John Kuthe wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 12:40:06 PM UTC-6, tert in seattle wrote:
>> Dave Smith wrote:
>> > On 2016-01-12 7:45 AM, wrote:
>> > shower curtain. LOL
>> >>
>> >> I read if you win it now and take the cash option yuu only get 868
>> >> million and that's before taxes.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Oh gee, wouldn't it be horrible to win only $868 million and get to keep
>> > only a half billion. Forget about that 10 car garage with an elevator
>> > to hold a dozen Feraris.
>>
>> or that career as a conceptual artist
>>
>> actually, with all that money, I think I would buy Usenet and turn it
>> into a for-profit business
>
> You would fail, because 1. Usenet is not for sale and 2. people like the WWW a lot better, generally speaking.
>
> John Kuthe...

****en John...this guy is sharp

I would hire this guy as COO in a flash

On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 09:44:36 -0800 (PST), Cindy Hamilton
> wrote:

>On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 10:02:14 AM UTC-5, Cheri wrote:
>> "Cindy Hamilton" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 10:28:26 PM UTC-5, Cheryl wrote:
>> >
>> >> I think I'll buy a few more chances this week since no one won.
>> >
>> > Mathematically speaking, the difference between buying 1 ticket
>> > and 5 tickets is not worth the extra $8.
>> >
>> > (Of course, mathematically speaking, the ROI on even one ticket is
>> > so close to zero that no statistician would consider it worth buying
>> > even one.)
>> >
>> > But if it makes you happy, go ahead and buy more. My husband does.
>> >
>> > We don't buy tickets very often; just often enough to give our
>> > "what I'd do with the money" fantasies a little more immediacy.
>> >
>> > Cindy Hamilton
>>
>> Nobody that buys a ticket cares about all the math and statistics, if you
>> play you have a chance at a dream, if you don't...
>
>Nobody? Really nobody? Zero people in the entire pool of Powerball
>bettors? That's a sweeping generalization.
>
>I care about the math and statistics, and I occasionally buy a ticket.
>Your thesis is disproved, without malice.
>
>I'm still hoping I win. Retire on Thursday? Oh, heck yes!
>
>Cindy Hamilton

I'm already retired, been retired for ten years, I'm lacking
nothing... I can't think of one gotta-have with the winnings... only
reason I bought a ticket hoping to win was to rub it in the wannabe
retired faces. Now if winning the lottery could make me 16 years old
again, now yer tawkin'! Heck, I'd settle for forty. Someone like
Bwrrryan has squandered his youth, winning the lottery wouldn't change
his life style, he'd still be whining about China and Walmart, he'd
lose it all within six months because he's dumber than a load of cow
flop. Money has no value without the youth and the knowledge to enjoy
it.

Nancy Young wrote:
>
> On 1/12/2016 10:01 AM, Cheri wrote:
> >
> > "Cindy Hamilton" > wrote
>
> >> We don't buy tickets very often; just often enough to give our
> >> "what I'd do with the money" fantasies a little more immediacy.
>
> > Nobody that buys a ticket cares about all the math and statistics, if
> > you play you have a chance at a dream, if you don't...
>
> At least one somebody is going to be damned happy they took a
> chance despite the odds. We're not talking hundreds of dollars
> a ticket, why not have a little fun with it.
>
> nancy


That's me. I rarely buy lottery tickets. At most maybe three $1
scratch tickets a month. Low winning amount but higher chance of
winning. Then I did buy one of the powerball tickets last week for
$2.

I'll probably buy another one tomorrow for this much higher one.

I never dream of winning but the so slight chance is good
entertainment value for the small investment.

And hey...the last two $1 scratch tickets did win me $8. It's fun for
the easily amused.

Helpful person wrote:
>
> On Friday, January 8, 2016 at 7:23:48 PM UTC-5, sf wrote:
> >
> > Now Trump wants to bomb Iraq's oil fields, which means more oil fires.
> > Iraq isn't the problem, it's Saudi Arabia.
> >
> Perhaps. However, like many areas of the world the Middle East was fairly stable until the USA decided to fix its problems.

The US does meddle much and cause problems. We are the "evil Satan"
However....the Middle East has never been stable.

