Roy Meadow
DHP
last struck him off, perhaps opening the way for other innocent
grieving mothers to be released from captivity, after due process.
BUT...
RM is not the problem. Neither is the judicial dependence on expert
testimony without which we would be reliant on eye witnesses and
detectives with big magnifying glasses. What's more, doctors are
becoming nervous about giving opinions in court. The answer to both of
these is not to go easy on villains who tell lies at trials in order
to bolster thier own reputation but to instigate a system of quality
control for expert testimony. It has been done for forensic evidence
following a spate of miscarriages of justice and unsafe convictions.
Nowadays, labs are routinely subjected to blind testing. If they
produce 1 in 100 false results it makes nonsense of the usual Huge
Numbers Game - "The odds against this match occuring by chance are
53864921675820587:1", duh. So labs are only trusted to the degree thay
have proved themselves. In any case judges do not allow odds of more
than 100:1 to be cited no matter how good a lab's track record.
Furthermore, where forensic evidence is crucial, impartial
statisticians are available to comment, regardless of the quality of
the science itself. In contrast, as soon as the magic word "children"
is uttered, everyone loses touch with reality in a rush to protect
them - if necessary by destroying the mothers "just in case"..
Self-appointed experts are dug out their holes to expound pet theories
that nobody has ever verified and to accuse people of heinous crimes
without a shred of evidence except their own crackpot ideas.
Why wasn't the accuracy of RM's diagnostic ability verified before
accepting his testimony? It's not the first time. Remember the
families destroyed by that mad Higgs woman? Or the Cleveland disaster?
If we applied the same kind of quality control to expert witnersses as
is used industrially to make sure wheels fit on cars, real experts
could give testimony secure in the knowlededge that sound science will
be listened to without a witch-hunt to follow. At the same time
quackery would not get a hearing. It would be vastly expensive to do
it for a single case but false imprisonment is a terrifying scenario
and, it would appear, is far from uncommon. It's no good heaping
humiliation on RM, he can just rot in his own private hell. The system
that put him on a pedastal needs overhauling now.
DHP
<elvis...@notatla.org.uk> wrote:
>On 2005-07-16, DHP <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> Ok, he's a liar, a fool and arrogant beyond belief and the GMC have at
>> last struck him off, perhaps opening the way for other innocent
>> grieving mothers to be released from captivity, after due process.
>>
>> BUT...
>>
>> RM is not the problem. Neither is the judicial dependence on expert
>> testimony without which we would be reliant on eye witnesses and
>
>How about compulsory statistcs tests for all potential jurors on trials
>that involve statistics? Length of jury service to be doubled for those
>that fail.
I'd start with the judges. Imagine a judge who turned to Roy Meadow
and said "73 million to one eh? That's more than the number of
families in the UK, Europe and the USA combined. So you're saying
there has never been a case of double cot death except by murder?
Where exactly did you go to school, Professor?"
Sam Nelson
says...
We get the judges, juries, and expert witnesses our mathematical
education system deserves. People are very bad, as a rule, at
assessing probabilities and risks.
The corollary is also true, of course. It's quite possible that
someone, somewhere, has _escaped_ conviction due to a crap probability
argument or the misunderstanding thereof.
--
SAm.
Pablo Guildenstern
> Ok, he's a liar, a fool and arrogant beyond belief and the GMC have at
> last struck him off, perhaps opening the way for other innocent
> grieving mothers to be released from captivity, after due process.
>
> BUT...
>
> RM is not the problem. Neither is the judicial dependence on expert
> testimony without which we would be reliant on eye witnesses and
Look, he used a probability calculation that's only valid for
independent events, for events that are, prima facie, not independent.
Unforgivable, for a supposed expert.
And that should be the full extent of the matter. Not much else is
relevant.
--
The piano was never the same
Pablo Guildenstern
>
> Fuck. It could take *months* to empanel a jury if they had to show basic
> stats competence.
Actuaries and gamblers. Not hard to find.
bof
<s...@ssrl.org.uk> writes
>We get the judges, juries, and expert witnesses our mathematical
>education system deserves. People are very bad, as a rule, at
>assessing probabilities and risks.
