likelihood of a nuclear 9/11 attack which could trigger a much larger nuclear exchange. It was publicly revealed in 2003 (in at least some major newspapers, and republished here on CD) that a joint US-Israeli nuclear weapon program was operational and deployed, threatening Iran with nuclear attack. This weapon system is ideal for carrying out a covertly launched nuclear attack against a US (or other) coastal city, which could conveniently be blamed on Iran or Pakistan.
At the same time that the nuclear, and mass conventional WMD, threats against Iran demanded (according to US, Israeli, UK, etc. nuclear doctrine) that Iran develop nuclear weapons, USA also worked to increase the likelihood the government of Pakistan, which already had nuclear weapons, would be overthrown and replaced by a radical Islamic government. This was done by chasing al-Qaida and the Taliban from Afghanistan into Pakistan, and attacking Pakistan directly from the air while proclaiming USA and the Pakistani government were allied in the War of Terror.
Obama has since backed off on Iran, a little bit, but apparently still supports deployment of nuclear weapons close to the borders of Iran. He maintains his war against the people of Pakistan. His early backing off of Bush2's push to place US weapons closer to Russia has been reversed. The role of NATO in taking advantage the partial breakup of USSR to threaten the remaining Russian empire more directly, and thus continuing the Cold War, is not at all understood by the vast majority of people in USA.
Please enlighten the obtuse ones. What precisely is Marshall asserting in this cite:
"If the probability of a disaster from one incident is only one in 100, the odds of ruin from 20 such incidents rise to nearly one in five."
This is somewhat akin to estimating the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin, in that we only have a glimpse of some of the information for computing odds. Individual accidents are only part of the picture. The entire system is complex with many feedback loops, including adaptation to past accidents, and complacency as a result of times with few or no accidents. From my viewpoint, the system is clearly interdependent, but using the independent approximation for WAG calculations is a reasonable approximation. (WAG is a well known technical acronym for Wild Assed Guess, if preceded by S it becomes Scientific but is still a WAG.)
Marshall NEVER ASSERTED that the odds "with the next accident" change. Neither did any of us. You are "arguing" with phantoms you yourself conjure.
Thanks for acknowledging the stupid games you are playing here.