I'd probably give up half of it if doing so could insure my anonymity.

But while I'd love to take out friends and relatives to restaurants every day,
for starters, Anthony Bourdain might tell you that's a bad idea, simply
because eateries use a lot of butter in the food.

Then I'd take friends around the world with me, I guess. (I never enjoy the
idea of being a solo tourist - it would just feel empty.)


Lenona.

On 2016-01-12 12:52 PM, Helpful person wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 11:40:59 AM UTC-5, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 2016-01-12 10:57 AM, Helpful person wrote:
>>> On Friday, January 8, 2016 at 7:23:48 PM UTC-5, sf wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Now Trump wants to bomb Iraq's oil fields, which means more oil fires.
>>>> Iraq isn't the problem, it's Saudi Arabia.
>>>>
>>> Perhaps. However, like many areas of the world the Middle East was fairly stable until the USA decided to fix its problems.
>>>
>>
>> When was the Middle East Stable? Troubles started there long before the
>> US had any involvement.
>
> It was relatively stable after about 1950. Conflicts were localized.

It used to be part of the Ottoman Empire, but that collapsed. The Arab
Revolt that happened alongside WWI was part of that. The Kurds and Iraq
have been at each other for close to 100 years. Then there was the
Franco-Syrian War, the Iraqi revolt against the British, The Adwan
Rebellion, The Great Syrian Revolt, the Sheik Dai Rebellion, Ararat
REbellion , The Saudi Yemeni War, THe Yazidi Rebellion, the Derism
REbellion, Iran crisis of 1946 and then a number of Arab-Israeli conflicts.

Sqwertz wrote:
> You could technically buy enough of Usenet and control it


Why are you still drawing breath?


Your woman abuse is as grotesque, unprovoked, and ugly as anything
anyone in this medium has ever done.

You are a pathological woman-hater and a deeply disturbed and wounded
little man

**** you and drop damned dead:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"Why do you even bother posting if that's all you have to say? We've
heard the same thing at least 2,000 times by now."

-sw

"OK, so it's your planet so I guess you get to define what all teens on
Planet Bove eat. We'll need to add this to the Planet Bove Wikipedia
entry: "Teenagers on Planet Bove only eat chicken strips, fries, and
baby carrots".

-sw

"Incredible. And you STILL don't shut up."

-sw

I thought you were here just to talk about cooking? You've only said
that at least 25 times, yet 95% of the flack you get is about
off-topic subjects.

-sw

Way to go, Julie! You beat her down into speechlessness.

-sw


"Why do you even bother posting if that's all you have to say? We've
heard the same thing at least 2,000 times by now."

-sw


"Incredible. And you STILL don't shut up."

-sw

I thought you were here just to talk about cooking? You've only said
that at least 25 times, yet 95% of the flack you get is about
off-topic subjects.

-sw

Way to go, Julie! You beat her down into speechlessness.

-sw

I didn't think Julie was even capable of using the phone.

-sw

You seem to have a problem remembering things. Maybe you should have
written down the once you realized you liked it.

-sw

Wow. She catches on quick when her mind isn't clouded by irrational
spite.

-sw

Congratulations! Your post has been approved by Julie.

[High Five]

-sw

Yeah, I see tuna and cheddar on pizza every time I visit Planet Bove.

-sw

You can't rent this stuff at Red Box.

-sw

You tell him Julie!

<snort>

-sw

That wasn't your original argument. Your argument was that you
couldn't remember where you got them. Then when somebody tells you
how to solve that problem, you come up with a different argument to
explain why the proposed solution won't work.

Same 'ol song and dance.

-sw

<snip rest unread>

-sw

So WTF are you basing your unfounded theories on? Angela was about 3
years old and you had left grade school decades earlier. What would
have been your direct experience with the New York public school
system in the early 2000's?

-sw

What I'm trying to say is that Julie is full of shit again. It's
amazing how much time Julie spends describing her miserable fantasy
world.

-sw


Again, only in YOUR house.