>
>The corollary is also true, of course.
> It's quite possible that
>someone, somewhere, has _escaped_ conviction due to a crap probability
>argument or the misunderstanding thereof.
Bollocks, the odds on that are millions to one against.
--
bof at bof dot me dot uk
Marcus Houlden
wrote the following to uk.misc:
> Marc Wilson <ma...@cleopatra.co.uk> writes:
>
>> In uk.misc, (August West) wrote in <87pstif...@news2.kororaa.com>::
>>
>> >Pablo Guildenstern <divad...@retsehcnam.ca.ku> writes:
>> >
>> >> Costing the net hundreds if not thousands of dollars, Marc Wilson said:
>> >> >
>> >> > Fuck. It could take *months* to empanel a jury if they had to
>> >> > show basic stats competence.
>> >>
>> >> Actuaries and gamblers. Not hard to find.
>> >
>> >Actuaries are expensive, whereas gamblers are disposable...
>>
>> And while gamblers are plentiful, *successful* gamblers are not, and
>> they're the ones who understand stats.
>
> But if they're smart enough to understand stats, why are they still
> gamblers?
So much easier when it's someone else's money.
mh.
--
Reply-to address *is* valid. "From" address is a blackhole.
This space to let.
Keith Willoughby
> Marc Wilson <ma...@cleopatra.co.uk> writes:
>
>>
>> And while gamblers are plentiful, *successful* gamblers are not, and
>> they're the ones who understand stats.
>
> But if they're smart enough to understand stats, why are they still
> gamblers?
There's more to gambling than roulette and bingo. Poker, for one, gives
a huge edge to anyone who understands probabilities.
--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
Thy Damnation Slumbereth Not
John of Aix
> Marc Wilson <ma...@cleopatra.co.uk> writes:
>
>> In uk.misc, (August West) wrote in
>> <87pstif...@news2.kororaa.com>::
>>
>>> Pablo Guildenstern <divad...@retsehcnam.ca.ku> writes:
>>>
>>>> said:
>>>>>
>>>>> Fuck. It could take *months* to empanel a jury if they had to
>>>>> show basic stats competence.
>>>>
>>>> Actuaries and gamblers. Not hard to find.
>>>
>>
>> they're the ones who understand stats.
>
> But if they're smart enough to understand stats, why are they still
> gamblers?
Because stats don't pay well?
Keith Willoughby
> There are people who make a very good living from betting on horses.
> Mind you, they spend as much time at it as they would working...
A lot more, probably, in the days before the betting duty was abolished
off-course. Took a long time to travel to the course to get your bet on.
--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
"Marriage has been undermined by divorce, so don't tell me about marriage.
Don't blame the gay and lesbian, transgender and transsexual community."
-- Mayor Daley
Keith Willoughby
> Keith Willoughby <ke...@flat222.org> writes:
>
>> August West <aug...@kororaa.com> writes:
>>
>> > Marc Wilson <ma...@cleopatra.co.uk> writes:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> And while gamblers are plentiful, *successful* gamblers are not, and
>> >> they're the ones who understand stats.
>> >
>> > But if they're smart enough to understand stats, why are they still
>> > gamblers?
>>
>> There's more to gambling than roulette and bingo. Poker, for one, gives
>> a huge edge to anyone who understands probabilities.
>
> "poker, for one,"... and the others..?
Blackjack gives you a small edge. If you have an aptitude for applying
knowledge in sports betting into a likely band of odds, then
understanding probability will also help you there. Then there are the
professional bridge and backgammon players, and 10p-a-point crib
players, where probability plays a small role. Plus the preverts who
play brag, although that's mostly intuition, psychology, and balls.
--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
"Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars,
pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was
the object. " -- Abraham Lincoln
DHP
Unforgivable for anyone. You do not need to be an expert to
understand "Cot deaths run in this family". You also would not expect
"The odds are 73 million to one" to mean "assuming cot death doesn't
run in the family", you would expect it to mean "because cot deaths
never run in families". However, iirc, this numerical evidence was
ruled out wasn't it?
