math professor with a PhD
The Starmaker
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2023514/Joan-R-Ginther-won-lottery-4-times-Stanford-University-statistics-PhD.html
Well, aren't they going to *arrest* this chick named Joan, a
math professor with a PhD from Stanford University specialising in statistics?
She's a crook, a thief...she cheated!
Isn't it a federal offense?
She needs to give back the money she stoled.
Somebody else was suppose to get that ticket, and she stoled it from them.
She in fact, *cheated*.
Throw her in jail! For cheating!! For stealing!!!
You're not going to fool me..
I know how the tickets work..
I know how the system works..
I'll tell you how she did it...
"Three of her wins, all in two-year intervals, were by scratch-off tickets bought at the same mini mart in the town of Bishop.
She simply was in cahoots with the ticket vendor at the mini-mart.
He let her go through all the tickets, and she bought the
winning one.
That means, she went behind the counter..
looked through all the tickets (when no one was looking)
and removed from the roll of tickets, the winning ticket.
She cheated the people of Bishop, Texas.
I guess she figured, "They are all a bunch of dummies anyway!"
The Starmaker
I'll tell you something else...
the guys who do the programming
the code writers
the guys who
write the script
know when the ticket
is a winner, because they
program it, but..
they are not allowed
in the area where
the tickets are printed.
They are not allowed in
the printing factory.
Otherwise, they can
grab the winning tickets
before it hits the stores.
The math professor with a PhD
hit the store before
people had a chance to buy
a ticket.
It's called ...stealing.
Put the bitch in jail!
The Starmaker
The government doesn't want anyone to know
that they know she is cheating...because
then they would have to shut down the
lottery system, there would be riots in the
streets, ...there would be lynchings of
math professors with a PhD everywhere!
"The Texas Lottery Commission told Mr Rich that Ms Ginther must have been 'born under a lucky star', and
that they don’t suspect foul play."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2023514/Joan-R-Ginther-won-lottery-4-times-Stanford-University-statistics-PhD.html
Joel Olson
news:4E441D...@ix.netcom.com...
>
Almost all Math Professors have a PhD.
Ain't it awful?
thepinkpantsuit
> "A professor at the Institute for the Study of Gambling & Commercial Gaming at the University of Nevada, Reno, told Mr Rich: 'When something this unlikely happens in a casino, you arrest ‘em first and ask questions later.'"http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2023514/Joan-R-Ginther-won-lo...
Interesting. Very interesting. But watch How The Lottery Changed My
Life [on TLC] and you'll see that most people who win simply are not
that bright.
Will in New Haven
How could he possibly judge. He would have had to cheat to get out of
nursery school but he couldn't figure out how.
--
Will in New Haven
thepinkpantsuit
>
> - Show quoted text -
It does sometimes appear that way, however, I suspect he may not be
all that stupid. Goofy but not stupid. After all, he does keep these
topics going, flipping them on their side. I know nothing about
physics.
Perhaps one day he'll verify that.
The Starmaker
>
> On Aug 11, 1:26 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > "A professor at the Institute for the Study of Gambling & Commercial Gaming at the University of Nevada, Reno, told Mr Rich: 'When something this unlikely happens in a casino, you arrest �em first and ask questions later.'"
> >
If it was a Black or Hispanic person, do you think the
Lottery Commission would say "must have been 'born under a lucky star'"?
No, they would be arrested on the spot!
But since it's a 'math professor with a PhD'...there's this 'illusion of
trust'.
The Starmaker
The Starmaker
>
> On Aug 11, 9:30 pm, Will in New Haven
> <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 11, 5:55 pm, thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Aug 11, 1:26 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > "A professor at the Institute for the Study of Gambling & Commercial Gaming at the University of Nevada, Reno, told Mr Rich: 'When something this unlikely happens in a casino, you arrest ‘em first and ask questions later.'"
> >
Ask any girl that knows me, they'll say..."He never left Nursery
School!"
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> But since it's a 'math professor with a PhD'...there's this 'illusion of
> trust'.
>
No. Since she won fair and square, there's no illusion of anything. The
fact that she might have been able to figure out something that stupider
or less methodical people couldn't doesn't, in any way, make her a
cheater. The rules have NOTHING in them saying you can't use
mathematical methods to figure out how to improve your odds.
Of course, the lottery people running it should have recognized that
ANY regularity in the process would make it possible for someone to
break the pattern, and randomized it. They didn't. So she gets to win
once every few years. That's not stealing. It's being smart.
You're just jealous you're not smart enough to have figured it out
yourself.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
thepinkpantsuit
<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> On 8/11/11 10:49 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>
> > But since it's a 'math professor with a PhD'...there's this 'illusion of
> > trust'.
>
> No. Since she won fair and square, there's no illusion of anything. The
> fact that she might have been able to figure out something that stupider
> or less methodical people couldn't doesn't, in any way, make her a
> cheater. The rules have NOTHING in them saying you can't use
> mathematical methods to figure out how to improve your odds.
>
> Of course, the lottery people running it should have recognized that
> ANY regularity in the process would make it possible for someone to
> break the pattern, and randomized it. They didn't. So she gets to win
> once every few years. That's not stealing. It's being smart.
>
> You're just jealous you're not smart enough to have figured it out
> yourself.
The man may have a point. Think Gates. Henry Gates. Had he been a
white professor, would he have been accused of robbing his own home?
Smart and still accused of stealing.
Robert Carnegie
<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> On 8/11/11 10:49 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>
> > But since it's a 'math professor with a PhD'...there's this 'illusion of
> > trust'.
>
> No. Since she won fair and square, there's no illusion of anything. The
> fact that she might have been able to figure out something that stupider
> or less methodical people couldn't doesn't, in any way, make her a
> cheater. The rules have NOTHING in them saying you can't use
> mathematical methods to figure out how to improve your odds.
>
> Of course, the lottery people running it should have recognized that
> ANY regularity in the process would make it possible for someone to
> break the pattern, and randomized it. They didn't. So she gets to win
> once every few years. That's not stealing. It's being smart.
>
> You're just jealous you're not smart enough to have figured it out
> yourself.
So it's like counting cards in a casino, although they will politely
and firmly refuse to play with you when you're detected practising
cognition in what's supposed to be a game of chance, that isn't.
Bill Gill
> On 8/11/11 10:49 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>
>> But since it's a 'math professor with a PhD'...there's this 'illusion of
>> trust'.
>>
>
> No. Since she won fair and square, there's no illusion of anything. The
> fact that she might have been able to figure out something that stupider
> or less methodical people couldn't doesn't, in any way, make her a
> cheater. The rules have NOTHING in them saying you can't use
> mathematical methods to figure out how to improve your odds.
>
> Of course, the lottery people running it should have recognized that ANY
> regularity in the process would make it possible for someone to break
> the pattern, and randomized it. They didn't. So she gets to win once
> every few years. That's not stealing. It's being smart.
>
> You're just jealous you're not smart enough to have figured it out
> yourself.
>
>
that it was easy to win a scratch off. He figured out the pattern
and showed the lottery officials how it was done. I believe in
Canada. But checking around it appears that a lot of the
algorithms used for scratch offs have holes in them. As you say
if they write the algorithms with holes, they have to accept the
results.
Bill
David Dyer-Bennet
<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> No. Since she won fair and square, there's no illusion of anything. The
> fact that she might have been able to figure out something that stupider
> or less methodical people couldn't doesn't, in any way, make her a
> cheater. The rules have NOTHING in them saying you can't use
> mathematical methods to figure out how to improve your odds.
>
> Of course, the lottery people running it should have recognized that
> ANY regularity in the process would make it possible for someone to
> break the pattern, and randomized it. They didn't. So she gets to win
> once every few years. That's not stealing. It's being sma>
>
> You're just jealous you're not smart enough to have figured it out
> yourself.
Of course, the gambling industry does have a well-established
custom of ejecting from casinos people caught playing the
games intelligently.
Chris Thompson
This one, I bet:
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/01/ff_lottery/all/1
I also recall reading about of MIT undergrads who cracked the MA scratch-
off lottery, and the Wired article mentions a woman who's won millions of
dollars in Texas playing these games.
Chris
(note follow-ups)
The Starmaker
>
> On Aug 11, 9:30 pm, Will in New Haven
> <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 11, 5:55 pm, thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Aug 11, 1:26 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > "A professor at the Institute for the Study of Gambling & Commercial Gaming at the University of Nevada, Reno, told Mr Rich: 'When something this unlikely happens in a casino, you arrest ‘em first and ask questions later.'"
> >
I'll tell you what "physics" is...
It's just a bunch of creatures using
'pattern recognition'.
At the end of the day
that
math professor with a PhD
was just using
'pattern recognition'
to crack the nut.