-sw

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"Cheri" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Cindy Hamilton" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 10:28:26 PM UTC-5, Cheryl wrote:
>>
>>> I think I'll buy a few more chances this week since no one won.
>>
>> Mathematically speaking, the difference between buying 1 ticket
>> and 5 tickets is not worth the extra $8.
>>
>> (Of course, mathematically speaking, the ROI on even one ticket is
>> so close to zero that no statistician would consider it worth buying
>> even one.)
>>
>> But if it makes you happy, go ahead and buy more. My husband does.
>>
>> We don't buy tickets very often; just often enough to give our
>> "what I'd do with the money" fantasies a little more immediacy.
>>
>> Cindy Hamilton
>
> Nobody that buys a ticket cares about all the math and statistics, if you
> play you have a chance at a dream, if you don't...

Yep. I bought one. I don't think I ever bought one before. Perhaps many
years ago. One of my friends buys a ticket each week and on occasion I
would go with her and buy something. Never won. Scratch tickets OTOH are
giving me some winners but nothing big. I am getting a few dollars more
than I spend, but only a few.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2016-01-12 10:20 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
>> When I was in the 5th grade I was at my friend Jimmy's house and we were
>> playing cards. His father came home from work and said he would teach
>> us to play better. He showed us the hands but he also inter weaved the
>> odds and how the house always wins and you don't. It was a great lesson
>> that stuck with me. I may spend $20 for the entertainment value, but I
>> never had the urge to play to think I'd win big.
>>
>> I can afford to spend $2 for the fun of it. You'll never see me buying
>> the $10 rub-offs though.
>
>
> Gambling is an interesting phenomenon. Casinos make a lot of money because
> there are a lot of people who a willing to go out and drop $20, $50, $100
> or $500 and consider it to be entertainment, with the bonus of the
> possibility of winning.

I don't really get the appeal. I do like the old timey slot machines that
you put coins in. I liked hearing and seeing the coins come out and I liked
all the bells and whistles. I actually have a couple of toy ones. One was
a gift and one belonged to my husband's grandma. They don't light up but
they do give out coins.

The current machines hold no appeal to me whatever. I might play Keno once
in a while if I am in a casino restaurant and getting bored. I used to go
with a friend and play Bingo. That was okay to do once in a while. For me
it was more of a chance to get out and meet some new people. I think I won
$52 once. Mostly I didn't win. My friend always seemed to win so I could
see the appeal for her. I also used to do Pull Tabs but I don't know of any
places offhand that sell them now. We used to go to a couple of restaurants
that had the machines near the door and I would put in a few dollars when we
went. I won $50 once. So for me, when I do gamble it is more a way to pass
the time and perhaps get rid of a few extra dollar bills. Obviously the
Bingo did cost more. Usually when I buy a scratch ticket it is because I
have a couple/three dollar bills in my hand and am standing near a machine.
Then I might buy a ticket or two instead of putting the money in my wallet.

It's no big deal if I don't win. I'm not spending much money at all on it.

Julie Bove wrote:
>
> It's no big deal if I don't win. I'm not spending much money at all on it.

That's like me. Spend a dollar on a scratch ticket. If you do win,
it's only a couple of dollars. But normally you don't win anything.
One dollar loss is just cheap entertainment to me.

The real losers are the ones that buy 25-50 dollars worth every week.
I see that often.

Sqwertz wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 19:19:13 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle wrote:
>
>> John Kuthe wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 12:40:06 PM UTC-6, tert in seattle wrote:
>>>> Dave Smith wrote:
>>>> > On 2016-01-12 7:45 AM, wrote:
>>>> > shower curtain. LOL
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I read if you win it now and take the cash option yuu only get 868
>>>> >> million and that's before taxes.
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> > Oh gee, wouldn't it be horrible to win only $868 million and get to keep
>>>> > only a half billion. Forget about that 10 car garage with an elevator
>>>> > to hold a dozen Feraris.
>>>>
>>>> or that career as a conceptual artist
>>>>
>>>> actually, with all that money, I think I would buy Usenet and turn it
>>>> into a for-profit business
>>>
>>> You would fail, because 1. Usenet is not for sale and 2. people like the WWW a lot better, generally speaking.
>>>
>>> John Kuthe...
>>
>> ****en John...this guy is sharp
>>
>> I would hire this guy as COO in a flash
>
> You could technically buy enough of Usenet and control it in a way
> that would cripple all the non-paying entities. Usenet would then be
> split up into two subgroups - pay and free and neither would talk to
> each other.
>
> -sw

my first cost-cutting measure would be to fire all the hierarchy
administrators and replace them with robots