Keith Willoughby
> JAF <anarchSP...@ntlworld.com> writes:
>
>>
>> The 'High-Low count' as featured on Horizon the other night, works, but it
>> only tells you whether you or the House has the advantage at any particular
>> time, but it does definitely swing the odds in the players favour, by one or
>> two percent. If you've got a whole evening to spare, that can add up to a
>> lot of money.
>
> If you don't get caught... casino management ain't dumb.
The MIT team made over a million dollars before they got caught.
It's pretty hard to catch a small-time operator, as properly done, it's
indistinguishable from a lucky streak. Ideally, you work in pairs. One
bets the minimum each hand, counting the cards, and signals discreetly
to his partner when it's time to come in and start betting heavily. This
removes the only real clue to someone counting - the variation of the
bets.
A friend of mine used to do it at Foxwoods in Connecticut, and made
thousands, but said it basically became too much like hard work. You
have to sit there for hours churning over your bankroll, because the
advantage to even perfect counting is tiny. He gave it up in the end,
and turned to poker, which is much easier to win at if you're any good.
--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
I took the bus from Balmbras
And she was heavy laden
Keith Willoughby
> Keith Willoughby <ke...@flat222.org> writes:
>
>> August West <aug...@kororaa.com> writes:
>>
>> > If you don't get caught... casino management ain't dumb.
>>
>> The MIT team made over a million dollars before they got caught.
>
> Which was how many years ago?
1992-1993
> Casinos got smart to it.
The MIT team got caught because they got greedy. They went back time and
time again, in large teams, and decided to disguise themselves,
poorly. They drew attention to themselves. A small team, not drawing
attention to themselves, rotating casinos, could (and almost certainly
do) make decent money at it. Of course, all a casino has to do to remove
the risk totally is employ constant-shuffle machines on 8 or more decks,
but I guess they think it's not worth the expense, given the small
number of counters and the huge number of tourists.
>> but said it basically became too much like hard work.
>
> And there you go. So, why bother?
Same reason most people put in hard work. Money.
> Really, it's a complete mystery to me.
Which bit? Gambling, or working hard at gambling? I playe poker because
it's a hobby that pays, in stark contrast to most hobbies. The top
tournament and cash game players do it because they make an absolute
fucking fortune (Daniel Negreanu won $4.5m last year in tournaments,
plus all his endorsements; Joe Bachem just won $7.5m in the World Series
of Poker.) Many of the middling tourney professionals enjoy the
lifestyle, or the cameraderie, or the adrenaline. They all enjoy the
money, too, when it comes. (And, yes, many of them are compulsive
gamblers, too)
As far as the guys who eke out a reasonable living at middle-limits
go; well, it's a job, innit.
--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
"I've had pretty good success with Stan by throwing him my best pitch and
backing up third." - Carl Erskine
Pablo Guildenstern
>
> >Pablo Guildenstern <divad...@retsehcnam.ca.ku> writes:
> >
> >> >
> >> > Fuck. It could take *months* to empanel a jury if they had to show basic
> >> > stats competence.
> >>
> >> Actuaries and gamblers. Not hard to find.
> >
>
> they're the ones who understand stats.
>
Pablo Guildenstern
>
> But if they're smart enough to understand stats, why are they still
> gamblers?
There are a few +ve expectation deals around.
Pablo Guildenstern
>
> > August West <aug...@kororaa.com> writes:
> >
> > > Marc Wilson <ma...@cleopatra.co.uk> writes:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> And while gamblers are plentiful, *successful* gamblers are not, and
> > >> they're the ones who understand stats.
> > >
> > > But if they're smart enough to understand stats, why are they still
> > > gamblers?
> >
> > There's more to gambling than roulette and bingo. Poker, for one, gives
> > a huge edge to anyone who understands probabilities.
>
>
>
Occasional craps bets
Arbitrage opportunities on the various sports books
Pablo Guildenstern
said:
> A friend of mine used to do it at Foxwoods in Connecticut, and made
> thousands, but said it basically became too much like hard work. You
> have to sit there for hours churning over your bankroll, because the
> advantage to even perfect counting is tiny. He gave it up in the end,
> and turned to poker, which is much easier to win at if you're any good.
