Of course it's 2012's "Let them eat cake".
Hope this comment doesn't end with the same results that that one did.
And, for now, good bye everyone, this is my board suicide at least for the next 6 months. Thank you everyone for a wonderful, interesting environment to post and read in. No time to post anymore with recent positive, but time consuming, changes in my life. Good luck and best wishes to all.
- Registered User
Member for 9 years, 4 months, and 24 days
Last active Thu, Feb, 21 2013 09:19:13
- 0 Followers
- 8,313 Total Posts
- 56 Thanks
Sep 4, 2012dcartist posted a message on ‘Drink Less, Work More’, Aussie Billionaire Tells Non-RichPosted in: Debate
Aug 29, 2012Posted in: Geeks Corner
Just read about the appeal issues... The jury foreman who is an owner of a ****ty tech patent, talked them into skipping all the "boring" evidence review and following the judge's instructions.Quote from Solaran_XIf the patent is so long and complex, then how did a jury achieve a verdict against Samsung so quickly? Shouldn't they have been in deliberation much longer, to properly read and try to understand the patent?
He just posed himself as an expert in the jury room and they followed his lead.
Aug 29, 2012You'll be fine. Just like at weddings, you're not supposed to be doing any of the heavy lifting. Just support your gf and don't be as ass and you'll be fine. You will barely need to talk with anybody except to say "sorry for your loss". Your responsibility is just to be at hand. If somebody needs a hand with something, help out.Posted in: Real-Life Advice
Aug 28, 2012Posted in: Debate
well clearly you don't need any advice here, and have it all figured out. Why did you bother to ask whether your dad's arguments "hold water" if you already knew the answer?
I suggested trying an alternate approach and looking at it from his PoV and try to offer more respect and you basically just argue that youve done all you can.
I don't believe you. I believe you can do better. And yeah, I think I takes two to tango, and this back & forth between you is about more than just getting him to respect a few of your arguments.
Aug 28, 2012Posted in: DebateQuote from Highroller »That is something that should be investigated, and he should have an oversight committee hounding him. That is ****ing disgraceful.Quote from Highroller »You can stop frothing at the mouth now. The rabid dog act impresses no one.Quote from Highroller »Normally I don't like putting athletes on a pedestal. The fact that Tiger Woods made a public apology about something that was an entirely private matter, for instance, disgusted me.
You're being a hypocrite. Take your own advice.Quote from highroller »Calm down.
sure you did:Quote from HighrollerMy point is that saying that every single player dopes does not mean that going after Armstrong for doping becomes illegitimate. Never did I say that problem wasn't process,
never did I say that the USADA is either justified or unjustified in their actions.
Quote from highroller »It is not, however, justified to complain about an oversight committee doing its job by going after someone who broke the rules. That's what they're supposed to do.Quote from dcartist »That makes no sense. Your statement assumes the committee already magically know Lance to be guilty before he is excessively investigated and harrassed.
Is it justified to complain about cops "doing their job" by relentlessly "showing unfair prejudice" harrassing and investigating people who are guilty?
And then you didn't address my reply. You didn't have a legitimate response so you resorted to accusing me of "frothing at the mouth". Meanwhile, you want the "****ing disgraceful" Lance Armstrong to be HOUNDED by an oversight committee, for something which is not a misdemeanor, let alone a crime of any sort:Quote from Highroller »That is something that should be investigated, and he should have an oversight committee hounding him. That is ****ing disgraceful.
Why do you have such a hard on to harrass the man. Did the money he raised for cancer research save the life of somebody you dont like?
Aug 28, 2012Sorry but that doesn't sound like this at all:Posted in: Debate
In your OP you are strictly characterizing your dad as the closed minded bad guy, and you as the victim.Quote from SacredMesa »argued back that while I don't have the personal experience he does I can easily do my own research and look back at the very same history he lived through and come to a conclusion that is not only very valid but in many cases can be far more correct due to a lack of emotional connection that would grant me a far more non-bias point of view.
This seems to be a reoccuring thing in any debate we have is he always falls back into this same tired and frustrating arguement. Does this kind of arguement hold water or is it what I personally believe, IE his way or dismissing what I say to avoid having the debate if he doesn't like where it is going?
You can protest as much as you like that you are respecting him and only looking to be respected back, but your OP question doesn't reflect that at all.
You claim you are asking whether "this same tired and frustrating argument" "holds water", but you know that it doesn't "hold water" when the question is framed in the biased way you've framed it.