Any bird brain can do that..
http://www.youtube.com/v/BGPGknpq3e0
Physics is just 'pattern recognition', nothing more.
The Starmaker
The Starmaker
>
>
> > But since it's a 'math professor with a PhD'...there's this 'illusion of
> > trust'.
> >
>
> No. Since she won fair and square, there's no illusion of anything. The
> fact that she might have been able to figure out something that stupider
> or less methodical people couldn't doesn't, in any way, make her a
> cheater. The rules have NOTHING in them saying you can't use
> mathematical methods to figure out how to improve your odds.
"fair and square"?
I already mentioned:
"she went behind the counter..
looked through all the tickets (when no one was looking)
and removed from the roll of tickets, the winning ticket."
I didn't mentioned anything about "mathematical methods to figure out how to improve your odds",
I said, she...
"went behind the counter..
looked through all the tickets (when no one was looking)
and removed from the roll of tickets, the winning ticket."
What does that have to do with 'math'? That's not fair and square, that's stealing!
Hang her! Send her to London.
>
> Of course, the lottery people running it should have recognized that
> ANY regularity in the process would make it possible for someone to
> break the pattern, and randomized it. They didn't. So she gets to win
> once every few years. That's not stealing. It's being smart.
>
> You're just jealous you're not smart enough to have figured it out
> yourself.
"jealous"? You people always use that word to defend yourself from your...thievery.
You're all crooks! Go write a fraudulant finding, submit it to the scientific journals and get your grant money that
you won't pay back, ...thieves.
Build an atomic bomb, and drop it at fort knox.
Surely you can write a computer viruses that can send you government grants?
The fact is...
you people in the 'scientific community' are just a "lazy dog".
You don't want to work. You want the government to send you money while yous go
around the ocean beaches searching for jelly fish, pretending you're finding
a cure for cancer. You're just "lazy dogs".
The Starmaker
The Starmaker
i guess they'll never eject me!
The Starmaker
But this 'math professor with a PhD' is living in Vegas now, what is she
doing there? Don't tell
me the slot machines are computer generated...
Richard R. Hershberger
> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 8/11/11 10:49 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>
> > > But since it's a 'math professor with a PhD'...there's this 'illusion of
> > > trust'.
>
> > No. Since she won fair and square, there's no illusion of anything. The
> > fact that she might have been able to figure out something that stupider
> > or less methodical people couldn't doesn't, in any way, make her a
> > cheater. The rules have NOTHING in them saying you can't use
> > mathematical methods to figure out how to improve your odds.
>
> "fair and square"?
>
> I already mentioned:
>
> "she went behind the counter..
> looked through all the tickets (when no one was looking)
> and removed from the roll of tickets, the winning ticket."
Yeah, you mentioned that, but you also made it up. That this is the
only possible explanation you can think of tells us only about your
limitations.
Chris Thompson
> Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 12, 4:29 am, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
>> <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>> > On 8/11/11 10:49 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>> >
>> > > But since it's a 'math professor with a PhD'...there's this
>> > > 'illusion of trust'.
>> >
>> > No. Since she won fair and square, there's no illusion of
>> > anything. The
>> > fact that she might have been able to figure out something that
>> > stupider or less methodical people couldn't doesn't, in any way,
>> > make her a cheater. The rules have NOTHING in them saying you can't
>> > use mathematical methods to figure out how to improve your odds.
>> >
>> > Of course, the lottery people running it should have
>> > recognized that
>> > ANY regularity in the process would make it possible for someone to
>> > break the pattern, and randomized it. They didn't. So she gets to
>> > win once every few years. That's not stealing. It's being smart.
>> >
>> > You're just jealous you're not smart enough to have figured
>> > it out
>> > yourself.
>>
>> So it's like counting cards in a casino, although they will politely
>> and firmly refuse to play with you when you're detected practising
>> cognition in what's supposed to be a game of chance, that isn't.
Here's the difference: a casino is private property. They can serve whom
they like, and eject anyone they dislike. State-run lotteries do not have
that option.
Note that there HAVE been cases of cheating in lotteries. Some years
back, it was discovered that some of the balls in the NY State lottery
had been weighted, and the crooks behind it had enlisted their pals to
play the other numbers (the balls ride on an air jet, so heaviers ones
have a lesser chance of being picked).
They went to jail, as they should have.
>
> But this 'math professor with a PhD' is living in Vegas now, what is
> she doing there? Don't tell
> me the slot machines are computer generated...
>
I suppose you think this guy also cheats:
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/ucla-alumnus-and-professional-
158999.aspx
Chris
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>>
>> On 8/11/11 10:49 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>>> But since it's a 'math professor with a PhD'...there's this 'illusion of
>>> trust'.
>>>
>>
>> No. Since she won fair and square, there's no illusion of anything. The
>> fact that she might have been able to figure out something that stupider
>> or less methodical people couldn't doesn't, in any way, make her a
>> cheater. The rules have NOTHING in them saying you can't use
>> mathematical methods to figure out how to improve your odds.
>
> "fair and square"?
>
> I already mentioned:
>
> "she went behind the counter..
Chris Thompson
news:j23vn1$uor$2...@dont-email.me:
> On 8/12/11 2:12 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>>>
>>> On 8/11/11 10:49 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>
>>>> But since it's a 'math professor with a PhD'...there's this
>>>> 'illusion of trust'.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No. Since she won fair and square, there's no illusion of
>>> anything. The
>>> fact that she might have been able to figure out something that
>>> stupider or less methodical people couldn't doesn't, in any way,
>>> make her a cheater. The rules have NOTHING in them saying you can't
>>> use mathematical methods to figure out how to improve your odds.
>>
>> "fair and square"?
>>
>> I already mentioned:
>>
>> "she went behind the counter..
>
> You have actual evidence for this?
>
>
Even if he did, how does that mean cheating? You should be able to purchase
whatever ticket you want, and be allowed to examine them beforehand.
Everyone has the same opportunity.
It reminds me of a Prof. at Barnard College, where I taught as an adjunct
while I was a Grad Student. When a student protested to her that a question
was unfair, she would say, "Did you have a different exam from everyone
else? No? Then it's fair."
Chris
The Starmaker
>
> On 8/12/11 2:12 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
> >>
> >> On 8/11/11 10:49 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>
> >>> But since it's a 'math professor with a PhD'...there's this 'illusion of
> >>> trust'.
> >>>
> >>
> >> No. Since she won fair and square, there's no illusion of anything. The
> >> fact that she might have been able to figure out something that stupider
> >> or less methodical people couldn't doesn't, in any way, make her a
> >> cheater. The rules have NOTHING in them saying you can't use
> >> mathematical methods to figure out how to improve your odds.
> >
> > "fair and square"?
> >
> > I already mentioned:
> >
> > "she went behind the counter..
>
> You have actual evidence for this?
"actual evidence"??? What, you people cannot think for youself?
You think 'Eienstein' bothered to wait for "actual evidence"?
That's your messy problem, not mines...shoot that math professor with a PhD, guilty as sin!
I live in the United States
we have a justice system here
"actual evidence" is not required
Guilty, hang her.
The Starmaker
I'll pull the switch in good consious. Fry her in the electric chair.
The Starmaker
'pattern recognition' is not cheating...otherwise you'd be arresting
birds.
The Starmaker
You suppose that woman is a 'math professor with a PhD'?
The Starmaker
>
> On 8/12/2011 12:59 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>
> > I'll tell you what "physics" is...
> >
> > It's just a bunch of creatures using
> > 'pattern recognition'.
> >
> > At the end of the day
> > that
> > math professor with a PhD
> > was just using
> > 'pattern recognition'
> > to crack the nut.
> >
> > Any bird brain can do that..
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/v/BGPGknpq3e0
> >
> >
> > Physics is just 'pattern recognition', nothing more.
>
> accurately predict the results of measurements that haven't been done
> yet.
That is exactly what the bird brain is doing...
"calculations with those patterns"
You haven't come very far..
you just one step above a bird brain.
thepinkpantsuit
wrote:
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote innews:j23vn1$uor$2...@dont-email.me:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 8/12/11 2:12 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>
> >>> On 8/11/11 10:49 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>
> >>>> But since it's a 'math professor with a PhD'...there's this
> >>>> 'illusion of trust'.
>
> >>> No. Since she won fair and square, there's no illusion of
> >>> anything. The
> >>> fact that she might have been able to figure out something that
> >>> stupider or less methodical people couldn't doesn't, in any way,
> >>> make her a cheater. The rules have NOTHING in them saying you can't
> >>> use mathematical methods to figure out how to improve your odds.
>
> >> "fair and square"?
>
> >> I already mentioned:
>
> >> "she went behind the counter..
>
> > You have actual evidence for this?