Fellow I know says much the same about poker, actually - if you don't
mind spending 4 to 6 hours a day playing tight, you don't even need any
great skill, and you make your plane fare to Vegas in a week, sitting
ina 3-6 game. Then in the second week, you can grind out a profit, or
lose your wad by getting cocky and moving up to 5-10.
[adjust limits quoted according to personal skill level]
Playing that much gets you enough comps that you pretty much eat free,
too
Pablo Guildenstern
said:
>
>
> Blackjack gives you a small edge. If you have an aptitude for applying
> knowledge in sports betting into a likely band of odds, then
> understanding probability will also help you there. Then there are the
> professional bridge and backgammon players, and 10p-a-point crib
> players, where probability plays a small role. Plus the preverts who
> play brag, although that's mostly intuition, psychology, and balls.
Which big time poker player is/was it whose best game is actually gin
rummy? That's a big money game in parts of the US
Pablo Guildenstern
>
> > Arbitrage opportunities on the various sports books
>
>
>
It's a complex epistemological point.
Is _any_ placing of a bet "gambling"?
Or is it only if you can't be sure of the combined outcome of your bets
on an event or series of events?
Is there a probability at which, even though profit is not certain, it
no longer counts as gambling?
What about things not normally described as gambling that have similar
risk profiles?
Keith Willoughby
Stuey Ungar. He only turned to poker when people started refusing to
play him at gin.
Dan Harrington used to be a big winner at backgammon, before he got
bored and turned to poker.
--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
"I'll have ten Kit Kats and a motoring atlas"
Sam Nelson
@notatla.org.uk says...
> On 2005-07-16, Pablo Guildenstern <divad...@retsehcnam.ca.ku> wrote:
> > Look, he used a probability calculation that's only valid for
> > independent events, for events that are, prima facie, not independent.
> > Unforgivable, for a supposed expert.
> > And that should be the full extent of the matter. Not much else is
> > relevant.
>
> both reasons for being shouted down on the spot.
Given the adversarial nature of the judicial process around these parts
one is forced to consider the competence of the defence.
--
SAm.
Pablo Guildenstern
said:
> bored and turned to poker.
Oh, yeh, that's another - Victor Lownes used to say he's cross the
Atlantic if he could get a game against certain people.
Linz
>Ok, he's a liar, a fool and arrogant beyond belief and the GMC have at
>last struck him off, perhaps opening the way for other innocent
>grieving mothers to be released from captivity, after due process.
>
>BUT...
One of the cleared women said that a very good paediatrician has been
struck off the register, which wasn't what they wanted. All they
wanted was an apology, for him to say he made a mistake.
--
The point of education is to correct ignorance. It cannot deal with stupidity.
(Mortimer Hebblethwaite, uk.misc)
Mr. Broadhurst
> One of the cleared women said that a very good paediatrician has been
> struck off the register, which wasn't what they wanted. All they
> wanted was an apology, for him to say he made a mistake.
Welcome to the time of judgement by media.
DHP
wrote:
>On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 12:14:28 GMT, DHP <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>Ok, he's a liar, a fool and arrogant beyond belief and the GMC have at
>>last struck him off, perhaps opening the way for other innocent
>>grieving mothers to be released from captivity, after due process.
>>
>>BUT...
>
>One of the cleared women said that a very good paediatrician has been
>struck off the register, which wasn't what they wanted. All they
>wanted was an apology, for him to say he made a mistake.
In the same way that a terrorist bomber may be a "very kind family
man". Anyway, his being struck off has nothing to do with what his
victims wanted, it is purely because his conduct warrents it. But yes,
an apology would be nice.
Pablo Guildenstern
>
> >JAF <anarchSP...@ntlworld.com> writes:
> >
> >> On 17 Jul 2005 00:15:35 +0100, August West <aug...@kororaa.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> There's more to gambling than roulette and bingo. Poker, for one, gives
> >> >> a huge edge to anyone who understands probabilities.
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >Perhaps... normaly, it's ~5% in favour of the house...
>
> Yes- but that's pretty good odds by gambling standards.
>
Um. I thought it was rather less than -0.05. I mean, English roulette's
only -0.026something.