On 1/12/2016 12:52 PM, Helpful person wrote:

>> When was the Middle East Stable? Troubles started there long before the
>> US had any involvement.
>
> It was relatively stable after about 1950. Conflicts were localized.
>
> http://www.richardfisher.com
>

Yes and from 576 to 577. Then a month in 1142. For a couple of
thousand years they have been waiting for us to bring them democracy.

On 1/12/2016 1:44 PM, John Kuthe wrote:

>>
>> actually, with all that money, I think I would buy Usenet and turn it
>> into a for-profit business
>
> You would fail, because 1. Usenet is not for sale and 2. people like the WWW a lot better, generally speaking.
>
> John Kuthe...
>

Everything (and everyone) is for sale at some price. The price is not
always money either.

"tert in seattle" > wrote in message
...
> Cheri wrote:
>>
>> "Cindy Hamilton" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 10:28:26 PM UTC-5, Cheryl wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think I'll buy a few more chances this week since no one won.
>>>
>>> Mathematically speaking, the difference between buying 1 ticket
>>> and 5 tickets is not worth the extra $8.
>>>
>>> (Of course, mathematically speaking, the ROI on even one ticket is
>>> so close to zero that no statistician would consider it worth buying
>>> even one.)
>>>
>>> But if it makes you happy, go ahead and buy more. My husband does.
>>>
>>> We don't buy tickets very often; just often enough to give our
>>> "what I'd do with the money" fantasies a little more immediacy.
>>>
>>> Cindy Hamilton
>>
>> Nobody that buys a ticket cares about all the math and statistics, if you
>> play you have a chance at a dream, if you don't...
>>
>> Cheri
>
>
> if you don't, you can get a cookie!
>
> I will take the real cookie vs. a dream

Not me, fact is, some people actually win that dream and could buy the
whole damned bakery.

Cheri

tert in seattle wrote:
> Sqwertz wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 19:19:13 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle wrote:
>>
>>> John Kuthe wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 12:40:06 PM UTC-6, tert in seattle wrote:
>>>>> Dave Smith wrote:
>>>>>> On 2016-01-12 7:45 AM, wrote:
>>>>>> shower curtain. LOL
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I read if you win it now and take the cash option yuu only get 868
>>>>>>> million and that's before taxes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh gee, wouldn't it be horrible to win only $868 million and get to keep
>>>>>> only a half billion. Forget about that 10 car garage with an elevator
>>>>>> to hold a dozen Feraris.
>>>>>
>>>>> or that career as a conceptual artist
>>>>>
>>>>> actually, with all that money, I think I would buy Usenet and turn it
>>>>> into a for-profit business
>>>>
>>>> You would fail, because 1. Usenet is not for sale and 2. people like the WWW a lot better, generally speaking.
>>>>
>>>> John Kuthe...
>>>
>>> ****en John...this guy is sharp
>>>
>>> I would hire this guy as COO in a flash
>>
>> You could technically buy enough of Usenet and control it in a way
>> that would cripple all the non-paying entities. Usenet would then be
>> split up into two subgroups - pay and free and neither would talk to
>> each other.
>>
>> -sw
>
> my first


YOU need to stop feeding this virus - OE ELSE!

Got it ASSBAG???!?!?!?

Do NOT **** with me!

On 1/12/2016 12:49 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
> You could technically buy enough of Usenet


Your woman abuse is as grotesque, unprovoked, and ugly as anything
anyone in this medium has ever done.

You are a pathological woman-hater and a deeply disturbed and wounded
little man:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"Why do you even bother posting if that's all you have to say? We've
heard the same thing at least 2,000 times by now."

-sw

"OK, so it's your planet so I guess you get to define what all teens on
Planet Bove eat. We'll need to add this to the Planet Bove Wikipedia
entry: "Teenagers on Planet Bove only eat chicken strips, fries, and
baby carrots".

-sw

"Incredible. And you STILL don't shut up."