>
> Even if he did, how does that mean cheating? You should be able to purchase
> whatever ticket you want, and be allowed to examine them beforehand.
>
> Everyone has the same opportunity.
First of all, I believe a machine randomly spits out your scratch
ticket, and you do not get to examine them individually before
purchase. Secondly, "three of her wins, all in two-year intervals,
were by scratch-off tickets bought at the same mini mart in the town
of Bishop." That should raise a red flag because the vendor does
receive 1% of the winnings.
>
> It reminds me of a Prof. at Barnard College, where I taught as an adjunct
> while I was a Grad Student. When a student protested to her that a question
> was unfair, she would say, "Did you have a different exam from everyone
> else? No? Then it's fair."
>
> Chris- Hide quoted text -
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
True in some places, these days. When I used to have to sell them, they
were big long perforated strips, and you selected the tickets by hand.
Secondly, "three of her wins, all in two-year intervals,
> were by scratch-off tickets bought at the same mini mart in the town
> of Bishop." That should raise a red flag because the vendor does
> receive 1% of the winnings.
"Red flag" for what? Nothing prevents the vendor him/herself from
buying tickets, for that matter.
Yes, it should have hinted that there was some way to trick their
system, but nothing illegal.
Robert Carnegie
> On Aug 12, 2:12 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>
> > > On 8/11/11 10:49 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>
> > > > But since it's a 'math professor with a PhD'...there's this 'illusion of
> > > > trust'.
>
> > > No. Since she won fair and square, there's no illusion of anything. The
> > > fact that she might have been able to figure out something that stupider
> > > or less methodical people couldn't doesn't, in any way, make her a
> > > cheater. The rules have NOTHING in them saying you can't use
> > > mathematical methods to figure out how to improve your odds.
>
> > "fair and square"?
>
> > I already mentioned:
>
> > "she went behind the counter..
> > looked through all the tickets (when no one was looking)
> > and removed from the roll of tickets, the winning ticket."
>
> Yeah, you mentioned that, but you also made it up. That this is the
> only possible explanation you can think of tells us only about your
> limitations.
Yeah... Starro, are you planning to use the insanity defence when
you're sued for libel? Because I for one am not buying that.
The Starmaker
> done yet.
"predictions"? What are you into now, tarrot cards?
"accurate predictions"??? You mean, 'guessing, guessing right'. I could do the
same with tarrot cards.
Your ego must be the size of New Jersey!!!
>
> Then there's the rest of it:
> And that in turn is helpful for the design of devices that do useful
> things, on the basis that you now reliably know what will happen if you
> arrange things just so with the device -- because you know nature will
> just do its thing then.
design of devices?? You mean like an atom bomb?
It is not people that design devices...
Nature is the designer, not people.
People are just the tools of Nature.
Necesity is the mother of invention.
>
> This turns out to be considered valuable.
>
> Why, what did YOU think physics claimed to be?
Physics claim to be..Genesis version 2.0
upgraded every 2 minutes..
Which version do you have?
The Staramker
While you people are 'presenting' this illusion of Trust, you're
going behind the counter stealing lottery tickets.
Your 'kind' is not to be trusted...
j...@xmission.com
> "A professor at the Institute for the Study of Gambling& Commercial Gaming at the University of Nevada, Reno, told Mr Rich: 'When something this unlikely happens in a casino, you arrest ‘em first and ask questions later.'"
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2023514/Joan-R-Ginther-won-lottery-4-times-Stanford-University-statistics-PhD.html
>
> Well, aren't they going to *arrest* this chick named Joan, a
> math professor with a PhD from Stanford University specialising in statistics?
>
> She's a crook, a thief...she cheated!
>
> Isn't it a federal offense?
No. It is a state lottery. If anything illegal had been done, it would
be a state offense.
> She needs to give back the money she stoled.
>
> Somebody else was suppose to get that ticket, and she stoled it from them.
"Stoled"? Really? Stoled?
Nobody over about 7 would ever say "stoled."
> She in fact, *cheated*.
>
> Throw her in jail! For cheating!! For stealing!!!
>
> You're not going to fool me..
> I know how the tickets work..
> I know how the system works..
Not if you think you can read a scratch-off ticket without scratching it.
> I'll tell you how she did it...
Somebody posted the link to an article in Wired magazine. Read it, or
have someone read it to you. No illegal activity was involved.
Larry
> True in some places, these days. When I used to have to sell them, they
> were big long perforated strips, and you selected the tickets by hand.
Not only that, but they came in boxes with a certain number of winners in
each box. If you knew that 2/3 of the box had sold with only a couple $2
winners, you could come out ahead by buying the rest of the box.
The Starmaker
>
> On 8/11/2011 11:26 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > "A professor at the Institute for the Study of Gambling& Commercial Gaming at the University of Nevada, Reno, told Mr Rich: 'When something this unlikely happens in a casino, you arrest ‘em first and ask questions later.'"
> > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2023514/Joan-R-Ginther-won-lottery-4-times-Stanford-University-statistics-PhD.html
> >
> > Well, aren't they going to *arrest* this chick named Joan, a
> > math professor with a PhD from Stanford University specialising in statistics?
> >
> > She's a crook, a thief...she cheated!
> >
> > Isn't it a federal offense?
>
> No. It is a state lottery. If anything illegal had been done, it would
> be a state offense.
>
> > She needs to give back the money she stoled.
> >
> > Somebody else was suppose to get that ticket, and she stoled it from them.
>
> "Stoled"? Really? Stoled?
>
> Nobody over about 7 would ever say "stoled."
Sorry, I meant stealed.
>
> > She in fact, *cheated*.
> >
> > Throw her in jail! For cheating!! For stealing!!!
> >
> > You're not going to fool me..
> > I know how the tickets work..
> > I know how the system works..
>
> Not if you think you can read a scratch-off ticket without scratching it.
>
> > I'll tell you how she did it...
>
> Somebody posted the link to an article in Wired magazine. Read it, or
> have someone read it to you. No illegal activity was involved.
Maybe you need to read it...
"Of course, you could also just find a retailer willing to cooperate or take a bribe.
That might be easier.” The scam would involve getting access to opened but unsold books of tickets.
A potential plunderer would need to sort through these tickets and selectively pick the winners.
The losers would be sold to unwitting customers—or returned to the lottery after the game was taken off the market."
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/01/ff_lottery/all/1
Mathematics won't help if you don't have access..
I'm sure you wouldn't have a problem if you knew a woman the day before scan all the tickets and removed the winning ticket, you
wouldn't mind buying tickets at that store.
I have notice that 'intellectual dishonesty' is prevalent in newsgroups. I wonder why that is?
The Starmaker
thepinkpantsuit
> On 8/11/2011 11:26 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>
> > "A professor at the Institute for the Study of Gambling& Commercial Gaming at the University of Nevada, Reno, told Mr Rich: 'When something this unlikely happens in a casino, you arrest ‘em first and ask questions later.'"
>
> > Well, aren't they going to *arrest* this chick named Joan, a
> > math professor with a PhD from Stanford University specialising in statistics?
>
> > She's a crook, a thief...she cheated!
>
> > Isn't it a federal offense?
>
> No. It is a state lottery. If anything illegal had been done, it would
> be a state offense.
>
> > She needs to give back the money she stoled.
>
> > Somebody else was suppose to get that ticket, and she stoled it from them.
>
> "Stoled"? Really? Stoled?
>
> Nobody over about 7 would ever say "stoled."
>
> > She in fact, *cheated*.
>
> > Throw her in jail! For cheating!! For stealing!!!
>
> > You're not going to fool me..
> > I know how the tickets work..
> > I know how the system works..
>
> Not if you think you can read a scratch-off ticket without scratching it.
>
> > I'll tell you how she did it...
>
> Somebody posted the link to an article in Wired magazine. Read it, or
> have someone read it to you. No illegal activity was involved.
I'll try this again, since my first attempt did not go through, for a
change.
Regarding the Texan, three of her wins were from the same store. The
store owner receives 1% on wins, I believe. That does raise a red
flag.
Mike Dworetsky
> "A professor at the Institute for the Study of Gambling & Commercial
> Gaming at the University of Nevada, Reno, told Mr Rich: 'When
> something this unlikely happens in a casino, you arrest 'em first and
> ask questions later.'"
>
>
> Well, aren't they going to *arrest* this chick named Joan, a
> math professor with a PhD from Stanford University specialising in
> statistics?
>
> She's a crook, a thief...she cheated!
Wasn't this plot an episode of "Numbers" a few years back? Similarities,
anyways.
>
> Isn't it a federal offense?
In "Numbers", the FBI got involved, though it was a State Lottery.
>
> She needs to give back the money she stoled.
>
> Somebody else was suppose to get that ticket, and she stoled it from
> them.