Pablo Guildenstern
>
> >Marc Wilson <ma...@cleopatra.co.uk> writes:
> >
> >> In uk.misc, (August West) wrote in <877jfqf...@news2.kororaa.com>::
> >>
> >> >Keith Willoughby <ke...@flat222.org> writes:
> >> >
> >> >> There's more to gambling than roulette and bingo. Poker, for one, gives
> >> >> a huge edge to anyone who understands probabilities.
> >> >
> >> >"poker, for one,"... and the others..?
> >>
> >> Mind you, they spend as much time at it as they would working...
> >
> >Jeez. Working's easier...
>
> But, sadly, not tax-free (unless you work for a major corporation with
> party links, of course).
>
In the US, and I believe here, the taxmen like to take some off you
anyway, if they can class it as income any way at all.
Pablo Guildenstern
> > >> Blackjack, for sure.
> > >
> > >Perhaps... normaly, it's ~5% in favour of the house...
> >
> > Yes- but that's pretty good odds by gambling standards.
>
The thing about blackjack is that, if you can do the counting and not
get thrown out, you can turn it from - to about +0.015
If you can get away with Kelly betting as well, that's an income stream.
Bloke I used to play poker with did 3 to 4 hours a day of blackjack in
Manchester casinos, 5 days a week, averaged 1800/month. Which is less
than I make as a salaryman, but it takes me 7.5 hours a day.
Keith Willoughby
> Costing the net hundreds if not thousands of dollars, Marc Wilson said:
>> In uk.misc, (August West) wrote in <873bqef...@news2.kororaa.com>::
>> >> There are people who make a very good living from betting on horses.
>> >> Mind you, they spend as much time at it as they would working...
>> >
>> >Jeez. Working's easier...
>>
>> But, sadly, not tax-free (unless you work for a major corporation with
>> party links, of course).
>>
> In the US, and I believe here, the taxmen like to take some off you
> anyway, if they can class it as income any way at all.
In the US, it's worse than you'd think. Legally, everyone (not just the
professionals) have to keep a record of every session. Every winning
session must be reported as income, and every losing session must be
listed as an itemised deduction. This means that if you turn over any
significant amount, the income can take you into a higher tax band, and
the deductions can both lead to a reduction in other allowable
deductions (mortgage interest, etc) and to you ending up being taxed at
the Alternative Minimum Tax rate (ie, the one that's there to catch
people who make excessive deductions just to reduce their tax.)
In the UK, it's tax-free as long as it's not your primary source of
income, AIUI.
--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
"You've sunk my battleship!"
BRIAN BLESSED
<ma...@cleopatra.co.uk> writes:
>The US is far more draconian- even if a US citizen lives abroad, if he wins
>e.g. the lottery, the IRS will want a slice. The only way for him to keep
>all the dosh is to never go home.
A cow-orker (who recently left for pastures new) is dual US/British.
One of the ruses they've apparently got is that you can't renew your US
passport unless your tax returns are all correctly filed for the last N
years. Given that it seems to be hard enough to get competent
accountants who understand US tax law in the US, this seems to be quite
difficult for USonians living abroad - even those who don't want to hide
taxable earnings.
--
HELLO. I'M BRIAN BLESSED.
Linz
"Mr. Broadhurst" <qrnq_fghs...@ubgznvy.pb.hx> wrote in message
news:42daa05a$0$30661$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
Partly.
There's quite a few cases of medical problems that end up going to
court for compensation because it ends up being the only way of
getting someone to take responsibility for a mistake. I have read
interviews with people (yeah, I know, anecdata) who have said that
they wanted an apology for a mistake being made and ended up going to
court over it. And invariably winning.
DHP
wrote:
I don't understand why anyone should apologise for an *honest*
mistake. Persisting with an obviously flawed theory which puts
innocent mothers behind bars is a *dishonest* mistake. The Japs could
teach us a thing or two about ritual grovelling, but no apology is
meaningful without genuine contrition in which RM seems to be totally
lacking.
Not to mention that an apology means admitting liability. He could end
up having to pay compensation.
Pablo Guildenstern
ma...@cleopatra.co.uk says...
> It's tax-free, period, AIUI, as long as you're a punter and not e.g. the
> bookie.