Captain Morgan saw it on POST NUMBER ONE, and I see the exact same thing. You are each straining for advantage by setting the ground rules in ways that favor yourselves, and my further exposition on it, and my discussions on WHY your father takes his position actually was conceding that he was doing it out of defensiveness, and actually favored you.Quote from Captain_Morgan »Either of you are looking for a strategic advantage over the other, highly competitive and probably a familial trait. To make up for his lack of education he uses experience as a justification where as you are using your inexperience and research as the "superior."
You're in total denial if you're going to continue to frame this as a "my dad always falls back on the same tired and frustrating argument" where he is the bad guy and you are the victim.
We're only hearing YOUR side of the story, yet still somehow we've both come to the conclusion that both you and dad are guilty parties in this conflict.
Aug 28, 2012I meant to writePosted in: Debate
"He MAY have done all this good in the world WHILE breaking the rules in a bicycle racing game where practically every one of these grownups in shorts is breaking the rules."
His "heroism" stems from what he did for people with cancer.
You really think there are disillusioned cancer victims out there now going: "Gee, Lance Armstrong doped to win those races? I guess I have no chance to survive my lymphoma now... that bastard!"
That makes no sense. Your statement assumes the committee already magically know Lance to be guilty before he is excessively investigated and harrassed.Now, if you feel that the oversight committee in question is doing a generally terrible job of imposing fairness and integrity within a sport, that's a fair criticism. If you think they are showing unfair prejudice against Lance Armstrong, that is also a fair criticism.
It is not, however, justified to complain about an oversight committee doing its job by going after someone who broke the rules. That's what they're supposed to do.
Is it justified to complain about cops "doing their job" by relentlessly "showing unfair prejudice" harrassing and investigating people who are guilty?
Of course, I'd complain. Because you're assuming guilt prior to investigation.
And USADA is not an "oversight committee". It is just a private organization.
Being an icon makes you no more and no less a citizen in the US. It is not a crime to be a fallen icon.Because Lance Armstrong is not merely an athlete, he's an icon.
What the heck? You are wasting your disgust... and your sympathy.Normally I don't like putting athletes on a pedestal. The fact that Tiger Woods made a public apology about something that was an entirely private matter, for instance, disgusted me.
Tiger CHOSE to make an apology, in order to try to salvage what was left of his huge marketing status.
He's a role model to millions of young kids, and people who bought apparel and gear that Tiger made millions off of. Tiger chose to cheat on his wife and child, and cheapen himself with some serious skanks. Nobody wanted to buy his gear anymore, and he CHOSE to apologize.
NOBODY MADE HIM APOLOGIZE.
Whats to be disgusted about other than Tiger's behavior. Nobody took away his titles. Nobody put him in prison. He is not a criminal, and neither is Lance Armstrong.
He lost his endorsements, because nobody wants to buy gear endorsed by a guy who ****ing cheats on his wife and baby. Tiger apologized in an effort at spin control, to save himself some of his millions and salvage his image.
For what "CRIME" should he be investigated and chased on by an "OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE"?But in this case, in the case that a man who is a hero and public icon would be revealed to have his successes in a sport achieved by cheating and lying? That is something that should be investigated, and he should have an oversight committee hounding him. That is ****ing disgraceful.
What kind of mentality do you have that you think there should be a congressional oversight committee harrassing a private citizen for doing something that is NOT ILLEGAL? To do what?
Do you even understand what the thin premise was for the original Oversight committee investigating steroids in baseball? The ILLEGAL use of steroids was the excuse.
You are drooling at the thought of the US government spending millions to determine whether a guy should be disqualified from bike races from 7 - 13 years ago, that didn't even take place on US soil?That is something that should be investigated, and he should have an oversight committee hounding him. That is ****ing disgraceful.
Seriously, get over it.
I think its outrageous that you want to harrass this guy, that you want congressional oversight committees hounding a man who didnt' even break the law. Your values are so misplaced, and your obsession with sport is ludicrous.
What does this man owe you? What is your endgame here?
And again, the Tour de France made millions on Lance Armstrong's coattails, because Armstrong actually made non-bike nerds actually care about the race. Should the tour return THAT money?
Aug 28, 2012@highroller: The issue is PROCESS. You can't just go "Hmmmm... I think I'll go retest Lance's urine for more crap today. Because I want to, and I have so many of his urine samples, we have the ability to check as often as we like. For decades. No statute of limitations on it.Posted in: Debate
That's just a witch hunt.