>
> She in fact, *cheated*.
>
> Throw her in jail! For cheating!! For stealing!!!
>
>
> You're not going to fool me..
> I know how the tickets work..
> I know how the system works..
>
> I'll tell you how she did it...
>
> "Three of her wins, all in two-year intervals, were by scratch-off
> tickets bought at the same mini mart in the town of Bishop.
>
> She simply was in cahoots with the ticket vendor at the mini-mart.
>
> He let her go through all the tickets, and she bought the
> winning one.
>
> That means, she went behind the counter..
> looked through all the tickets (when no one was looking)
> and removed from the roll of tickets, the winning ticket.
>
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
thepinkpantsuit
> j...@xmission.com wrote:
>
> > On 8/11/2011 11:26 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > "A professor at the Institute for the Study of Gambling& Commercial Gaming at the University of Nevada, Reno, told Mr Rich: 'When something this unlikely happens in a casino, you arrest ‘em first and ask questions later.'"
I, too, wonder. Some theologian and 'Lay Leader of Worship" just
reposted an analysis I wrote on Bert and Ernie and posted to a WAPO
thread, without permission, without attribution, or the common
courtesy of a heads up, and that was after a private conversation.
Yes. A Lay Leader of Worship. Does it get any worse?
So, Bert and Ernie. Gay or straight?
Wayne Throop
: So, Bert and Ernie. Gay or straight?
They can't be bisexual, or asexual
(eg, low testosterone and no interest either way)?
Tom Roberts
As ABC News said, "Come on, people -- these are PUPPETS. They don't exist below
the waist. They have no sexual orientation!"
IMHO exactly the right response for characters in a CHILDREN'S show.
Tom Roberts
thepinkpantsuit
> Wayne Throop wrote:
> > : thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com>
> > : So, Bert and Ernie. Gay or straight?
>
> > They can't be bisexual, or asexual
> > (eg, low testosterone and no interest either way)?
>
> As ABC News said, "Come on, people -- these are PUPPETS. They don't exist below
> the waist. They have no sexual orientation!"
>
> IMHO exactly the right response for characters in a CHILDREN'S show.
>
> Tom Roberts
Albeit incorrect. If they had no sexual orientation, they would not be
given masculine or feminine names, nor would Miss Piggy have a crush
on Kermie.
thepinkpantsuit
> : thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com>
> : So, Bert and Ernie. Gay or straight?
>
> They can't be bisexual, or asexual
> (eg, low testosterone and no interest either way)?
Well, theoretically they could, but how do you explain their
relationship to young children who ask the question? Back when we
watched Sesame Street, exposure to gay couples on television was at a
minimum. There was the effeminate character of Fussy Felix on the Odd
Couple, living with Oscar the Masculine Mess, but the theme song
provided the backstory of his broken marriage, leading the audience to
assume he was indeed a heterosexual male. There was also the character
of Jodie on Soap, but that show wasn't really geared toward a younger
audience.
Today, however, plenty of gay characters grace the screen. Nancy from
Roseanne, Queer Eye For the Straight Guy, Queer as Folk, Will and
Grace, etc. http://www.afterelton.com/people/2007/11/top25gayTVcharacters?page=0,1,
and it is not unreasonable to expect a 10 year old to be watching both
Sesame Street and re-runs of Roseanne or Law and Order SUV.
I dunno, I think it's a valid question: "Mommy, how come Bert and
Ernie live together and never have girlfriends?"
"Low testosterone, honey."
LOL. What do you tell them?! There's gotta be a creative way to
address it.
thepinkpantsuit
> Wayne Throop wrote:
> > : thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com>
>
> > They can't be bisexual, or asexual
> > (eg, low testosterone and no interest either way)?
>
> As ABC News said, "Come on, people -- these are PUPPETS. They don't exist below
> the waist. They have no sexual orientation!"
>
> IMHO exactly the right response for characters in a CHILDREN'S show.
>
> Tom Roberts
UM.
http://muppet.wikia.com/wiki/Are_Kermit_the_Frog_and_Miss_Piggy_married%3F
thepinkpantsuit
Double um.
Miss Piggy tries to make Kermit jealous
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oCrg8AFNis&feature=related
And, let's not forget the Muppet Movies are Disney.
http://disney.go.com/muppets/
SO.
Wayne Throop
: I dunno, I think it's a valid question: "Mommy, how come Bert and
: Ernie live together and never have girlfriends?"
:
: "Low testosterone, honey."
:
: LOL. What do you tell them?! There's gotta be a creative way to
: address it.
They're not rich enough to ger their own appartments,
because they spend all their money on prostitutes.
thepinkpantsuit
> : thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com>
> : Ernie live together and never have girlfriends?"
> :
> : "Low testosterone, honey."
> :
> : LOL. What do you tell them?! There's gotta be a creative way to
> : address it.
>
> They're not rich enough to ger their own appartments,
> because they spend all their money on prostitutes.
LOL, okay, you better let me do the 'splainin' to the kids.
David DeLaney
Sesame Street continues to inform us that they are just puppets, and have
no sexuality of any kind.
Dave "i sense a cover-up" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Christine Indigo
> Not if you think you can read a scratch-off ticket without scratching it.
>
There's a movie that I'm trying to remember the name of. In it, an alien,
needing Earth money, walked into a store and asked for a scratch-off,
telling the clerk that he'd share the winnings with her. He then took out
his Special Whiz-Bang Advanced Tech goggles and looked at the roll of
tickets, seeing through the scratch-off coating, and selected a winner.
--
Christine "Green Leafy Dragon" Indigo -=UDIC=-
Michael A. Terrell
Christine Indigo wrote:
>
> ?j...@xmission.com? wrote:
> ? Not if you think you can read a scratch-off ticket without scratching it.
> ?
>
> There's a movie that I'm trying to remember the name of. In it, an alien,
> needing Earth money, walked into a store and asked for a scratch-off,
> telling the clerk that he'd share the winnings with her. He then took out
> his Special Whiz-Bang Advanced Tech goggles and looked at the roll of
> tickets, seeing through the scratch-off coating, and selected a winner.
The Brother From Another Planet
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087004/
--
Subject: Spelling Lesson
The last four letters in American.........I Can
The last four letters in Republican.......I Can
The last four letters in Democrats.........Rats
End of lesson. Test to follow in November, 2012
Remember, November is to be set aside as rodent extermination month.
David Dyer-Bennet
Maybe, sort of. A huge percentage of my lottery
ticket purchases have been from just three stores;
if I got lucky, it'd look the same. (Powerball; not
subject to the same potential gaming as the
scratch-off games being discussed.)
jim
> "A professor at the Institute for the Study of Gambling & Commercial Gaming at the University of Nevada, Reno, told Mr Rich: 'When something this unlikely happens in a casino, you arrest ‘em first and ask questions later.'"http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2023514/Joan-R-Ginther-won-lo...
>
> Well, aren't they going to *arrest* this chick named Joan, a
> math professor with a PhD from Stanford University specialising in statistics?
>
> She's a crook, a thief...she cheated!
>
> Isn't it a federal offense?
>
>
> Somebody else was suppose to get that ticket, and she stoled it from them.
>
>
> Throw her in jail! For cheating!! For stealing!!!
>
> You're not going to fool me..
> I know how the tickets work..
> I know how the system works..
>
>
Well, math is so simple anymore, it's so obvious
that when the only thing you know about management
is GM, it's even obvious to Lawyers, that the only thing
you know about computers is also GM.
thepinkpantsuit
>
> - Show quoted text -
"Three of her wins, all in two-year intervals, were by scratch-off
tickets bought at the same mini mart in the town of Bishop. [.....]
she won $2million, then two years later $3million and in the summer of
2010, she hit a $10million jackpot. The odds of this has been
calculated at one in eighteen septillion and luck like this could only
come once every quadrillion years."
The odds calculated at one in eighteen septillion/once every
quadrillion years.
That is a quite a bit more than just getting lucky. So, when a
statistician hits those odds at the same mini mart............I'd be
suspicious. Somehow she knows that particular mini-mart's system. Luck
is buying tickets at any random mart and constantly winning.
The Starmaker
What would be the odds if she was very pretty too?
thepinkpantsuit
>
> > Read more:
> >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2023514/Joan-R-Ginther-won-lo...
>
> What would be the odds if she was very pretty too?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Pretty good. 15 million buys *a lot* of plastic surgery.
Robert Carnegie
ObSF _The Long Habit of Living_, etc. (E.g., _The Stainless Steel
Rat_.) If you /are/ a fugitive from justice, it can be useful not to
look like yourself.
David Dyer-Bennet
>
> Read more:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2023514/Joan-R-Ginther-won-lo...