>
Hmm, what do they think about people who use the betting
exchanges to lay rather than to back?
--
In a field not far away is a herd of cows, grazing quietly.
One of the cows is most unusual.
Blue Cow wonders:
Wonders about the big world beyond her field.
Peter Corlett
[...]
> It's a complex epistemological point.
> Is _any_ placing of a bet "gambling"?
> Or is it only if you can't be sure of the combined outcome of your bets
> on an event or series of events?
> Is there a probability at which, even though profit is not certain, it
> no longer counts as gambling?
I'd say that it's not "gambling" as such if the long-term odds ensure
that you're winning, even if you're playing a game where other players
may well be losing.
> What about things not normally described as gambling that have
> similar risk profiles?
You mean the stock market, or property speculation?
--
It is not the simple statement of facts that ushers in freedom; it is the
constant repetition of them that has this liberating effect. Tolerance is the
result not of enlightenment, but of boredom.
- Quentin Crisp
BRIAN BLESSED
>On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 11:00:26 +0100, "Linz" <sp...@lindsayendell.co.uk>
>wrote:
>>interviews with people (yeah, I know, anecdata) who have said that
>>they wanted an apology for a mistake being made and ended up going to
>>court over it. And invariably winning.
>
>I don't understand why anyone should apologise for an *honest*
>mistake.
People apologise for things like that all the time. Sorry, I forgot to
pick up your prescription this afternoon, it slipped my mind. By the
time I'd got to the shops, they'd sold out of $favourite_food, so we
won't be able to have that for tea tonight. The dog ran out of nowhere
and I couldn't stop in time, I'm so sorry.
Certainly, the court and defence lawyers have some blame here for not
highlighting or enquiring about these statistics at the case. But if
you're an expert witness, surely it is morally (even if not legally)
incumbent upon you to say "Well, I'm not on expert on <X>" when giving
details or guesses outside your area of expertise?
I may very well know the ins and outs of all the technicalities of
something, but I'm unlikely to give a concrete figure of "seventy three
million to one" in a court of law without thinking "Urrr, can I back
that figure up?"
ken baker
>>
>> >JAF <anarchSP...@ntlworld.com> writes:
>> >
>> >> On 17 Jul 2005 00:15:35 +0100, August West <aug...@kororaa.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> a huge edge to anyone who understands probabilities.
>> >> >
>> >> >"poker, for one,"... and the others..?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Perhaps... normaly, it's ~5% in favour of the house...
>>
>> only tells you whether you or the House has the advantage at any particular
>> time, but it does definitely swing the odds in the players favour, by one or
>> two percent. If you've got a whole evening to spare, that can add up to a
>> lot of money.
>
> If you don't get caught... casino management ain't dumb.
>
Does anybody else think that Casino management who define 'remembering
which cards have been played, and betting accordingly' as cheating
should have their licenses revoked? And all their money taken
away. And imprisoned. And, and, grrrrrrrrrrrr.
DHP
<brianb...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
>In message <gu5nd1li8s2t6bvn9...@4ax.com>, DHP
><m...@privacy.net> writes:
>>On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 11:00:26 +0100, "Linz" <sp...@lindsayendell.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>>I have read
>>>interviews with people (yeah, I know, anecdata) who have said that
>>>they wanted an apology for a mistake being made and ended up going to
>>>court over it. And invariably winning.
>>
>>I don't understand why anyone should apologise for an *honest*
>>mistake.
>
>People apologise for things like that all the time. Sorry, I forgot to
>pick up your prescription this afternoon, it slipped my mind. By the
>time I'd got to the shops, they'd sold out of $favourite_food, so we
>won't be able to have that for tea tonight. The dog ran out of nowhere
>and I couldn't stop in time, I'm so sorry.
OK, point taken. I was thinking only of cases where an apology would
sound like an admission of culpability.
>Certainly, the court and defence lawyers have some blame here for not
>highlighting or enquiring about these statistics at the case. But if
>you're an expert witness, surely it is morally (even if not legally)
>incumbent upon you to say "Well, I'm not on expert on <X>" when giving
>details or guesses outside your area of expertise?
Do "expert" witnesses have immunity from perjury if they cock it up?