"Mockery of his sport"? Please, don't get too pompous. When virtually everybody dopes, and its barely enforced and becomes the standard for the level playing field, how is Lance Armstrong making "mockery" of his sport?
He was successful playing on the same level field as all the other top cyclists, and in the meanwhile, he helped millions of cancer victims, and raised great amounts of money.
He did not do this by sucking the blood of babies he aborted.
He did not do this by bearing false witness to put innocent people in prison.
He MAY have done all this good in the world by breaking the rules in a bicycle racing game where practically every one of these grownups in shorts is breaking the rules.
"Mockery of the sport?"
Do you think that people who were inspired and gave money to cancer research want their money back now that they think Armstrong may have cheated at racing to win?
He's a HERO because he came back from cancer and potential death raced at that level.
He may be FAMOUS because he won those tour de frances... but that has nothing to do with why he is a hero. Lance Armstrong is historically more relevant than the entire world professional bicycling sport.
"Mockery of the sport"? Get over yourself, yeesh. Before Lance Armstrong, nobody outside of hardcore bicycling fans and Frenchmen gave a **** about the Tour De France.
Aug 28, 2012I think they directly look at and remove the reviews. There just can't be that many 4.5 an 5 star reviews and no 1 and 2 star reviews.Posted in: Water Cooler Talk
Because many people would catch on and give 1s and 2s without saying much, when products suck.
Target simply doesn't seem to allow low reviews to slip through.
Aug 28, 2012You seem to want to pretend that you're the one being open-minded, but your words reveal that you are equally closed minded, and taking the stance that YOU are the ones who knows everything.Posted in: Debate
You're TELLING him? A man who knew you when you believed in Santa Claus?I'm telling him that his experience doesn't not negate the research and evidence I am able to present.
Sounds like that's exactly what you're telling him. The research and evidence you present trumps his experience.I'm not telling him he can't use experience, or that his experience is wrong.
"Trying to get him to understand"? What a patronizing attitude to the man who taught you how to not crap your pants.I'm not trying to hinder or limit his ability to debate I'm trying to get him to understand that his experience doesn't "trump" everything else.
I think he understands you quite well. You are defining the terms of the discussion
You're telling me that I'm wrong, and I'm sure I'm right. You seem convinced you're right, and I get the impression you're only superficially reading what I write. This very thread you've chosen to frame the problem in a way that favors you, rather than recognizing it for what it is. You've decided he is simply closed minded, and you pay lip service to respecting his superior experience, when all you're doing is saying "I acknowledge you're experienced, but I don't think it negates anything I say."
"Evidence" you cite on most topics may or may not be of high quality. But because he does not have the ability to engage you on that particular level, you wish to keep things on that level. He is TELLING you just as you are TELLING him.
Aug 28, 2012Posted in: Debate
I think you are the one who misunderstands.
At no point did I or do I believe I have all the answers or know everything. I don't even have an issue with disagreeing to him and each of us having our own views. My issue is this belief that his experience negates any and all work I put into researching the history and present of the topic we are discussing.
You are taking your father's rather aggressive posture on that "experience trumps everything" as if he's asserting an absolute axiom. That would only be the case if he dropped that bomb,and turned his back on you.
He is just taking a very strong position on that stance. Remember when you assert your own relatively young, untested opinion rather assertively, you are putting pressure on his position, which he may not be able to articulate as well as you can, but because of his experience and wisdom, and having been in your shoes, he "knows" he is right.
If you don't acknowledge or on some level concede your fallibility in the face of his experience, then what argument is there to have? Because you can spout a few stats, or research or whatever (all of which is non-definitive) and he has no "research" to argue back with, then you're basically saying that your ability to tapdance while juggling data puts you on top of the argument. So he plays to his own strength.
Not saying that's the only way to look at things, but it is definitely one of the valid ways to look at this little dance.
You wish to define the "groundrules of debate" with your dad in a way that simply favors you on every level, then when he doesn't want to play by your rules, you whine here.
Aug 28, 2012I didn't use curse words. But words like "recall" and 'dangerous' are appropriate.Posted in: Water Cooler Talk
Aug 28, 2012Posted in: Real-Life Advice
nothing wrong with being dominant.
This girl is being childish and a bitch and fighting with everybody else. By not letting her solve her own problems and lettin her avoid the confrontation and resolution, he is just making her worse by creating a little bubble around herself.