It does sound like there are severe deficiencies in the lottery
systems. If the staff in any lottery store can just scan
the tickets and find the winners and buy it, the system
is completely broken. It's gotta be something more
interesting than that, or everybody would be doing it.
thepinkpantsuit
>
> - Show quoted text -
It's fascinating, isn't it? I think the key here is the statistician.
It cannot be easy to find an exceptionally talented statistician or
analyst to partner with, but there are quite a few books promoting the
lottery as a game of skill. Obviously this woman is extremely
intelligent. 15 million is a nice chunk of change. And you can't beat
the return on that investment. Impressive.
The Starmaker
>
> On Aug 16, 10:49 am, David Dyer-Bennet <illegaln...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 15, 6:31 pm, thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Aug 15, 10:33 am, David Dyer-Bennet <illegaln...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Aug 13, 7:27 pm, thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Aug 13, 6:16 pm, j...@xmission.com wrote:
> >
> > > > > > On 8/11/2011 11:26 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >
"extremely intelligent" has absolutely nothing to do with it...
there are a lot of "extremely intelligent" people living in poverty...
she just simply spent 'a lot of time' with...numbers.
Once you spend...a lot of time..doing something, you become..good at it.
You first have to crack open a math book, and who in the world wants to do that? Not even Einstein!
The Starmaker
The Starmaker
>
> thepinkpantsuit wrote:
> >
> > On Aug 16, 10:49 am, David Dyer-Bennet <illegaln...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Aug 15, 6:31 pm, thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Aug 15, 10:33 am, David Dyer-Bennet <illegaln...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > On Aug 13, 7:27 pm, thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > On Aug 13, 6:16 pm, j...@xmission.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > > On 8/11/2011 11:26 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
..and if you read the article yourself...he taught his 8-year-old kid the secret...
"Nothing needed to be scratched off—the ticket could be cracked if you knew the secret code.
The trick itself is ridiculously simple. (Srivastava would later teach it to his 8-year-old daughter.)"
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/01/ff_lottery/all/1
Even the Universe is simple, you just need to know...all the secret codes.
The Starmaker
is this guy a math teacher?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EKVcRtQdaQ
The Starmaker
...and no matter what
math professor with a PhD
needs access..she
had to climb her ass
over the counter
to scan all the tickets..
or in cahoots with the retailer..
she needs new and used tickets
to study/research from...
Get a job selling lottery tickets..
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.html?id=4be28910-9cec-4785-b471-f37849a29008&k=17633
Robert Carnegie
I think in the United Kingdom, lottery-related scratch cards are on
display in shops on a roll of tickets - or a shelf as here,
<http://www.litelineuk.com/services.htm> "Scratch card Dispenser".
If there's a code to be broken that's visible on the card, in that
situation, you can have a good look.
Or if every thirteenth card pays out, then, well, this isn't hard.
David Dyer-Bennet
> "extremely intelligent" has absolutely nothing to do with it...
> there are a lot of "extremely intelligent" people living in poverty...
> she just simply spent 'a lot of time' with...numbers.
Extremely intelligent doesn't guarantee financial success, no.
> Once you spend...a lot of time..doing something, you become..good at it.
But then, neither does spending time at something.
People can spend their lives doing something and
never become very good at it.
> You first have to crack open a math book, and who in the world wants to do that? Not even Einstein!
I enjoyed math classes in highschool and college,
and I majored in math.
thepinkpantsuit
> thepinkpantsuit wrote:
>
> > On Aug 16, 10:49 am, David Dyer-Bennet <illegaln...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Aug 15, 6:31 pm, thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 15, 10:33 am, David Dyer-Bennet <illegaln...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Aug 13, 7:27 pm, thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Aug 13, 6:16 pm, j...@xmission.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On 8/11/2011 11:26 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>
The fact is both people were extremely intelligent statisticians and
cracked the code. I never said intelligence guarantees financial
success, and there a plenty of unintelligent people who win the
lottery.
> Once you spend...a lot of time..doing something, you become..good at it.
Not with math. Math is a function of the left brain and many right-
brained people who are otherwise intelligent cannot grasp mathematical
concepts. You can be a brilliant writer, a brilliant artist, a
brilliant historian, a brilliant theologian and absolutely SUCK at
math. I realize he taught his 8 year-old daughter, but the 8 year-old
did not figure out how to crack the code; he did.
thepinkpantsuit
>
> - Show quoted text -
Nice work! Okay.
Christine Indigo
> Christine Indigo wrote:
>>
>> ?j...@xmission.com? wrote:
>> ? Not if you think you can read a scratch-off ticket without scratching it.
>> ?
>>
>> There's a movie that I'm trying to remember the name of. In it, an alien,
>> needing Earth money, walked into a store and asked for a scratch-off,
>> telling the clerk that he'd share the winnings with her. He then took out
>> his Special Whiz-Bang Advanced Tech goggles and looked at the roll of
>> tickets, seeing through the scratch-off coating, and selected a winner.
>
>
> The Brother From Another Planet
>
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087004/
>
>
Thank you. :-) (I haven't seen it in about 25 years and I should.)
The Starmaker
>
> On Aug 16, 2:01 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > > > thepinkpantsuit wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Aug 16, 10:49 am, David Dyer-Bennet <illegaln...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Aug 15, 6:31 pm, thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > On Aug 15, 10:33 am, David Dyer-Bennet <illegaln...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > On Aug 13, 7:27 pm, thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > On Aug 13, 6:16 pm, j...@xmission.com wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > > On 8/11/2011 11:26 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > > The trick itself is ridiculously simple. (Srivastava would later teach it to his 8-year-old daughter.)"
> > >http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/01/ff_lottery/all/1
> >
> > ...and no matter what
> > math professor with a PhD
> > needs access..she
> > had to climb her ass
> > over the counter
> > to scan all the tickets..
> > or in cahoots with the retailer..
> > she needs new and used tickets
> > to study/research from...
> >
> > Get a job selling lottery tickets..
> >
> > http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.html?id=4be28910-9cec-4785-b...- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Nice work! Okay.
They should make it a law...
if you're a math major..
they're not hiring you.
Or their children either..
Keep these people away from lotteries and Wall Street...
or any place money is moved around.
How can you trust anyone who knows more math than you do?
I got fingers, I can count...
jim
> thepinkpantsuit wrote:
>
> > On Aug 16, 2:01 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
>
> > > > The Starmaker wrote:
>
> > > > > thepinkpantsuit wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Aug 16, 10:49 am, David Dyer-Bennet <illegaln...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Aug 15, 6:31 pm, thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Aug 15, 10:33 am, David Dyer-Bennet <illegaln...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Aug 13, 7:27 pm, thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Aug 13, 6:16 pm, j...@xmission.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On 8/11/2011 11:26 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>
> > > > The trick itself is ridiculously simple. (Srivastava would later teach it to his 8-year-old daughter.)"
> > > >http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/01/ff_lottery/all/1
>
> > > ...and no matter what
> > > math professor with a PhD
> > > needs access..she
> > > had to climb her ass
> > > over the counter
> > > to scan all the tickets..
> > > or in cahoots with the retailer..
> > > she needs new and used tickets
> > > to study/research from...
>
> > > Get a job selling lottery tickets..
>
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Nice work! Okay.
>
> They should make it a law...
> if you're a math major..
> they're not hiring you.
>
> Or their children either..
>
> Keep these people away from lotteries and Wall Street...
> or any place money is moved around.
>
> How can you trust anyone who knows more math than you do?
>
> I got fingers, I can count...
Well, the AI idiots are slowly learning
that there's few people interested
in Quantum Logic to begin with, and
there's far, far fewer people interested
in Virtual Quantum Logic.
Wayne Throop
: How can you trust anyone who knows more math than you do?
Yes, much better to trust people who know less.
Don't trust anybody over 40. IQ that is.
eric gisse
news:fe9dc292-87b9-4da3...@c29g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
[snip all, unread]
Attention fucking idiots in the non sci.* newsgroups:
STOP CROSSPOSTING TO SCI.* NEWSGROUPS
thepinkpantsuit
> : The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com>
I think he means never trust a lottery retailer. At least a Canadian
one, anyway. Wow. I think he's made his case regarding Texas. LOL.
Complaints of fraud ignored, ombudsman says
If the government agency that regulates gambling in B.C. had done its
job properly, concerns over retailer fraud likely would have been
uncovered before now, B.C.'s ombudsman said Wednesday.
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=3b40ff62-5473-462b-8edf-f17ec7deb07b
Michael A. Terrell
Christine Indigo wrote:
>
> "Michael A. Terrell" ?mike.t...@earthlink.net? wrote:
> ? Christine Indigo wrote:
> ??
> ?? ?j...@xmission.com? wrote:
> ?? ? Not if you think you can read a scratch-off ticket without scratching it.
