Chilly

Correct me if I'm wrong, that was the whole idea there big guy - the odds that you'd get a 2 or 3 vs a different number. Right, thats it. I'm doing it because I feel BJ needs help explaining himself to the world.

Here are the possible values when you roll a pair of dice. This is the distribution that makes up the BINOMIAL COEFFICIENT and is what he was referring to: 2: 1&1 3: 2&1, 1&2 4: 1&3, 2&2, 3&1 5: 2&3, 3&2, 4&1, 1&4 6: 5&1, 1&5, 4&2, 2&4, 3&3 7: 6&1, 1&6, 5&2, 2&5, 4&3, 3&4 8: 2&6, 6&2, 5&3, 3&5, 4&4 9: 6&3, 3&6, 4&5, 5&4 10: 6&4, 4&6, 5&5 11: 6&5, 5&6 12: 6&6 THIS DOES NOT PREVENT YOU FROM HAVING A BINOMIAL DISTRIBUTION. If we convert that chart above into: 0 - Rolled a 2 or 3 1 - Rolled a 4-12 2: 0 3: 0, 0 4: 1, 1, 1 5: 1, 1, 1, 1 6: 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 7: 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 8: 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 9: 1, 1, 1, 1 10: 1, 1, 1 11: 1, 1, 12: 1 You see how many freaking 1s there are? If you get a 0, you have a MUCH greater chance of getting a 1 on your next roll than a 0. Thats what he was saying.

Oh yeah, I forgot... Gay!@#$s from Outer Space really didn't do it for me. Boring movie, the 27 minutes felt like hours. (Note, I am being sarcastic here)

I would name mine "The Autobiography of Tom Landry" or something like that in order to sell more copies.

He's saying the SAME EXACT THING there too. There are *still* only 2 outcomes: 1.) You roll a 2 or 3 2.) You roll anything else Again - where's the rest? What he's saying there is correct as well. The distribution has a number of possible rolls - the 36 possibilities of the value of the roll. This is called the binomial coefficient, or, number of combinations that exist. However, even though there are a wide variety of different rolls, there are still only two outcomes: 1.) Rolling a 2 or 3 2.) Rolling anything else. Again - where's the rest? Yes, by defining the two categories. In this case, you have 36 possible combinations. However, we are only concerned about two outcomes, rolling a certain set of numbers, or NOT rolling a certain set of numbers.

And imitating it, which was really, really annoying.

I'd have to say Terry Bradshaw, who was in "Failure to Launch", is most likely a better QB than all of these guys.

You rock Lori. Thanks for the info!

O RLY? I see two outcomes: 1.) Less than eleven 2.) Greater than or equal to 11 Wheres the rest?

Oh, my bad, I thought it was the word hyper which made a source credible.

I guess their page which is entitled "Of Dice and the Binomial Distribution", and their example of a binomial distribution, http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/math/binex.html must be completely wrong then!

It's evolutions way of making it easy to forget about the team after Sunday.

Suspicious? I dunno, it depends on how its transmitted. Theres a gene which has been linked to ADHD.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/math/dice.html#c2

Well, maybe he was having it stowed in some 81 year old woman's underwear.

Rumor has it his home was searched by police executing a warrant. http://www.suntimes.com/sports/football/be...-121406.article

lol, Mr. Rosenhaus

Well then.

I wuz bein sarcASTic

But he lines up 75% of the time as a WR

At least its more entertaining than just

I think we should make Royal into a good WR like Antonio Gates.

don't be azzaem.

Reggie Bush isn't a WR though