-sw

I thought you were here just to talk about cooking? You've only said
that at least 25 times, yet 95% of the flack you get is about
off-topic subjects.

-sw

Way to go, Julie! You beat her down into speechlessness.

-sw


"Why do you even bother posting if that's all you have to say? We've
heard the same thing at least 2,000 times by now."

-sw


"Incredible. And you STILL don't shut up."

-sw

I thought you were here just to talk about cooking? You've only said
that at least 25 times, yet 95% of the flack you get is about
off-topic subjects.

-sw

Way to go, Julie! You beat her down into speechlessness.

-sw

I didn't think Julie was even capable of using the phone.

-sw

You seem to have a problem remembering things. Maybe you should have
written down the once you realized you liked it.

-sw

Wow. She catches on quick when her mind isn't clouded by irrational
spite.

-sw

Congratulations! Your post has been approved by Julie.

[High Five]

-sw

Yeah, I see tuna and cheddar on pizza every time I visit Planet Bove.

-sw

You can't rent this stuff at Red Box.

-sw

You tell him Julie!

<snort>

-sw

That wasn't your original argument. Your argument was that you
couldn't remember where you got them. Then when somebody tells you
how to solve that problem, you come up with a different argument to
explain why the proposed solution won't work.

Same 'ol song and dance.

-sw

<snip rest unread>

-sw

So WTF are you basing your unfounded theories on? Angela was about 3
years old and you had left grade school decades earlier. What would
have been your direct experience with the New York public school
system in the early 2000's?

-sw

What I'm trying to say is that Julie is full of shit again. It's
amazing how much time Julie spends describing her miserable fantasy
world.

-sw


Again, only in YOUR house.

-sw

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 6:42:56 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> Yes and from 576 to 577. Then a month in 1142. For a couple of
> thousand years they have been waiting for us to bring them democracy.

Like many cultures around the world (including those in the Middle East) it seems that most people in the USA religiously believe that their culture, morality and form of government is so superior that it should be forced on everyone else.

http://www.richardfisher.com

Helpful person wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 6:42:56 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>> Yes and from 576 to 577. Then a month in 1142. For a couple of
>> thousand years they have been waiting for us to bring them democracy.
>
> Like many cultures around the world (including those in the Middle East) it seems that most people in the USA religiously believe that their culture, morality and form of government is so superior that it should be forced on everyone else.
>
> http://www.richardfisher.com
>

Now refresh out memory, which faith invaded and enslaved southern Europe?

You simpering slackwit!

On 1/12/2016 5:49 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 1/12/2016 1:44 PM, John Kuthe wrote:
>
>>>
>>> actually, with all that money, I think I would buy Usenet and turn it
>>> into a for-profit business
>>
>> You would fail, because 1. Usenet is not for sale and 2. people like
>> the WWW a lot better, generally speaking.
>>
>> John Kuthe...
>>
>
> Everything (and everyone) is for sale at some price. The price is not
> always money either.

Usenet is not a discrete site or network. It is non-centralized by
design. So no one owns it, no one can own it, so there's nothing to
sell. One can only provide access for/to it with their own servers.
You can run a server and provide access for a fairly minimal cost -
the guy running aioe does that with a computer out of his basement.
But you're only providing access and storage.

If everyone stopped providing access and storage, Usenet would cease
to exist as we know it. Google is currently the largest provider. If,
hypothetically, they became the only access provider, it would no
longer be Usenet, because it would no longer be decentralized.

That's also why the Internet-access providing companies moved away
from it. Since no one owns it, there's no way to monetize it. Hence,
the explosion of the world wide web, with owned sites that can control
access and thus charge for the privilege, whether by subscription or
selling ad space.

