Kolbe v O'Malley being Appealed to CA4

abean4187 said:

Being appointed by a Republican in no way means they are pro gun. We have been burned multiple times by Republican judges.

Click to expand...

mH3NO said:

I know this isn't a math forum, but I just read all this and the discussion went on so long I feel the need to post the right answer... so if anyone still cares:

45.59%. Not going to include a proof, but it can be validated with a few lines of code.

Click to expand...

mH3NO said:

I know this isn't a math forum, but I just read all this and the discussion went on so long I feel the need to post the right answer... so if anyone still cares:

45.59%. Not going to include a proof, but it can be validated with a few lines of code.

Click to expand...

hodgepodge said:

So, 7 weeks?

Click to expand...

BradyWarrior said:

Care to post the few lines of code? I'd like to see where I made an error so I understand how this is properly solved. I understand it's not a math forum, but to show up and give an answer without showing work.....back in the old days if you didn't show your work you didn't get credit.

Click to expand...

mH3NO said:

The code I was referring to would just be a brute force calculation: pick 3 randomly from the group of 17 a billion times or so and output the percentage it met the 2+ req. It wouldn't help solve it analytically.

The solution where you got ~20% over constrained the problem. It gave the odds for picking (3 R's) or (2 R's and THEN 1 Dem), limiting the Dem pick to the third choice. Allowing the Dem to be picked 1st, 2nd or 3rd makes it a much more complicated sol'n that would take too long to try and type out here.

Click to expand...

Abulg1972 said:

So, I found this a little laughable. You may have heard that the Mayor of my great city wants to introduce legislation that would alter the way that police officers are punished. The image below shows the FOP's response.

Interesting that police officers should be treated differently for purposes of the SAFE Act ...

Click to expand...

Inigoes said:

1 law with no exceptions for all to follow is a noble goal.

Click to expand...

Abulg1972 said:

So, I found this a little laughable. You may have heard that the Mayor of my great city wants to introduce legislation that would alter the way that police officers are punished. The image below shows the FOP's response.

-image omitted-

Interesting that police officers should be treated differently for purposes of the SAFE Act ...

Click to expand...

Mr H said:

Dumb question, please...



What do Baltimore City and the SAFE act (NY) have to do with one another??

Click to expand...

Abulg1972 said:

You are right. That is a dumb question.

Click to expand...

Mr H said:

Then enlighten me, please. Enlighten us all.

If there's something I missed, I'd like to factor it in.

Being somewhat familiar with the legislation, and hearing an explanation by the Mayor, I see zero connection to the SAFE act, and every connection to knee-jerk-feel-good efforts in the wake of Brown/Garner.

I realize I've commented on this elsewhere, and received much agreement, but I really wouild like to know where I'm being so stupid.

Click to expand...

Fox123 said:

He is saying during the safe act arguments, the FOP was complaining that they should not be held to the same standard as the common citizen, contrasted against this recent argument against the mayor of Balt. where the FOP is arguing that they should be treated like every other citizen.


Wants cake and eat it too.

Click to expand...