AND making himself miserable in the process.
This had nothing to do with "dominance", and it's odd that youd frame it that way.
Aug 28, 2012You gotta set hard boundaries on that stuff. You're enabling her.Posted in: Real-Life Advice
None of this "I feel uncomfortable, but if you really want me to..." stuff.
You say "I am on your side but I can't do that. You don't enjoy dealing with this issue, and neither do I. You are the person who should be hanging it and I have your back."
If SHE wants to break up over that, or make you miserable because you stand up for yourself, THEN you break up.
But try setting some firm boundaries rather than letting her walk all over you simply by being dominant and a bitch. That's no way to live.
Aug 28, 2012I hear a lot of people talk about how WOW raid leader skills can translate to real life, but you know something? Almost every single one of those people I know who lead large raid parties is nothing special when it comes to leading human beings or doing anything practical in real life. Almost none of them will ever lead a platoon, let alone a regiment or a design team. Many are immature 40 year olds who never really grew up, and hate their grownup life.Posted in: Water Cooler Talk
The main thing that separates these people from those they lead is a Life. The followers are more casual players, and the leaders are hard core.
And no, I'd never recommend putting it on your resume, or bragging about it.
Sure sometimes I tell parents that leading a large group in WOW will enhance certain skills, but the person in question is usually under 13 years of age.
Aug 28, 2012I'm not saying that videogames are bad per se.Posted in: Water Cooler Talk
Just saying there are far better things you can do with your time than the "ALL YOU CAN EAT GORGE-FEST" of videogames.
Especially if you play by yourself.
Aug 28, 2012dcartist posted a message on The Official "What is the Last Movie You Watched?"Posted in: Movies
Absolutely I agree with you there. That scene stood out, the setup for it, the cold in the cabin, then when it all went to hell and he was hanging out of the open cabin with trees and snow flying by... that was incredible. Most immersive plane crash I've ever seen I agree. Sound work made a big difference...Quote from Deep CocoaYou gotta admit the plane crash scene was awesome, the most visceral plane crash I've ever seen in a movie. I saw it in theaters and after that scene everyone was kind of like "Whoa"...
It's why I thought of CASTAWAY with Tom Hanks. The crash in THE GREY was even much better than the one in CASTAWAY (which was itself a good plane crash scene).
Hahah... I liked that movie a lot. To me, it had the tone of Se7en, done Korean style.Quote from Degduar MarteI Saw the Devil. Incredible film, near masterpiece.
It did show the pointlessness of revenge though. If you got the bad guy, just stick a fork in him and make him dead already. Or torture murder him on the spot. Take hours if you like. Or days. Just don't freaking let him go.
But you really feel the nihilistic pointlessness of revenge.
Might as well get revenge on an earthquake or a branch falling, as get "revenge" on a serial killer.
Aug 28, 2012Yes, its possible to waste time "having fun", though its difficult to define exactly where to draw the line, though maybe discussing it here could help define some of the ideas more clearly.Posted in: Water Cooler Talk
You have a finite time on this earth... and the closer you get to the end of it, the more you desperately wish you had more of it. So its a shame to "Kill time" between the "highlights"... it reminds me of that Adam Sandler movie where he finds a remote that lets him fast forward through life.
I went through a period of my life where I found tons of ways to "kill time", by playing videogames and watching movies, just to get through the lonely or boring parts... and really its a shame to waste time that way.
Fill your time with cultivating relationships or cultivating yourself, so that you will GO places and make the highlights that much HIGHER and BETTER.
Killing hours and hours doing nothing just leaves a bad taste in your mouth, and choosing it as any kind of lifestyle is no different than TRAINSPOTTING.
Aug 28, 2012Posted in: Real-Life Advice
No he's being hit over the head with a message, and he's asking why the girl is giving him mixed signals.
Also, he is taking the slightest hint. He's at least guessing that she might be interested in him, but he's not sure so I wouldn't call him clueless.
Your conclusions from that story are way, way off base.Also, I have a story about this kind of situation:
Girl shows interest in me, I show interest in her, she then drifts away and doesn't want to have anything to do with me and loses interest in me. So it's totally okay for a girl to show interest in a guy, but the other way around is not.
Have you ever considered the possibility that she was interested in you, got to know you a little bit, then decided she didn't really like you all that much, and would rather be with somebody else?
Have you ever considered the possibility that you just didn't have any game when it came to flirting back with her, and she quickly realized this was a waste of her time?