Cheri wrote:
>
> "tert in seattle" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Cheri wrote:
>>>
>>> "Cindy Hamilton" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 10:28:26 PM UTC-5, Cheryl wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I think I'll buy a few more chances this week since no one won.
>>>>
>>>> Mathematically speaking, the difference between buying 1 ticket
>>>> and 5 tickets is not worth the extra $8.
>>>>
>>>> (Of course, mathematically speaking, the ROI on even one ticket is
>>>> so close to zero that no statistician would consider it worth buying
>>>> even one.)
>>>>
>>>> But if it makes you happy, go ahead and buy more. My husband does.
>>>>
>>>> We don't buy tickets very often; just often enough to give our
>>>> "what I'd do with the money" fantasies a little more immediacy.
>>>>
>>>> Cindy Hamilton
>>>
>>> Nobody that buys a ticket cares about all the math and statistics, if you
>>> play you have a chance at a dream, if you don't...
>>>
>>> Cheri
>>
>>
>> if you don't, you can get a cookie!
>>
>> I will take the real cookie vs. a dream
>
> Not me, fact is, some people actually win that dream and could buy the
> whole damned bakery.
>
> Cheri

who the heck wants a cookie factory??

On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 11:20:25 AM UTC-6, Moe DeLoughan wrote:
....
> Usenet is not a discrete site or network. It is non-centralized by
> design. So no one owns it, no one can own it, so there's nothing to
> sell. One can only provide access for/to it with their own servers.
> You can run a server and provide access for a fairly minimal cost -
> the guy running aioe does that with a computer out of his basement.
> But you're only providing access and storage.
>
> If everyone stopped providing access and storage, Usenet would cease
> to exist as we know it. Google is currently the largest provider. If,
> hypothetically, they became the only access provider, it would no
> longer be Usenet, because it would no longer be decentralized.
>
> That's also why the Internet-access providing companies moved away
> from it. Since no one owns it, there's no way to monetize it. Hence,
> the explosion of the world wide web, with owned sites that can control
> access and thus charge for the privilege, whether by subscription or
> selling ad space.

Precisely!! Nothing to own! Decentralized!! That's why I've always thought Usenet was the coolest!! Or WAS until the disgusting SPAMBOTS came in and trashed it all! Not humans, but evil money hungry CRAPOLA spamming irritants!!

John Kuthe...

On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 2:45:33 PM UTC-6, Groupkillas wrote:
....
> > great idea! you're
>
> Hey asshole I WARNED you to stop feeding the group killer.
>
> You ain't gonna like what's coming one tiny bit, tertshit!

Oh **** off Sock Puppet!!

PLONK!!

John Kuthe...

Chet in Ceske Budevocije wrote:

> Cheri wrote:
> >
> > "tert in seattle" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Cheri wrote:
> >>>
> >>> "Cindy Hamilton" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>>> On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 10:28:26 PM UTC-5, Cheryl wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I think I'll buy a few more chances this week since no one won.
> >>>>
> >>>> Mathematically speaking, the difference between buying 1 ticket
> >>>> and 5 tickets is not worth the extra $8.
> >>>>
> >>>> (Of course, mathematically speaking, the ROI on even one ticket is
> >>>> so close to zero that no statistician would consider it worth buying
> >>>> even one.)
> >>>>
> >>>> But if it makes you happy, go ahead and buy more. My husband does.
> >>>>
> >>>> We don't buy tickets very often; just often enough to give our
> >>>> "what I'd do with the money" fantasies a little more immediacy.
> >>>>
> >>>> Cindy Hamilton
> >>>
> >>> Nobody that buys a ticket cares about all the math and statistics, if you
> >>> play you have a chance at a dream, if you don't...
> >>>
> >>> Cheri
> >>
> >>
> >> if you don't, you can get a cookie!
> >>
> >> I will take the real cookie vs. a dream
> >
> > Not me, fact is, some people actually win that dream and could buy the
> > whole damned bakery.
> >
> > Cheri
>
> who the heck wants a cookie factory??


Jeez, tert...donchya know...THE COOKIE MONSTER natch...!!!


--
Best
Greg

Gregory Morrow wrote:
>
> Chet in Ceske Budevocije wrote:
> > who the heck wants a cookie factory??
>
> Jeez, tert...donchya know...THE COOKIE MONSTER natch...!!!

Or the Keebler elves

John Kuthe wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 2:45:33 PM UTC-6, Groupkillas wrote:
> ...
>>> great idea! you're
>>
>> Hey asshole I WARNED you to stop feeding the group killer.
>>
>> You ain't gonna like what's coming one tiny bit, tertshit!
>
> Oh **** off Sock Puppet!!
>
> PLONK!!
>
> John Kuthe...
>

WAH!!!!

