We don't know that for sure, and we cannot count on it. And, in any case, it was most probably damaged, and throwing objects in the street is a crime of pollution anyway, even if it's not money. In this case, it just happens to be two crimes at the same time.
We can count on it because in order for it to be a crime, the bill would have to be INTENTIONALLY rendered useless by his act (which by his description, it was not) and it would have to be reported and prosecuted (extremely unlikely). Not a crime.
In trivial financial dealings, 98% probability is functional certainty. Clinging to the hypothetical, as you are doing, is suggestive of financial ineptitude. Please go study Maths.
I know Calculus, Probability, Statistics and some Linear Algebra, but do you have knowledge of the law regarding this at least in your area? Or even of actual statistical results regarding the topic? Or are you just feigning it because you are the poster, feel personal about it and don't want to admit you were wrong? Nice how you dodge all of the accumulating arguments against your behavior, though.
I am not the poster. I would also say that assuming you were once CountessDouche, that I have always been impressed with your writing skill and regard you as a high intelligence contributor at IIN. But I am sceptical of your knowledge of Statistics. This impression is from an argument you once had with a user about the Ebola outbreak in Africa a few years ago. She actually crunched numbers through a Bionomial distribution. Your response at the time suggested you were clueless. Btw, to succeed in business, Chi Square analysis of sampling data is essential.
I don't necessarily believe you, you feel personal about the topic and expresses many of the same views that he does, and with the same terms at that. You are also unreasonable enough to ignore everything besides the point you are arguing about, and you obviously made up that probability. Maybe you are just a moron? Not that I care, though. Regarding the rest, I'm not CountessDouche, and I did not participate in such a debate, so whatever positive or negative thoughts you have about her do not apply. While my knowledge of Statistics is only grad level regarding what tools to use, how to use, read and interpret them and how to apply them to medical research, I do command the mathematical basis at college level.
Are there alot of people on this site who respond to the Anonymous poster using their IIN name on the response but pretending that they're someone different from the poster?
I would expect so, especially if they want to endorse their own comments by pretending to be someone else. And, to be clear, if you are the OP poster, that makes me think less of Rich_Guy for acting like that about something that bears no relation to him whatsoever.
IIN to toss money on the floor that someone gave you?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
We don't know that for sure, and we cannot count on it. And, in any case, it was most probably damaged, and throwing objects in the street is a crime of pollution anyway, even if it's not money. In this case, it just happens to be two crimes at the same time.
--
wigz
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
Rich_Guy
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
We can count on it because in order for it to be a crime, the bill would have to be INTENTIONALLY rendered useless by his act (which by his description, it was not) and it would have to be reported and prosecuted (extremely unlikely). Not a crime.
In trivial financial dealings, 98% probability is functional certainty. Clinging to the hypothetical, as you are doing, is suggestive of financial ineptitude. Please go study Maths.
--
Countess_Kittycat
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I know Calculus, Probability, Statistics and some Linear Algebra, but do you have knowledge of the law regarding this at least in your area? Or even of actual statistical results regarding the topic? Or are you just feigning it because you are the poster, feel personal about it and don't want to admit you were wrong? Nice how you dodge all of the accumulating arguments against your behavior, though.
--
Rich_Guy
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I am not the poster. I would also say that assuming you were once CountessDouche, that I have always been impressed with your writing skill and regard you as a high intelligence contributor at IIN. But I am sceptical of your knowledge of Statistics. This impression is from an argument you once had with a user about the Ebola outbreak in Africa a few years ago. She actually crunched numbers through a Bionomial distribution. Your response at the time suggested you were clueless. Btw, to succeed in business, Chi Square analysis of sampling data is essential.
--
Countess_Kittycat
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I don't necessarily believe you, you feel personal about the topic and expresses many of the same views that he does, and with the same terms at that. You are also unreasonable enough to ignore everything besides the point you are arguing about, and you obviously made up that probability. Maybe you are just a moron? Not that I care, though. Regarding the rest, I'm not CountessDouche, and I did not participate in such a debate, so whatever positive or negative thoughts you have about her do not apply. While my knowledge of Statistics is only grad level regarding what tools to use, how to use, read and interpret them and how to apply them to medical research, I do command the mathematical basis at college level.
--
Algum
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Are there alot of people on this site who respond to the Anonymous poster using their IIN name on the response but pretending that they're someone different from the poster?
--
Countess_Kittycat
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
I would expect so, especially if they want to endorse their own comments by pretending to be someone else. And, to be clear, if you are the OP poster, that makes me think less of Rich_Guy for acting like that about something that bears no relation to him whatsoever.