How can you possibly conclude that she lost interest in you BECAUSE you showed interest in her?
You act like having some girl "interested in you" is some kind of GOAL, the end purpose of this all. The goal is to make a connection. She was interested... and you gave it a shot, and she decided "nah, pass". No shame in that.
The only thing that showing interest in her did to the situation was put you in a position where you could 'lose face' a little if she lost interest in your. And she did.
But nothing ventured nothing gained. You have to take a risk if you want to win anything.
Common scenario I see with young guys who are nerdy and smart, but have little game, is that they are super passive, and don't want to risk being "humiliated" by going after a girl, and really their emotional control is so poor, that even rejecting them becomes an awkward thing for a girl, and so it can all be very uncomfortable.
Some girl will see some positive qualities in the guy, and show some interest, flirt maybe, and the guy, who is not really interested in that girl (doesn't think she's the prettiest, she is not his "first choice", and he doesn't think she's especially intriguing, but are kind of flattered that a cutish girl is interested in them, and would love it if the girl would just kind of throw themselves at the boy for easy sex or affection), just waits.. and waits... because he wants to be absolutely sure the girl is wanting HIM, before he even moves a ****ing finger. He finally shows interest, but in such a way that the girl realizes that she's STILL going to have to make all the moves. The "game" he displays is kind of indicative that he's not really seeing her, not really connecting with her, and he's just socially awkward. She knows from experience that a guy like this who is just not really connecting with her, but just acting on the fact that she's shown interest, will lose interest in her as soon as he nails her. She just figures out that he's not actually into her: He's just interested in her because she's interested in him. So she bales.
Then he sits there and wonders what he did wrong.
Girl shows interest in a guy, it means only that, nothing more. It doesn't mean that she's "DECLARED HERSELF FOR HIM" so that as soon as he shows interest, he can "bag" her.
Showing interest should be fine. Just try to relax, and not be so freaking awkward.
Aug 28, 2012Samsung has strong grounds for appeal.Posted in: Geeks Corner
Although we will have more to come at DisCo on the Samsung-Apple verdict, I wanted to highlight a particular piece of curious information.
As many recent news reports have pointed out, the jury foreman, Velvin Hogan, is himself a patent owner. One of Mr. Hogan’s patents, for a “method and apparatus for recording and storing video information,” filed in 2002, appears to be for a DVR/media server with removable drives. In other words, a device that can record video and copy it onto a storage medium and make it accessible for on-demand viewing at a later date. Given the fact that the first TiVo was released in 1999, it is conceivable that this particular patent would not meet the non-obvious standard necessary to qualify for patent protection (despite a few extra bells and whistles, like that ability to use a wireless keyboard, connect to the Internet, edit media and order movies on demand) as it does little more than combine known methods and current technology. (KSR v. Teleflex, the most recent Supreme Court case on the “obviousness” standard for patentability, held that the “combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”)
It is an interesting fact that the legal interests of the foreman of the jury evaluating Apple’s allegedly obvious patents, such as the “pinch to zoom,” the “bounce back” and the “slide to unlock” functions, could be independently affected by whether the jury’s decision produced a nonobviousness standard more forgiving to the patent holder. (As one prominent software engineer noted in the NY Times, Apple’s patent of the pinch-to-zoom function is like a carmaker patenting “a circular steering wheel”.)
Of further interest is that Mr. Hogan’s own experience with the patent system (in which he himself is a stakeholder) did indeed color his views in assessing Samsung’s liability:
Hogan described the deliberations in vivid detail, saying the first task was to determine if Apple’s patents were valid because of Samsung’s arguments they were negated by “prior art” in the industry, essentially technology that existed for features such as touch screens before the introduction of the iPhone. Using his own experience getting a patent, Hogan said he had a revelation on the first night of deliberations while he watched television.Furthermore, Mr. Hogan’s views of patentability were reportedly very influential in getting the jury over the original patentability questions on which the entire case turned, as CNET’s interview with another juror makes clear:
“I was thinking about the patents, and thought, ‘If this were my patent, could I defend it?’ ” Hogan recalled. “Once I answered that question as yes, it changed how I looked at things.”
“We were debating heavily, especially about the patents on bounce-back and pinch-to-zoom. Apple said they owned patents, but we were debating about the prior art [about similar technology that Samsung said existed before the iPhone debuted]. [Velvin] Hogan was jury foreman. He had experience. He owned patents himself…so he took us through his experience. After that it was easier.”It will remain an interesting historical wrinkle that the most prominent decision-maker in this case could be so directly affected by the outcome — not as a member of the public who stood to benefit from the promotion of progress in the useful arts, but as the owner of an entitlement created by a patent system that has gone off the rails.