> ?? ?
> ??
> ?? There's a movie that I'm trying to remember the name of. In it, an alien,
> ?? needing Earth money, walked into a store and asked for a scratch-off,
> ?? telling the clerk that he'd share the winnings with her. He then took out
> ?? his Special Whiz-Bang Advanced Tech goggles and looked at the roll of
> ?? tickets, seeing through the scratch-off coating, and selected a winner.
> ?
> ?
> ? The Brother From Another Planet
> ?
> ? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087004/
> ?
> ?
>
> Thank you. :-) (I haven't seen it in about 25 years and I should.)
You're welcome. I was working in a Cable TV repair center when it
ran on one of the pay channels. I had to laugh at the idea of an alien
fixing dead video game consoles, just by touching them. I guess they
didn't think the machines needed all their parts to work. :)
The Starmaker
>
> On Aug 16, 1:16 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > thepinkpantsuit wrote:
> >
> > > On Aug 16, 10:49 am, David Dyer-Bennet <illegaln...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Aug 15, 6:31 pm, thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Aug 15, 10:33 am, David Dyer-Bennet <illegaln...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > On Aug 13, 7:27 pm, thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > On Aug 13, 6:16 pm, j...@xmission.com wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > On 8/11/2011 11:26 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >
Left brain is the 'weak' side of the brain, and the right is the strong
side.
You're just not a 'number' person...
you're a 'word' person.
The Starmaker
It's a nationwide problem..
i think there might be at least one
math major per state..
If you're a math major
and seeking a
high paying job,
visit your nearest
lottery retail outlet.
The Starmaker
The Starmaker
>
> : The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
> : How can you trust anyone who knows more math than you do?
> : I got fingers, I can count...
>
The Starmaker
Have you considered a career as a lottery ticket dealer? Pays pretty
good if you know
what you're doing...
you can retire in two years.
Then go to Vegas
and hook up with that
math professor with a PhD.
She's probably pretty as pink by now...
The Starmaker
The Starmaker
I mean, ...I just don't understand.
Shouldn't
math professors with a PhD
be teaching their students
How To Crack The Lottery
all over the country?
You know...
to help pay for their tution
...
instead of their students working
at strip clubs to pay for college?
I just don't get it.
The Starmaker
The Starmaker
>
> thepinkpantsuit wrote:
> >
> > <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> > > On Aug 11, 5:55 pm, thepinkpantsuit <editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Aug 11, 1:26 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > "A professor at the Institute for the Study of Gambling & Commercial Gaming at the University of Nevada, Reno, told Mr Rich: 'When something this unlikely happens in a casino, you arrest 粗m first and ask questions later.'"
> > >
> > > > > Well, aren't they going to *arrest* this chick named Joan, a
> > > > > math professor with a PhD from Stanford University specialising in statistics?
> > >
> > > > > She's a crook, a thief...she cheated!
> > >
> > > > > Isn't it a federal offense?
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Somebody else was suppose to get that ticket, and she stoled it from them.
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Throw her in jail! For cheating!! For stealing!!!
> > >
> > > > > You're not going to fool me..
> > > > > I know how the tickets work..
> > > > > I know how the system works..
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > He let her go through all the tickets, and she bought the
> > > > > winning one.
> > >
> > > > > That means, she went behind the counter..
> > > > > looked through all the tickets (when no one was looking)
> > > > > and removed from the roll of tickets, the winning ticket.
> > >
> > > > > She cheated the people of Bishop, Texas.
> > >
> > > > > I guess she figured, "They are all a bunch of dummies anyway!"
> > >
> > > > > The Starmaker
> > >
> > > > > I'll tell you something else...
> > > > > the guys who do the programming
> > > > > the code writers
> > > > > the guys who
> > > > > write the script
> > > > > know when the ticket
> > > > > is a winner, because they
> > > > > program it, but..
> > > > > they are not allowed
> > > > > in the area where
> > > > > the tickets are printed.
> > > > > They are not allowed in
> > > > > the printing factory.
> > >
> > > > > Otherwise, they can
> > > > > grab the winning tickets
> > > > > before it hits the stores.
> > >
> > > > > The math professor with a PhD
> > > > > hit the store before
> > > > > people had a chance to buy
> > > > > a ticket.
> > >
> > > > > It's called ...stealing.
> > >
> > > > > Put the bitch in jail!
> > >
> > > > Interesting. Very interesting. But watch How The Lottery Changed My
> > > > Life [on TLC] and you'll see that most people who win simply are not
> > > > that bright.
> > >
> > > How could he possibly judge. He would have had to cheat to get out of
> > > nursery school but he couldn't figure out how.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Will in New Haven- Hide quoted text -
> > >
> > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > all that stupid. Goofy but not stupid. After all, he does keep these
> > topics going, flipping them on their side. I know nothing about
> > physics.
>
> I'll tell you what "physics" is...
>
> It's just a bunch of creatures using
> 'pattern recognition'.
>
> At the end of the day
> that
> math professor with a PhD
> 'pattern recognition'
> to crack the nut.
>
> Any bird brain can do that..
>
> http://www.youtube.com/v/BGPGknpq3e0
>
> Physics is just 'pattern recognition', nothing more.
>
> The Starmaker
And once these creatures
in the 'scientific community'
recongnize a pattern...
they begin to call it stuff like
"laws of physics" or "laws of nature".
They are not Laws.
They are just...patterns.
The speed of light is not a
law of physics or nature..
it just 'froze' at a certain point.
If you people want to give it a name..
it's The Frozen Point.
The amount of miles Light reached before it ...froze.
It cannot get pass the frozen point because then it would melt...
pass this along to your children...this is
The Starmaker Universe
Wayne Throop
swangdb
She was able to look at multiple tickets and figure out which ones
were winners? If so, how?
Did she xray through the scratchoff material?
Or could she look at the unscratched ticket and somehow figure out
which were winners due to a mistake by the people who created and
printed the tickets?
Did the sales clerk somehow know which ones were winners?
Is it against the law to ask to look at multiple tickets?
Did she really sneak behind the counter to examine tickets without
asking for permission?
Just curious...
dbs
(I have a 31 year-old degree in math and don't remember most of it)
The Starmaker
>
> Let's start over.
>
> She was able to look at multiple tickets and figure out which ones
> were winners? If so, how?
>
> Did she xray through the scratchoff material?
>
> Or could she look at the unscratched ticket and somehow figure out
> which were winners due to a mistake by the people who created and
> printed the tickets?
>
> Did the sales clerk somehow know which ones were winners?
>
> Is it against the law to ask to look at multiple tickets?
>
> Did she really sneak behind the counter to examine tickets without
> asking for permission?
>
> Just curious...
You need to read the 'whole story' to answer your questions..
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/01/ff_lottery/all/1
>
> dbs
>
> (I have a 31 year-old degree in math and don't remember most of it)
There are only 9 numbers in the alphabet, how could you forget?
thepinkpantsuit
>
> - Show quoted text -
Aw.
Anim8rFSK
<47d5ce31-cf6b-4ef1...@b7g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
swangdb <swa...@auburn.edu> wrote:
Yeah, I'm only sort of following this, but I don't understand what the
technique is that allows you to 'cheat' no matter what. If they gave me
an entire roll of tickets to take home, what good would it do me if I
didn't scratch them all?
--
"Please, I can't die, I've never kissed an Asian woman!"
Shego on "Shat My Dad Says"
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> Yeah, I'm only sort of following this, but I don't understand what the
> technique is that allows you to 'cheat' no matter what. If they gave me
> an entire roll of tickets to take home, what good would it do me if I
> didn't scratch them all?
>
You don't get the whole roll; you look at the roll and choose the ones
you want. I had some customers like that.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Anim8rFSK
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> On 8/17/11 7:30 PM, Anim8rFSK wrote:
>
> > Yeah, I'm only sort of following this, but I don't understand what the
> > technique is that allows you to 'cheat' no matter what. If they gave me
> > an entire roll of tickets to take home, what good would it do me if I
> > didn't scratch them all?
> >
>
> You don't get the whole roll; you look at the roll and choose the ones
> you want. I had some customers like that.
But what's the clew that lets you pick a winner?
A.G.McDowell
> In article<j2hjfg$i8c$3...@dont-email.me>,
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> On 8/17/11 7:30 PM, Anim8rFSK wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, I'm only sort of following this, but I don't understand what the
>>> technique is that allows you to 'cheat' no matter what. If they gave me
>>> an entire roll of tickets to take home, what good would it do me if I
>>> didn't scratch them all?
>>>
>>
>> You don't get the whole roll; you look at the roll and choose the ones
>> you want. I had some customers like that.
>
> But what's the clew that lets you pick a winner?
