Posts by 3410
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
It looks like the content is online
I think "not yet" might be the answer. Found last week's edition, but not the current one.
-
Volume is online as well
Are you sure? Nzherald.co.nz's Entertainment page looks the same as ever and doesn't seem to mention "Volume" anywhere, nor any of the print Volume's cover stories. Confused.
-
I have to say, the coverage of the actual games has been decidedly average.
How is it that - in 2011 - we don't have a second angle of that Welsh penalty? Also, when super-slo-mo has been around for a few years now, they don't seem to have even normal slo-mo. And no rail-cam either. It all looks kind of ten years ago.
-
Their new album is out in November, so be careful what you wish for.
-
Even the idea of "covering things up" become messy when in some cases exposing the truth may actually risk lives. The dilemma faced by officers and soldiers in those positions is not something to envy...
Hang on. What dilemma?
I think we're confusing two somewhat different uses of the term "covering things up".
Withholding information that may put troops at risk is - I think we all agree - at least sometimes acceptable; a "cover-up" - ie hiding evidence of illegal activity - is something quite different, isn't it?
-
I think you're setting your sights a little high for the 6pm news bulletin.
It's not me that sets the standards.
I certainly no longer expect TVNZ to get science stories right. I'm not even surprised that their response to the complaint is "LOL who care's how old some plannet is !!1!"
But I do expect the BSA to understand their own rules.
-
0.472 + 0.213 + 0.133 + 0.077 + 0.061 + 0.027 + 0.009 + 0.008 + 0.008 = 1.00800
Rounding to three decimal places presumably accounts for the minuscule overlap.
The key point - and forgive me for repeating myself - is this: Just because the All Blacks are the favourites, does not mean that they will probably win the competition.
-
According to that article....
1) No team is likely to win... they all have a probability of less than half.
2) the All Blacks probability of winning, despite being lower than 50%, is still higher than double any other team.
I would suggest that #2 makes more sense than #1, seeing as, it's impossible for no team to win the cup.
#1 makes perfect sense, just as when you propose to roll a die, each number is "unlikely" to appear (only 1/6th chance), yet it is certain that one of them will.
a purely mathematical reckoning is not necessarily the best approach to predicting the outcome.
What's a better approach; hunches? guesswork? tea leaves?
Just kidding. I think I get that you're saying that there are too many variables for prediction to be a very useful endeavour. I agree, but that lends more credence - not less - to the idea that it's foolish to claim that the All Blacks should win. It's a competition; anything could happen.
-
The choke is pretty well impossible to quantify.
No, it's not. All you have to do is compare predicted World Cup performance with actual World Cup performance (and if predicted performance is too difficult to quantify, then we shouldn't be bothering with this discussion at all :)).
-
Anyway, my point was that "favourites" ≠ "should win".