On 1/12/2016 10:01 AM, Cheri wrote:

> Nobody that buys a ticket cares about all the math and statistics, if
> you play you have a chance at a dream, if you don't...

We've been beat over the head with the sheer improbability of
winning, yet 3 people did it. So I guess the odds for this
drawing were 3 in however many people bought a ticket.

nancy

On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 12:39:47 PM UTC-5, Nancy Young wrote:
> On 1/12/2016 10:01 AM, Cheri wrote:
>
> > Nobody that buys a ticket cares about all the math and statistics, if
> > you play you have a chance at a dream, if you don't...
>
> We've been beat over the head with the sheer improbability of
> winning, yet 3 people did it. So I guess the odds for this
> drawing were 3 in however many people bought a ticket.
>
> nancy

No, the odds of winning are the same, no matter how many tickets
are sold, and no matter how many people pick the same (winning) number.
The odds of a particular ticket winning are the probability of a
particular set of balls falling out of the thingy--whatever it
is that they use to drop the balls. It's described by a
mathematical formula that is affectionately called the "choose"
function.

The more balls in the thingy, and the more balls it takes to win,
the smaller the odds of winning.

The odds of taking home the entire prize are incalculable, but
roughly speaking, the more tickets are sold, the greater the
odds that the winner will share the prize. Also, since people
often use birthdays or other important dates when selecting
their numbers, if you pick numbers between 1 and 31 your
odds of sharing the prize are greater.

Cindy Hamilton

Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> The odds of taking home the entire prize are incalculable,

Roughly equivalent to the odds of your winning a debate point against me?

Lol.

On 1/14/2016 1:03 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 12:39:47 PM UTC-5, Nancy Young wrote:
>> On 1/12/2016 10:01 AM, Cheri wrote:
>>
>>> Nobody that buys a ticket cares about all the math and statistics, if
>>> you play you have a chance at a dream, if you don't...
>>
>> We've been beat over the head with the sheer improbability of
>> winning, yet 3 people did it. So I guess the odds for this
>> drawing were 3 in however many people bought a ticket.
>>
>> nancy
>
> No, the odds of winning are the same, no matter how many tickets
> are sold,

Yes. I know.

And there are three families plus however many million dollar
winners saying Enjoy your statistics!

> odds that the winner will share the prize. Also, since people
> often use birthdays or other important dates when selecting
> their numbers, if you pick numbers between 1 and 31 your
> odds of sharing the prize are greater.

Those numbers aren't a good bet, for Powerball, at least,
which is probably why quick pick is a better chance of winning.

nancy

Jasper Doglips wrote:
> Chet in Ceske Budevocije wrote:
>
>> Cheri wrote:
>> >
>> > "tert in seattle" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> Cheri wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> "Cindy Hamilton" > wrote in message
>> >>> ...
>> >>>> On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 10:28:26 PM UTC-5, Cheryl wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> I think I'll buy a few more chances this week since no one won.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Mathematically speaking, the difference between buying 1 ticket
>> >>>> and 5 tickets is not worth the extra $8.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> (Of course, mathematically speaking, the ROI on even one ticket is
>> >>>> so close to zero that no statistician would consider it worth buying
>> >>>> even one.)
>> >>>>
>> >>>> But if it makes you happy, go ahead and buy more. My husband does.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> We don't buy tickets very often; just often enough to give our
>> >>>> "what I'd do with the money" fantasies a little more immediacy.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Cindy Hamilton
>> >>>
>> >>> Nobody that buys a ticket cares about all the math and statistics, if you
>> >>> play you have a chance at a dream, if you don't...
>> >>>
>> >>> Cheri
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> if you don't, you can get a cookie!
>> >>
>> >> I will take the real cookie vs. a dream
>> >
>> > Not me, fact is, some people actually win that dream and could buy the
>> > whole damned bakery.
>> >
>> > Cheri
>>
>> who the heck wants a cookie factory??
>
>
> Jeez, tert...donchya know...THE COOKIE MONSTER natch...!!!

ah that makes sense

Cookie Monster definitely doesn't care about math or statistics