>
partly in an attempt to give the customers an experience that will
encourage them to try again, and partly in an attempt to guarantee a
pre-defined payout. It seems that this lack of pure randomless means
that there is a connection between the numbers you can see openly on the
cards and the numbers that are revealed when you scratch off the
covering. Googling lottery ticket flaw and the following up obvious
leads finds an article at
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/01/ff_lottery/all/1. Looking in
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2011/02/hacking_scratch.html finds
a more basic attack that relies on a naive definition of randomness as
equal distribution:
http://www.theatlantic.com/personal/archive/2011/02/how-i-beat-scratch-off-lottery-tickets/70686/
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> In article<j2hjfg$i8c$3...@dont-email.me>,
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> On 8/17/11 7:30 PM, Anim8rFSK wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, I'm only sort of following this, but I don't understand what the
>>> technique is that allows you to 'cheat' no matter what. If they gave me
>>> an entire roll of tickets to take home, what good would it do me if I
>>> didn't scratch them all?
>>>
>>
>> You don't get the whole roll; you look at the roll and choose the ones
>> you want. I had some customers like that.
>
> But what's the clew that lets you pick a winner?
>
Clue? According to the original discussion there's a pattern to the way
in which the ticket winners are distributed, so the same store will tend
to get the same type of winners. You just need to look for something
like the right batch numbers and you drastically increase your chances
of winning. You'll buy a lot of non-winning tickets, of course, but
you'll have a VASTLY higher chance of winning than anyone else, which
will translate in the long run to profit.
The Starmaker
What you do is...
take a course in Mathematics..
look around the class for an
Asian woman..
hit on her
and then
let her do all your work..
then drop the class.
Thomas Heger
> "A professor at the Institute for the Study of Gambling& Commercial Gaming at the University of Nevada, Reno, told Mr Rich: 'When something this unlikely happens in a casino, you arrest ‘em first and ask questions later.'"
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2023514/Joan-R-Ginther-won-lottery-4-times-Stanford-University-statistics-PhD.html
>
>
> Well, aren't they going to *arrest* this chick named Joan, a
> math professor with a PhD from Stanford University specialising in statistics?
>
> She's a crook, a thief...she cheated!
>
> Isn't it a federal offense?
>
> She needs to give back the money she stoled.
>
> Somebody else was suppose to get that ticket, and she stoled it from them.
>
> She in fact, *cheated*.
>
> Throw her in jail! For cheating!! For stealing!!!
>
>
Always try to find out: who did what and why?
Do you really believe funny stories from magazines and newspapers?
Are you certain, this person exists in the first place?
But there IS a story and that story is a fact. The content of the story
is fiction - if not proven otherwise. The story are the letters in the
magazine. These are facts, because they are there (the magazines and the
letters).
If winning four times is so unlikely, it is more likely that she didn't.
This would mean, the story is a hoax.
Would this 'hoax hypothesis' make any sense?
Well, actually yes, because it could tell people another story:
"look at this woman. She is smart and can out-trick the lottery. Ain't
you much smarter? You've got no PhD - of course- but certainly your
merits. So why don't you try and get REAL rich????"
Such a subliminal message could gain much more than the loss of a few
million (if there was any).
TH
thepinkpantsuit
> Am 11.08.2011 19:26, schrieb The Starmaker:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "A professor at the Institute for the Study of Gambling& Commercial Gaming at the University of Nevada, Reno, told Mr Rich: 'When something this unlikely happens in a casino, you arrest ‘em first and ask questions later.'"
>
> > Well, aren't they going to *arrest* this chick named Joan, a
> > math professor with a PhD from Stanford University specialising in statistics?
>
> > She's a crook, a thief...she cheated!
>
> > Isn't it a federal offense?
>
> > She needs to give back the money she stoled.
>
> > Somebody else was suppose to get that ticket, and she stoled it from them.
>
> > She in fact, *cheated*.
>
> > Throw her in jail! For cheating!! For stealing!!!
>
> Always try to find out: who did what and why?
>
> Do you really believe funny stories from magazines and newspapers?
> Are you certain, this person exists in the first place?
> But there IS a story and that story is a fact. The content of the story
> is fiction - if not proven otherwise.
So, you're suggesting the content of the story has not been fact
checked and the newspapers are writing about 'fictional' people?
The story are the letters in the
> magazine. These are facts, because they are there (the magazines and the
> letters).
>
> If winning four times is so unlikely, it is more likely that she didn't.
> This would mean, the story is a hoax.
>
> Would this 'hoax hypothesis' make any sense?
No. No it would not, based on the fact fraud was alleged and
investigated in Canada, the hypothesis that she somehow 'cheated'
would have merit.
>
> Well, actually yes, because it could tell people another story:
> "look at this woman. She is smart and can out-trick the lottery. Ain't
> you much smarter? You've got no PhD - of course- but certainly your
> merits. So why don't you try and get REAL rich????"
>
> Such a subliminal message could gain much more than the loss of a few
> million (if there was any).
WTF?
> TH- Hide quoted text -
Eric S. Harris
> On 8/11/11 10:49 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>
>> But since it's a 'math professor with a PhD'...there's this 'illusion of
>> trust'.
>>
>
> No. Since she won fair and square, there's no illusion of anything.
> The fact that she might have been able to figure out something that
> stupider or less methodical people couldn't doesn't, in any way, make
> her a cheater. The rules have NOTHING in them saying you can't use
> mathematical methods to figure out how to improve your odds.
>
> Of course, the lottery people running it should have recognized that
> ANY regularity in the process would make it possible for someone to
> break the pattern, and randomized it. They didn't. So she gets to win
> once every few years. That's not stealing. It's being smart.
>
> You're just jealous you're not smart enough to have figured it out
> yourself.
Hmmm. The people running something got a result they didn't want.
Apparently it was preventable, but those who could have prevented it
lacked the incentive to do so. Either that, or the cost of preventing
that result was considered to be greater than the benefit of reducing
that risk.
Speaking of having to pay for this undesired result... Did any person
get fired over this, or any company lose a contract, or any bureaucracy
lose any funding?
If I cared more, I'd read the article and maybe find out. But the cost
... Aww, you know the rest. -Eric
--
Replace the "w" with a "y" when replying via e-mail. If I haven't
replied to an alleged rebuttal (yet), it may not be the most deserving
of correction; it's a big Internet and I'm only one opinionated guy:
http://xkcd.com/386 Bitcoin addr: 19gYsCTyjyYwF48ea3rHaziDNzYhnvgLH5
David Dyer-Bennet
> On Aug 19, 12:03 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...@web.de> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Am 11.08.2011 19:26, schrieb The Starmaker:
>
> > > "A professor at the Institute for the Study of Gambling& Commercial Gaming at the University of Nevada, Reno, told Mr Rich: 'When something this unlikely happens in a casino, you arrest ‘em first and ask questions later.'"
> > >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2023514/Joan-R-Ginther-won-lo...
>
> > > Well, aren't they going to *arrest* this chick named Joan, a
> > > math professor with a PhD from Stanford University specialising in statistics?
>
> > > She's a crook, a thief...she cheated!
>
> > > Isn't it a federal offense?
>
> > > She needs to give back the money she stoled.
>
> > > Somebody else was suppose to get that ticket, and she stoled it from them.
>
> > > She in fact, *cheated*.
>
> > > Throw her in jail! For cheating!! For stealing!!!
>
> > Always try to find out: who did what and why?
>
> > Do you really believe funny stories from magazines and newspapers?
> > Are you certain, this person exists in the first place?
> > But there IS a story and that story is a fact. The content of the story
> > is fiction - if not proven otherwise.
>
> So, you're suggesting the content of the story has not been fact
> checked and the newspapers are writing about 'fictional' people?
They've certainly been caught at it before,
and not just the tabloids.
The more I know personally about an
event, the less good the newspaper
coverage seems to me.
> The story are the letters in the
>
> > magazine. These are facts, because they are there (the magazines and the
> > letters).
>
> > If winning four times is so unlikely, it is more likely that she didn't.
> > This would mean, the story is a hoax.
>
> > Would this 'hoax hypothesis' make any sense?
>
> No. No it would not, based on the fact fraud was alleged and
> investigated in Canada, the hypothesis that she somehow 'cheated'
> would have merit.
Wait, Canada? But the events that people
are thinking may involve fraud took place
in Texas, and she lives in Las Vegas.
So that's pretty immediately not credible.
Also, the fact of an investigation does not
prove that something wrong was done; it's
the automatic political response to a ruckus.
The Starmaker
>
> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
> > On 8/11/11 10:49 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> >> But since it's a 'math professor with a PhD'...there's this 'illusion of
> >> trust'.
> >>
> >
> > No. Since she won fair and square, there's no illusion of anything.