Not the only place I found this too.
Furthermore, the comments from jury clearly indicated this was PUNITIVE, when the judge clearly directed them that they COULD NOT GIVE PUNITIVE component to judgment here. In fact they pretty much skipped over the judge's instructions, primarily due to the bastard jury foreman who should never have been allowed to sit on this jury.
Velvin Hogan, the little mother****er, ignored the judge's instructions for his own ulterior motives, and in support of his own bull**** patents like his laughable DVR patent he's protecting.
He paraded himself in the jury room as basically an expert on patent law, and used his position as foreman to basically present his own evidence.
Hope he dies.
“I was watching a movie, but I was thinking about this and all the claims, one in particular, and I thought to myself, I can defend this. Then I thought, if I can defend this patent, as though it were my own, then I need to go back and tell my fellow jurors about this,” he explained. “I knew if I could defend this like it was mine, then I needed to look at the others.”
Hogan said it was at that very moment that $1 billion “went from left to right,” so to speak.
“Yes, it did, it did,” he recounted in an interview on Sunday evening.
Hogan then went about guiding his fellow jurors – an eclectic mix that included two engineers, a young rock music enthusiast, a Navy veteran, bike shop manager and a homemaker – through the herculean task of deciding who owned what in this battle of technology titans.
Also multiple clear errors on the jury's final verdict, contradictory stuff, bad math, and a decision made impossibly quickly, in faster time than it would have taken to even review the material.
Aug 28, 2012In general: The loser of an argument learns more than the winner.Posted in: Debate
Is it better to reaffirm how smart you are? Or is it better to learn something new?
I highly doubt that he throws that at you as a "tactic" per se. Look at it from his point of view.
Anyway so I was recently having a dicussion with my dad about politics and big business. While the content isn't really relevant he came to a stance that honestly pissed me off.
His stance was that until I lived as many years as he did and had his experiences that my opinion on these subjects is uninformed and in general holds no water. I argued back that while I don't have the personal experience he does I can easily do my own research and look back at the very same history he lived through and come to a conclusion that is not only very valid but in many cases can be far more correct due to a lack of emotional connection that would grant me a far more non-bias point of view.
This seems to be a reoccuring thing in any debate we have is he always falls back into this same tired and frustrating arguement. Does this kind of arguement hold water or is it what I personally believe, IE his way or dismissing what I say to avoid having the debate if he doesn't like where it is going?
He saw you born, changed your diapers 5000-8000 times, watched as you learned your letters, cried over booboos, and announced ideas you learned in elementary school as if you had discovered them yourself.
Now in your 20s, when you start arguing your deep insights into politics with a tone of a full equal, or even talking down to him as if your current knowledge base makes you wiser or more qualified, of course his natural reaction is going to be:
"Why the hell would you think you actually KNOW the answer? I've seen you change your mind on these kinds of important issue 5 times on this over the past 5 years, just like I did when I was your age. If you really know the definitive answer to these things, why do you keep changing your mind?"
He knows what it was like to be 20 or 30. Do you know what it's like to be 50? Look back at the young bucks in high school, who think they're hot ****. As a guy in his 20s, don't you look back at those 16 year olds and say "Man, if you only knew how naive you are. Listen to MEEEEE..."
Its this stupid concept that many people have that "NOW I'M AT THE PINNACLE OF PHILOSOPHY AND ETHICS... at the PEAK OF HISTORY" (rather than some random point in the middle, and at victim of my own youth)
It's a little bit like people who think that mankind is on some kind of continuous ethical/political/moral climb, and that the wisdom of older people from earlier generations are invalidated because they had different prejudices than young adults of today, that we consider old fashioned.
Many of the more civilized Asian cultures respect their elders and their knowledge, experience, and wisdom, and those people who don't treat their elders with respect are just TRASH. Sure those elders may be senile, prejudiced, or wrong-thinking in their ways, but on many ways, you have a lot to learn from older people.
Really, just look at your own life: Do you honestly think you are no wiser than you were 5 years ago? 5 years before that? 15 years ago? 20? So how can you talk with a guy 20 years older than you, and refuse to even CONSIDER THE IDEA THAT HIS EXPERIENCE MEANS SOMETHING? Your tone and argumentation should reflext some respect for that experience, openly acknowledge what you DON'T know and haven't experienced, and work from there, with introducing your relatively untested arguments.
