Official Word From Dragoncon..

[alladinsane.livejournal.com]

Recently there have been a series of posts and messages regarding an individual that has made comments on some internet social networks.

Dragon Con is aware of the issue and we are not taking it lightly. The proper authorities have been contacted, and they are working to ensure everyone’s safety.

Much of this “current” information has been circulating since last year, when a similar threat was defused by the FBI and local law enforcement.

At this time we ask that you refrain from posting rumors or speculation in this case.

If you have genuine information involving threats to Dragon Con and/or its attendees, please send the information to our senior staff person in charge of security Bobby Dennis at conops [at] dragoncon [dot] org.

Sincerely,
Dragon Con Management

Comments

[http://users.livejournal.com/_ladyvader_/]

Thank you! I'll be checking back periodically to see what they say. Hope all is resolved soon.

[rubberella.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the update.

Dragon*Con: Security Posts

[astralfire.livejournal.com]

Recently there have been a series of posts and messages regarding an individual that has made comments on some internet social networks.

Dragon Con is aware of the issue and we are not taking it lightly. The proper authorities have been contacted, and they are working to ensure everyone’s safety.

Much of this “current” information has been circulating since last year, when a similar threat was defused by the FBI and local law enforcement.

At this time we ask that you refrain from posting rumors or speculation in this case.

If you have genuine information involving threats to Dragon Con and/or its attendees, please send the information to our senior staff person in charge of security Bobby Dennis at conops [at] dragoncon [dot] org.

Sincerely,
Dragon Con Management

Re: Dragon*Con: Security Posts

[ooolala-lauren.livejournal.com]

Thank you for the update!

Re: Dragon*Con: Security Posts

[elvishtard.livejournal.com]

Thanks for letting us know!

Re: Dragon*Con: Security Posts

[elfgrove.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the update. :)

Re: Dragon*Con: Security Posts

[m-cubicle.livejournal.com]

Thanks for keeping us in the loop on this! *Power to the internet*

Re: Dragon*Con: Security Posts

[sneezythesquid.livejournal.com]

Thank you for the update.

Re: Dragon*Con: Security Posts

[auroraceleste.livejournal.com]

OP, can this be edited into the original post so everyone can see it without having to read the comments?

Re: Dragon*Con: Security Posts

[feuervogel]

+1

[jillmaddoxcm.livejournal.com]

Thanks!

[trybutez.livejournal.com]

The key phrase in the announcement is: "Much of this “current” information has been circulating since last year, when a similar threat was defused by the FBI and local law enforcement."

I can infer two things from this- One:If there was a credible threat, it was a year ago, and was handled in the proper manner, being defused by the FBI.

Two: Much of this being information a year old, we're seeing the birth of a new Urban legend. I expect some version of this will now pop up every year or so before D*C.

[sneezythesquid.livejournal.com]

(icon for people spreading the rumor, not you trybutez)

Two: Much of this being information a year old, we're seeing the birth of a new Urban legend. I expect some version of this will now pop up every year or so before D*C.

Sadly, I'll bet you're far too correct about this. Something else to add to the Dragon*Con wiki.

[rubberella.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately the information that was posted & given is recent as in the past week, and last night. So while the problem may be old, the postings that caused concern are very recent.

[trybutez.livejournal.com]

We don't know that to be true. To the best of my knowledge, there is no screencap of the threat, or even time stamp. All we have is a C&P that a person got "from a friend of a friend." A C&P, I might add, which has inconsistencies depending on where it's been posted. (On FB, it listed Johnson, on LJ it listed Jackson, Jonathan/Jonathon)

We also have a twitter account of someone with a similar but different name, which may or may not be the same person who made the threat that was posted. The proper authorities can determine if it's the same person, we can't. However, either way, considering his faked suicide attempt last night, whoever has the twitter account certainly needs help, and I hope he gets it.

These are the facts. Everything else we have is speculation. I'm of the opinion that D*C, in coordination with law enforcement knows more than we do, and access to still more information than we could get, so when they say the threat has been defused, I'm inclined to believe it.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the threat that was posted, I repeat because it's important, by a person who was given it by "a friend of a friend" is from last year, and has just resurfaced again, like things like this tend to do.

[trybutez.livejournal.com]

Statistically speaking... something bad will happen at D*C sooner or later, resulting in death. It's happened at SDCC already, it happens at one or two ren faires on an annual basis, and as the membership climbs at D*C, the odds only increase.

Of course, everytime you go to the movies and no one dies, the odds of it happening next time increase as well. Or at a concert. Or even driving. So, while all threats should be taken seriously, (and they are) they should also be handled by the properly trained people - the police, the FBI, D*C Security, and Hotel Seecurity, I'm not sure there's any real reason to get worked up here regarding a threat that cites information that's already a year old and has been defused.

I don't think anything can be gained here by releasing more information except making a bad situation worse.

[sneezythesquid.livejournal.com]

Why do I now have visions of a "Final Destination" flick being set at D*C or SDCC?

BAD BRAIN! BAD!

[trybutez.livejournal.com]

I demand writer credit!

Or at least co executive producer credit.

[sneezythesquid.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure I'd want credit for those movies? Or is it not credit, but blame when it comes to these flicks?