>I may very well know the ins and outs of all the technicalities of
>something, but I'm unlikely to give a concrete figure of "seventy three
>million to one" in a court of law without thinking "Urrr, can I back
>that figure up?"
I've got £73,000,000 in my bank account. Oh. sorry, that should be
£100. Easy mistake to make if you're Roy Meadow.
BRIAN BLESSED
writes:
>BRIAN BLESSED <brianb...@zephyr.org.uk> writes:
>>A cow-orker (who recently left for pastures new) is dual US/British.
>
>
>No they aren't.
>
></strictly speaking>
What are you basing that on? The US stopped making people renounce
other citizenships (which, in the case of the UK at least, was trivial
to reclaim) a few years back. For example:
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html
The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but
does not encourage it
http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html
Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended,
states that U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if
they perform certain acts voluntarily and with the intention to
^^^ ^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^
relinquish U.S. citizenship. Briefly stated, these acts include:
^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^
(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a)
(1) INA);
...
As already noted, the actions listed above can cause loss of
U.S. citizenship only if performed voluntarily and with the
intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship. The Department has
a uniform administrative standard of evidence based on the
premise that U.S. citizens intend to retain United States
^^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^
citizenship when they obtain naturalization in a foreign state,
^^^^^^^^^^^
subscribe to routine declarations of allegiance to a foreign
state, or accept non-policy level employment with a foreign
government.
In fact, pretty much any recent information on this confirms that it's
quite possible to hold US citizenship and citizenship of another country
from the US's point of view. The Supreme Court confirmed it. The US
Government just don't encourage it for a variety of reasons, and it may
not be possible in some circumstances.
Also, gaining UK citizenship doesn't force you to renounce other
citizenships (which could potentially be taken as an intention to
relinquish, as above):
<http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/ind/en/home/applying/british_nationalit
y/advice_about_nationality/bn18_-_dual_nationality.html>
Similarly, you will not need to give up any other nationality
when you become British.
But if the UK did make you, the US has already dealt with that:
http://www.richw.org/dualcit/cases.html#Richards - where they were
forced to relinquish it as part of the Canadian process, and the
US courts upheld this. (The relinquishing isn't done in Canada
now.)
http://www.richw.org/dualcit/cases.html#Rich - some years later than the
above case where they were forced to relinquish it as part of
the Spanish process, but that there "must be proof of a specific
intent to relinquish United States citizenship" - which there
wasn't.
It's also very easy for this to happen based on birth (and the US has
coped with that for a lot longer).
Pablo Guildenstern
ab...@dopiaza.cabal.org.uk says...
> Pablo Guildenstern <divad...@retsehcnam.ca.ku> wrote:
> [...]
> > It's a complex epistemological point.
> > Is _any_ placing of a bet "gambling"?
> > Or is it only if you can't be sure of the combined outcome of your bets
> > on an event or series of events?
> > Is there a probability at which, even though profit is not certain, it
> > no longer counts as gambling?
>
> I'd say that it's not "gambling" as such if the long-term odds ensure
> that you're winning, even if you're playing a game where other players
> may well be losing.
So, you like to have certainty of eventual +ve outcome, to not
call it gambling.
>
> > What about things not normally described as gambling that have
> > similar risk profiles?
>
> You mean the stock market, or property speculation?
...or the insurance industry, or...
Pablo Guildenstern
ma...@cleopatra.co.uk says...
> Can you use the betting exchanges to grab a share of whatever's going, or
> only specific events? Because I could see a distinction there.
>
They list various events, dunno what you need to do to get a
missing event listed, but I believe you can.
DHP
wrote:
>In message <MPG.1d4377c7f...@news.zen.co.uk>, Sam Nelson
><s...@ssrl.org.uk> writes
>
>
>>We get the judges, juries, and expert witnesses our mathematical
>>education system deserves. People are very bad, as a rule, at
>>assessing probabilities and risks.
>>
>>The corollary is also true, of course.
>
>> It's quite possible that
>>someone, somewhere, has _escaped_ conviction due to a crap probability
>>argument or the misunderstanding thereof.
>
>Bollocks, the odds on that are millions to one against.
So we can safely conclude it happens all the time.