It reminds me of my dad arguing politics and against some more ultra-liberal ideas: "Have you ever actually experienced communism? Or lived under a totalitarian regime? You have no idea why I casually dismiss such systems as horrible."
Aug 28, 2012Target is a brand that is rapidly falling in my book. Walmart.com's online returns is hassle free, and they are not afraid to leave honest negative reviews of products on their web site.Posted in: Water Cooler Talk
Target is unusual for a "reputable" online retailer to do that.
We purchased this stroller combination partially based on the glowing reviews (because this combination box is not sold on other sites, its a Target exclusive, there are no reviews on other sites that point out the incompatibility of the included carseat and stroller).
Amazon.com's reviews are overall quite reliable. Its how I figured out not to by that stupid SLAP CHOP (that I almost got in a store on an impulse purchase... how bad could it be for that price? Well Amazon users showed me) and most of the "as seen on TV" products.
The reviews are hilarious:
"Slap me for purchasing this"
"not even worth the 1.00 i paid for it in the thrift store"
Aug 28, 2012It's ridiculous. Practically every item on Target.com has near perfect reviews, including products that get 1,2, and 3 star reviews on Amazon.com.Posted in: Water Cooler Talk
It makes their review system practically worthless.
Not only that, but I just reviewed a screwed product they sell on their website, and they promptly removed my 1 star review.
They sell a Graco stroller - carseat combination box (exclusive to target) where the carset attaches to the cupholder tray instead of a metal bar.
Most graco strollers you'd use with a carseat have a metal bar that is horizontal and the carseat latches onto, and then higher up there are two little shelves that the carseat rests on so there is virtually no "play" between the carseat and stroller after you attach the two little black elastic "hooks" into the notches.
This cupholder on this particular graco stroller that the carseat attaches to is horizontal, but asymmetric because of the cupholder goes straight down into the tray, but the other "wide bowl" side dips very shallow and at an angle, so the carseat cannot sit level on top of it. Absolutely no way does it sit level. It simply wobbles with at least 1 inch of play, no matter how tight you latch it down with the black elastics up top. Its further exacerbated by the fact that there are no "shelves" or anything else on the main bars of the stroller for the carseat to rest on. The lip on each side of the stroller just rests on a 45 degree angle bar of the stroller, and slides back and forth, there is no natural resting point, the carseat simply slides back and forth a good couple of inches because of the "play". As a result, even with the black elastic fasteners slid down or up or anywhere, the carseat has a tremendous amount of "play between it and the stroller.
the instructions clearly show it attached exactly where I'm describing and its just unsafe and just not confidence-inducing to attach a carseat to a flimsy plastic tray which is snapped to the stroller frame, and which the carseat will not even sit level on.
I wrote a review on this on target.com, and it was shortly removed from their reviews. No explanation, no email from target explaining it. They just removed the review.
Aug 28, 2012Posted in: Real-Life Advice
what are you talking about: girl is being interactive and communicating, and OP is being HYPER passive and clueless, and expecting the girl to just read his mind, and cannot take the slightest hint.
Aug 27, 2012They're impressive,very nice rendering. But not impressed with them as art, per se.Posted in: Water Cooler Talk
They're more meticulous than anything else.
When I was in my 20s I free handed different denominations of bills and sometimes photographs using a 4 color Bic during college and med school lectures to pass the time, and while they were not usually as good as these, I blew them out in 15-30 minutes, and occasionally I produced stuff that had that "photo-real" look to it, not as good as the first girl, but sometimes on par with the pearl earing picture. It's just copying, I bet he finds it relaxing. I think he's doing something similar in terms of mental process with a little more meticulousness and patience.
Think about it: he spent 20+ hours on a single picture. It's a hobby and he's being a human xerox. While a nice skill to have, and it impresses people who dont draw, you can't make much money for it, and it's not actually very creative.
What is 20 hours of your time worth? If your make minimum wage, at $160? Will people pay that? And if they do so regularly, you now have a min wage job drawing?
Aug 27, 2012Yes, if your not afraid to open it, On a laptop, I know you can disconnect the screen because there is a little flat connector that slides into a slot on most screens. This is REVERSIBLE so you don't ruin the phone.Posted in: Geeks Corner
I agree that the easiest way to disable the new phone is to kill the power so open the cell phone body, and clip wire that goes to any of the three battery contacts. Since you have a cheapo copy of the original phone you can do that.