[trybutez.livejournal.com]

If there's money involved... well, that's what pseudonyms are for!

[sneezythesquid.livejournal.com]

Indeed. And renowned writer/director Alan Smithiee agrees with you.

[kkatowll.livejournal.com]

OK, I had to speak up here. This is bad math. This is the same probability mistake that leads to people buying Lottery tickets. Odds DO NOT CHANGE. In other words, if you roll a die ten times, your odds of rolling a 6 are THE SAME every time. EVEN IF YOU HAVEN'T ROLLED A SIX YET.
Now you're correct to say that if a variable changes (such as, more people), then the odds of, say, one of them attacking people at random, do increase. But your odds of avoiding that incident rise too, because if there's more people there's more likelihood that they'll be hurt, instead of you.

To put that differently: the per-person risk of something happening goes DOWN as the number of people goes UP (unless, of course, the increase in people in entirely made up of crazy attackers). However, the odds of one crazy person go UP as the number of total people goes UP.

I hope this interlude into math makes sense. You may now return to your thread. :)

[sneezythesquid.livejournal.com]

Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeek! ;)

[abby-i.livejournal.com]

If you want to call someone it geek, it better be me. I learned the same thing, but not from school - Instead I learned it from an episode of Seaquest! (2032, I believe). Now that's geeky. LOL

[fading-xhopex.livejournal.com]

No, what's geeky is I think I remember that...and Actually I think it was the season before...dammit, I want my dvds so I can find out.

[abby-i.livejournal.com]

No, I think you're right. I knew Lonnie was in the ep and thought she joined in S3 for some reason (it's been a while since I've watched it!)

Think I'm going to drag out my DVDs when I have a few moments too, it's about time I watched it again. :D

[sneezythesquid.livejournal.com]

Nerd.

;)

[kyndig.livejournal.com]

Haha I stared at the post for five minutes trying to decide if I should say something. Kudos to you sir/madam. :)

[trybutez.livejournal.com]

Reposted after an edit.

Disagree. (but politely) And I'm willing to be proven wrong, as it's been awhile since math.

There's a difference between odds and propability. Perhaps my mistake was in not being specific enough, however. Lets consider your example. You are correct that, in a vacuum, you have a 1/6 chance of landing a 6 on every roll (assuming we're talking a traditional die). It's even correct to assume that if you've rolled the die 999 times, and never gotten a six, you *still* have a 1/6 chance (or 16.6%) of landing a six on the next roll.

However, the probability of rolling a die 1,000 times and still not landing a 6 once is not 83.4% as would be implied. It's actually, if I remember correctly (it's been awhile, so I admit I'm willing to be proven wrong, but it should be...) 1 in 1/6 to the power of 1000.

Along the same lines, if someone doesn't die the first D*C, or the second, and so on, the probability that someone will die increases. Especially, of course, as we both agree, with the increase in people as still another factor.

Regarding lottery tickets... ugh, voodoo math, but, if someone did play the same numbers time after time, (without missing a drawing) and all other factors remained the same, yes, the probability (if not the odds)of winning should increase. (but at a negliglbe rate. You'd have to live up to seven million weeks before it was ever realized.)

But you're aboslutely right that the more people that attend D*C, the less likelihood of anything bad happening to you as an individual. More or less.

[dwivian]

There is a subtle difference between odds and probability. Odds is the ratio between success and failure, where probability is the ratio of success to total (presuming success is what you're going for). Thus, the odds of getting heads on a die flip is 1 to 1, while the probability is 1 out of 2 outcomes (if you don't count "stands on edge when falls into a crack in the sidewalk").

So, no -- if you roll a die 1000 times and never see a six is unlikely (5x5x...x5x5 over 6x6x...x6x6, or (5/6)^1000, or 6.56x10^-80), which is a bit better than (1/6)^1000 (7.06x10^-799), the probability of a specific combination of rolls (we have to allow for the 6 to appear in any of the 1000 positions).

That said, probability has no memory. If someone doesn't die in any given year, the probability that someone will die the next year doesn't change at all. Why? Because there is no end to time -- we have no requirement that someone die in the first X years, only what the probability is. That probability may never be realized. And, that's fine with me (unlike MOC, which managed not only to have a death, but the death of a guest at that).

So, no, playing the same lottery numbers every game will never increase your odds. There is no memory in the system -- each draw is new, and time goes on forever, so you stand no better chance this draw than any other. You have the exact same chance with the same numbers as having a quick-pick each draw.

After all that -- I wish I hadn't missed the original post!

[trybutez.livejournal.com]

Thank you!

[comix-geek.livejournal.com]

To quote a famous smuggler, "Never tell me the odds!"

[acciochocolate.livejournal.com]

I read somewhere that someone had been murdered at SDCC, but someone who attends every year told me that it wasn't true. So what have you heard/read about something bad at SDCC?

[trybutez.livejournal.com]

Ah, you see, I am as guilty as the rest, in perpetuating an urban myth!

As near as I can tell with thirty seconds of research, there was a stabbing, but no actualy death. And over a seat, no less.

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-07-25/justice/comic.con.pen.stabbing_1_comic-con-fanboys-and-fangirls-pen?_s=PM:CRIME