Fire extinguisher inflames judge

[TheAnimus]

So highly likely to hit someone, that it didn't. That automatically puts the probability at less than 50% for that given scenario.

aidanjt, you know thats not true, you've demonstrated enough concept of maths on this forum before.

[aidanjt]

Find me more statistically valid instances of people throwing canisters off the top of a roof, and hitting someone, and I'll gladly bump up the probability.

[Flibb]

Find me more statistically valid instances of people throwing canisters off the top of a roof, and hitting someone, and I'll gladly bump up the probability.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/bo...h-1598717.html
how about throwing stuff at cars from a height
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...00/2512469.stm

[MaddAussie]

Seems very lenient for attempted murder. He either knew he was likely to kill someone, or is so criminally mornic that he's better off locked up.

This

[peterb]

AsI doubt that he calculated the launch velocity and the trajectory of the object, or calculated the impact point, or could forsee where people might walk intio the impact point, he was reckless as to the consequences.

The purposes of sentencing are

a. punishment
b. deterrence
c. protection of the remainder of society
d. rehabilitation of the defender.

Clearly the main factors here were punishment for a reckless act, and deterrence in that it sends a message that this sort of reckless behaviour is not acceptable. Protection of society is a lesser issue (IMO) and I would think that rehabilitation of the offender is a given - he (I hope) won't think about doing that again when he is released from custody (probably on licence after 10 to 16 months)

[TheAnimus]

Find me more statistically valid instances of people throwing canisters off the top of a roof, and hitting someone, and I'll gladly bump up the probability.

Please your making me really loose hope in the mathematically ability, be biased on this subject because you've got an entitlement bug up your arse, thats fine but please let me believe that the on mass standard of maths isn't that bad.....

You roll a fair dice, it scores a 1, that doesn't automatically preclude the probability of 2,3,4,5,6 as less then 50%.

You drop a fire extingisher off a building onto a crowd below, you miss, that doesn't for one second imply its 50/50.

You could try and say that there are no air effects, it falls perfectly randomly in which case you could try and work out the area from the photo and the density therefore getting a probability figure, but to say 50 is just really anoying perversion of maths. You have a career ahead of you in Jornalisim.

[Gordy]

Please your making me really loose hope in the mathematically ability, be biased on this subject because you've got an entitlement bug up your arse, thats fine but please let me believe that the on mass standard of maths isn't that bad.....

You roll a fair dice, it scores a 1, that doesn't automatically preclude the probability of 2,3,4,5,6 as less then 50%.

You drop a fire extingisher off a building onto a crowd below, you miss, that doesn't for one second imply its 50/50.

You could try and say that there are no air effects, it falls perfectly randomly in which case you could try and work out the area from the photo and the density therefore getting a probability figure, but to say 50 is just really anoying perversion of maths. You have a career ahead of you in Jornalisim.

You put it far better than I was about to.

[aidanjt]

be biased on this subject because you've got an entitlement bug up your arse

That's going way too far dude. What the hell does this have to do with 'entitlement'? You mean just because I don't accept being dictated to by fascist authoritarians or their jackbooted thugs squashing dissent, I have an 'entitlement complex'? Please, you're more intelligent than that.

Please your making me really loose hope in the mathematically ability, ..., thats fine but please let me believe that the on mass standard of maths isn't that bad.....

You roll a fair dice, it scores a 1, that doesn't automatically preclude the probability of 2,3,4,5,6 as less then 50%.

You drop a fire extingisher off a building onto a crowd below, you miss, that doesn't for one second imply its 50/50.

You could try and say that there are no air effects, it falls perfectly randomly in which case you could try and work out the area from the photo and the density therefore getting a probability figure, but to say 50 is just really anoying perversion of maths. You have a career ahead of you in Jornalisim.

Strawman. A dice has 6 possible resulting states. A dropped canister is binary, hit, or no hit. The fact that the canister didn't hit suggests, and the video verifies, that there is more empty target surface area than not, reducing the probability of someone getting hit. So the probability of 50%, is actually generous.

[badass]

Er no - dropping a canister onto a crowd of people is highly likely to hit someone.
And a 10kg canister dropped from that height could easily kill anyone it hit.

IMO far from being unlucky to be filmed - it was his lucky day it didn't hit anyone.

So highly likely to hit someone, that it didn't. That automatically puts the probability at less than 50% for that given scenario.

Either I've got the wrong end of the stick or you're saying the probability is less than 50% because the event did not occur this time?
If so, that's like saying that rolling 1-5 on a 6 sided die is less than 50% simply because you last rolled a 6.

[Rob_B]

Did he look down before dropping it?
Did he aim for someone or not?

They are the only two things that really matter in this instance.

If he didn't look then he didn't know the chances of hitting someone.

If he did look then he was either aiming for someone or trying to not hit someone, was this covered in the court docs?

[aidanjt]

If so, that's like saying that rolling 1-5 on a 6 sided die is less than 50% simply because you last rolled a 6.

I already dismissed that argument.

[ajones]

That's going way too far dude. What the hell does this have to do with 'entitlement'? You mean just because I don't accept being dictated to by fascist authoritarians or their jackbooted thugs squashing dissent, I have an 'entitlement complex'? Please, you're more intelligent than that.

I don't think Animus has the complex. You really should look at countries outside of Britain and then you'd realise just how much free will you have; We are one of the LEAST authoritarian countries on the planet. This comment is complete insane.

Strawman. A dice has 6 possible resulting states. A dropped canister is binary, hit, or no hit. The fact that the canister didn't hit suggests, and the video verifies, that there is more empty target surface area than not, reducing the probability of someone getting hit. So the probability of 50%, is actually generous.

Are you serious?

I see no point in continuing with this arguament, and will leave you to it.

[aidanjt]

I don't think Animus has the complex.

Where did I say he did?

You really should look at countries outside of Britain and then you'd realise just how much free will you have; We are one of the LEAST authoritarian countries on the planet. This comment is complete insane.

Just because you're not living in North Korea, it doesn't mean it isn't heading in that direction. Every right curtailed, every freedom abridged, brings us one step closer. If you stand around like good little sheep and do everything you're told to do, no matter how unjust, how is that any different from NK?

[badass]

Are you serious?

I see no point in continuing with this arguament, and will leave you to it.

Unfortunately I think he is. His clear complete lack of understanding of maths and probability in this case pretty much makes his statements on probability worthy of being ignored by everyone and anyone.
He has also demonstrated extreme pig headedness like this very recently.
Why not just say "I didn't mean that", "let me rephrase" or even "fair point, I was wrong"
However I suspect he is pathologically incapable of ever realising he is wrong of has made a mistake.
He's like a slightly more intelligent version of petercook7

[aidanjt]

Why don't you point me in the right direction. Oh grand math master!

I've constructed an argument, which nobody has yet addressed. All you people are doing is using ad hominems. If I'm wrong, correct my argument, show me your reasoning. Don't just stand there and say I'm stupid and wrong because you say so and you don't have to explain why.

[peterb]

I event is not statistically significant. It is like tossing a coin once and it lands on heads - and then extrapolating and saying that the possibility of it landing on tails is less than 50%.

If the extinguisher had been thrown 100 times and it missed 99 times, then you would be in a stronger position to say that the chances of it hitting were less (but the guy would have probably been on a manslaughter for that one statistical occurrance)