<p>err...apart from Towerpumkin givin his/ her view...we've had veggie arguments, "guru of safe ***" argument...</p>
<p>don't mind u hijackin the thread guys, just that 1 few more views on my q's would be appreciated...cmmn MR Nova, ur engn student, please have a go at the q's</p>
<p>btw I never said veggie's rock or suck...just said i'm veggie, why have a go just bec i said that</p>
<p>yo, mr. nova. people that dont eat pork are stupid</p>
<p>^^^ reason being?</p>
<p>it was just a reply to his "vegetarians are stupid" post--many people r vegetarian for their religion, including lots of indians</p>
<p>I was actually intrigued by my own condom breaking comment, so I've done some statistical calculations :)
According to some info I looked up "In the United States, most studies of breakage caused by fault in the condom itself have shown breakage rate is less than 2 condoms out of every 100 condoms"
This means the event of a condom breaking can be viewed as a Bernoulli random variable with p=0.02
Lets assume that each act of intercourse uses a different condom, and that each condom breaking is an independent event.
So using a binomial random variable we can calculate the probability of having AT LEAST 1 break in n trails.
So lets start with a single alcohol fueled hump fest, consisting of 5 "sessions" or trials.
Sum(nCr(5,k)<em>0.02^k</em>(1-.02)^(5-k),k,1,5)=0.096079 or 9.6%. Ouch
Well lets assume we do this once every other night (give the girl a chance to ease the soreness) for 1 week
thats 5<em>5=25 trials
Sum(nCr(25,k)</em>0.02^k<em>(1-.02)^(25-k),k,1,25)=0.396535 or 39.65%. Ick
Let's say you're really lucky and do this for a month, thats 4 weeks or 100 trials
Sum(nCr(100,k)</em>0.02^k*(1-.02)^(100-k),k,1,100)=0.86738 or 86.74%. Uh-oh, better get some morning after pill :)</p>
<p>If you think 0.02 is too high a number, to be fair lets assume they are 99.9% success rate or a 0.001 break rate.
Repeating the previous calculation for 100 trials yields 9.5208% which still is much higher then being struck by lightning or winning the lotto hehe.</p>
<p>Now for something real interesting, if someone found me the rate of pregnancy from unprotected sex or the STD infection rate of 20 year olds/Cornell Students, I could give a conditional probability for getting pregnant or infected given a condom break or vice versa.</p>
<p>lol, that's unsettling, mr. nova...don't do the STD analysis.</p>
<p>Haha. I didn't even factor in slipping rates. See the fun things you learn in Cornell (ORIE 360: Statistics and Probability II or as my friend and I call it, Stats for Asians).</p>
<p>Pregnancy/STDs will be more complicated though, since even if someone is infected there isn't even close to a 100% chance of them infecting someone else (this is especially true for HIV after its "contagious" period), nor is there a 100% chance of knocking someone up.</p>
<p>Yeah, and in terms of infection it also depends on the sexes of the partners transmitting and recieving. This is why I said if SOMEONE ELSE gave me those #'s heh.</p>
<p>nobody answered my important question.</p>
<p>Which ivy has the highest percentage of virgin applicants?</p>
<p>I vote Harvard.</p>
<p>for overall school, i vote MIT. its funny how choice of major seems to have a direct relationship with total "game." I betcha like 80% of the engineering school all are virgin applicants</p>
<p>I wouldn't be surprised.</p>
<p>I bet you can form some kind of equation that calculates the probability of being a virgin from his/her SAT score.</p>
<p>Let: SAT score (out of 1600) = S
Chances of being a virgin = V</p>
<p>V = 1/20(S) + 15</p>
<p>I bet people who make SAT based virgin formulas are most likely virgins themselves. When did virgin become such a derogatory word. And you know everyone is born one...</p>
<p>Haha, you can't base virginity on SAT scores..I'd rather do someone with a 1600 than someone with a 400.</p>
<p>I got a high score and I like to think I use my intelligence to manipulate women to my advantage.</p>
<p>Yeah, being smart doesn't mean you can't hook up. Being a total nerd with no social skills or trying to act "intellectual" (read: using the biggest words possible and talking in a meandering, stuck up way) probably does, though.</p>
<p>gotta love those pseudo-intellectuals..</p>
<p>1550 sat (old) --> uses devilishly sharp wit to get in girls pants </p>
<p>If I were dumb I'd have a hard time of it</p>