> > The fact that she might have been able to figure out something that
> > stupider or less methodical people couldn't doesn't, in any way, make
> > her a cheater. The rules have NOTHING in them saying you can't use
> > mathematical methods to figure out how to improve your odds.
> >
> > Of course, the lottery people running it should have recognized that
> > ANY regularity in the process would make it possible for someone to
> > break the pattern, and randomized it. They didn't. So she gets to win
> > once every few years. That's not stealing. It's being smart.
> >
> > You're just jealous you're not smart enough to have figured it out
> > yourself.
>
> Hmmm. The people running something got a result they didn't want.
> Apparently it was preventable, but those who could have prevented it
> lacked the incentive to do so. Either that, or the cost of preventing
> that result was considered to be greater than the benefit of reducing
> that risk.
>
> Speaking of having to pay for this undesired result... Did any person
> get fired over this, or any company lose a contract, or any bureaucracy
> lose any funding?
well yes, there are lottery outlets that are being...punished, like
having to pay back thousands with...what do you call it when they put a
lien on your business?
There are laws through out different states now that say if a outlet
lottery seller wins more than $5,000
they will automatically get investigated..
Come on, the guy downstairs from me who sells lottery tickets I think he
spends 24/7 scatching tickets!
The Starmaker
You cannot possibly cheat without a math major.
The Starmaker
There's a patteren to the way the tickets are printed, not distributed.
Distribution is random.
Thomas Heger
> On Aug 18, 11:37 pm, thepinkpantsuit<editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> She in fact, *cheated*.
>>
>>>> Throw her in jail! For cheating!! For stealing!!!
>>
>>> Always try to find out: who did what and why?
>>
>>> Do you really believe funny stories from magazines and newspapers?
>>> Are you certain, this person exists in the first place?
>>> But there IS a story and that story is a fact. The content of the story
>>> is fiction - if not proven otherwise.
>>
>> So, you're suggesting the content of the story has not been fact
>> checked and the newspapers are writing about 'fictional' people?
Some basics:
what IS a newspaper? Mainly paper, with letters and graphics printed on it.
Who pays for that paper?
Answer: not mainly the customer, because most of the content is advertising.
Is the part, that is not advertising somehow influenced by the people,
that pay for the rest?
Well... you decide.
What about movies? Ain't that true and valid documentations of events,
that really happened?
(Answer: Sometimes... but not that often)
So large letters or a screenplay are no guarantee for a grain of truth.
But that doesn't mean, it's all wrong. Only the size of the letters or
the budged of the movie are no hint for the validity of the story told.
If someone says, such a win would happen in a fair world based on pure
luck only every trillion year, than possibly somebody cheated.
And possibly somebody is cheated. and most likely that is not the
company of the lottery, because these people are really smart. Who's
left then to be charted?
In poker they call it 'the fish'. And: ' if you don't know how the fish
is, its you'.
TH
Eric S. Harris
> You cannot possibly cheat without a math major.
I didn't know Monica Lewinski majored in math.
Why do you bring her up? Can't we just move on (tm)? -Eric
thepinkpantsuit
> Am 19.08.2011 16:23, schrieb David Dyer-Bennet:
>
> > On Aug 18, 11:37 pm, thepinkpantsuit<editoriale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> She in fact, *cheated*.
>
> >>>> Throw her in jail! For cheating!! For stealing!!!
>
> >>> Always try to find out: who did what and why?
>
> >>> Do you really believe funny stories from magazines and newspapers?
> >>> Are you certain, this person exists in the first place?
> >>> But there IS a story and that story is a fact. The content of the story
> >>> is fiction - if not proven otherwise.
>
> >> So, you're suggesting the content of the story has not been fact
> >> checked and the newspapers are writing about 'fictional' people?
>
> Some basics:
> what IS a newspaper? Mainly paper, with letters and graphics printed on it.
> Who pays for that paper?
> Answer: not mainly the customer, because most of the content is advertising.
> Is the part, that is not advertising somehow influenced by the people,
> that pay for the rest?
> Well... you decide.
I know this. And while the angle of content may be influenced by
advertisers, that does not mean they are free to print untruths.
> What about movies? Ain't that true and valid documentations of events,
> that really happened?
> (Answer: Sometimes... but not that often)
Well, now you're talking 'based on a true story' or based on real
events' and 'creative license.'
>
> So large letters or a screenplay are no guarantee for a grain of truth.
> But that doesn't mean, it's all wrong. Only the size of the letters or
> the budged of the movie are no hint for the validity of the story told.
>
> If someone says, such a win would happen in a fair world based on pure
> luck only every trillion year, than possibly somebody cheated.
Yes, and the Canadian paper presented pattern evidence to support
their contention of cheating, and that pattern of circumstantial
evidence led to an investigation.
>
> And possibly somebody is cheated. and most likely that is not the
> company of the lottery, because these people are really smart. Who's
> left then to be charted?
Perhaps 'cheating' is the wrong terminology. Let's call it gaming the
system.
Greg Goss
>I mean, ...I just don't understand.
>
>Shouldn't
> math professors with a PhD
>be teaching their students
>How To Crack The Lottery
>all over the country?
>
>You know...
>to help pay for their tution
>...
>instead of their students working
>at strip clubs to pay for college?
>
>I just don't get it.
Perhaps the math professors are paying the students at the strip
clubs.
--
"If the Gods Had Meant Us to Vote They Would Have Given Us Candidates" (Jim Hightower)
The Starmaker
>
> The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >I mean, ...I just don't understand.
> >
> >Shouldn't
> > math professors with a PhD
> >be teaching their students
> >How To Crack The Lottery
> >all over the country?
> >
> >You know...
> >to help pay for their tution
> >...
> >instead of their students working
> >at strip clubs to pay for college?
> >
> >I just don't get it.
>
> Perhaps the math professors are paying the students at the strip
> clubs.
They probably play bongos too..
Greg Goss
Hmmm. I haven't run into that word for it yet. I guess I'm just out
of touch with kids these days.
jim
>
> >> >I mean, ...I just don't understand.
>
> >> >Shouldn't
> >> > math professors with a PhD
> >> >be teaching their students
> >> >How To Crack The Lottery
> >> >all over the country?
>
> >> >You know...
> >> >to help pay for their tution
> >> >...
> >> >instead of their students working
> >> >at strip clubs to pay for college?
>
> >> >I just don't get it.
>
> >> Perhaps the math professors are paying the students at the strip
> >> clubs.
>
> >They probably play bongos too..
>
> Hmmm. I haven't run into that word for it yet. I guess I'm just out
> of touch with kids these days.
> --
> "If the Gods Had Meant Us to Vote They Would Have Given Us Candidates" (Jim Hightower)
Well, the people that work with math, should take some hints from
history:
No matter how much you dream that science is entirely mathematics:
the people who know how Logic really works, are still going to
discover non Euclidean Geometry and Digital Computers.
The people who know how Chemistry really works, are still going to
discover Plutonium.
The people who know how Biology really works, are not only going to
still discover DNA,
they're also still going to discover RNA, Gene Splicing, and the
world's most deadly virus'.
The people who know how physics really works, are not only still
going to discover lasers,
they're still going to discover atomic clocks, and nano-technology.
The people who know how engineering really works are still going to
discover Mach 100 Space Vehicles.
Robert Carnegie
>
> >> >I mean, ...I just don't understand.
>
> >> >Shouldn't
> >> > math professors with a PhD
> >> >be teaching their students
> >> >How To Crack The Lottery
> >> >all over the country?
>
> >> >You know...
> >> >to help pay for their tution
> >> >...
> >> >instead of their students working
> >> >at strip clubs to pay for college?
>
> >> >I just don't get it.
>
> >> Perhaps the math professors are paying the students at the strip
> >> clubs.
>
> >They probably play bongos too..
>
> Hmmm. I haven't run into that word for it yet. I guess I'm just out
> of touch with kids these days.
The first three Google results for "Feynman" and "bongos" are
(apparently) videos of him doing it. (Possibly the same video.) So I
assume that's the reference.
The Starmaker
feyman was 'addicted' to orgies..
had to be his students he was banging...besides the bongos.
I know a little about playing the bongos...
the only reason why guys play the bongos is to get the girls to strip.
Go ahead, play a bongo in front of a girl and you'll notice her ass will beging to shake..
play it faster, and her ass moves faster..
then you tell her to "Take it off!"..
and she'll take it off.
Why else in the world would Feyman play the bongos?
Has anybody bothered to look at the videos of female students in Feyman classes? All the girls look like sluts!!!
His lectures are filled with orgie girls.
The Starmaker
Don't tell me you don't know what an "orgie girl" looks like.
They all have the same look...
I can spot an 'orgie girl' a mile away.
And so can Feyman.