Alternatively you can just disable the SIM card. I would bet that running a neodymium magnet over it would work... Heck, just call and turn off the service on the SIM on the dummy phone you're using.
Aug 27, 2012The issue is not just whether he cheated. The question is also what is a reasonable level of personal harrassment and scrutiny an individual's results should be subject to.Posted in: Debate
Regardless if whether he is guilty or innocent, individuals other than LancArmstrong do not have infinite resources to fight something like this decades long witch hunt.
Since we speak of accountability and public trust for the "sanctity" of "pure sport", there must be some kind of accountability and limitation in the power of persecution. I personal vendettas can be pursued like this based on carte Blanche police powers that have no time limit and no limit of scope, what is to stop them from going after the top black athlete or the top gay athlete or just the athlete who displeases them personally?
It's not just a matter of "he probably cheated" so therefore the persecutors are vindicated. If Over half the field is doing a SIMILAR or WORSE thing, then it becomes a SELECTIVELY enforced rule. Sure they punish when they publicly announce doping cases, but it's SELECTIVELY investigated.
It's picking one athlete you despise for whatever reasons and trying to take them down and subjecting them to separate rules. "Fair" my ass.
Aug 26, 2012Reminds me of Odd Men Out. The sanctimony is irritating.Posted in: Debate
Hire some bozos to "clean up" the sport in order to perpetuate this illusion.
Aug 26, 2012dcartist posted a message on The Official "What is the Last Movie You Watched?"The Grey... Way, way too dark and full of itself for what a movie that performa best in a thriller/adventure movie. Did it want to be kind of Castaway with Aliens? Just such a grim tone.Posted in: Movies
They played the main character way too cool and charismatic if they really are going for hyper-realistic dramatic "we all die" kind of serious piece.
I'm uncertain what the director's intent was.
That said, it was not terrible. Just could have been a lot better if they'd stuck with realism and stark fear the whole way through. Neeson played a tad bit too heroic and idealized, made you slip in and out of immersion. That kind of uneven tone can just kill a movie. Reminds me a bit of why standup comedy is so difficult.
Aug 25, 2012Yes French Dustin Hoffman indeed.Posted in: Entertainment Archive
Live flesh and tie me up tie me down are the only two Pre-AAMM films I've seen. Both were quite good.
I am planning to see Women on the verge of a Nervous Breakdown next. All of his early films seem to be comedies and look interesting to me.
Aug 25, 2012dcartist posted a message on True evil - imprisons & tortures niece 10 yrs, and 4 disabled for welfare checkshttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2191473/Beatrice-Weston-Woman-20-locked-cupboard-decade-aunt-sues-Philadelphia.htmlPosted in: Water Cooler Talk
Linda Weston somehow got her 10 year old niece, Beatrice, placed with her when the Beatrice's mom couldn't take care of her anymore. Linda locked her in a cupboard for 10 years, and tortured her for that time, letting her out once a day at most, making her drink her own urine, shooting her repeatedly in the leg with a pellet gun, burning her ear (you can see the nasty cauliflower ear), broke bones which were never set straight.
Linda had previously spent 8 years in prison for imprisoning and starving to death, her sister's boyfriend. But somehow the ex-con felon was given custody of a 10 year old.
Linda's plot was discovered when she took 4 mentally disabled homeless people and locked them in her apartment building's basement for 10 days, hoping to collect their welfare checks. She was mistreating them as well and made them poop & pee in a bucket.
Ultimately the landlord found the disabled people when he discovered a cat bowl down there and looked for pets (which are not allowed in the building). He found the homeless chained up in a tiny space hiding under blankets.
Police came and found Beatrice upstairs. Said her torture wounds were the worst they'd ever seen on a LIVING person.
Turns out also that Linda had a roommate some years back whose death was deemed natural, but died of meningitis secondary to malnutrition. Need to open that case up again.
There's more... But just... Wow...
Linda has a daughter, a boyfriend, and some homeless preacher dude that helped her keep these people locked up, and they all look pure evil.
Oh she so deserves to die. Actually to be starved to death. So does her worthless waste of flesh boyfriend and homeless "preacher" dude that were with her.
Aug 24, 2012Talk to her is probably my favorite.Posted in: Entertainment Archive
I was amazed how different Live Flesh felt the second time through compared to the first time through. All About My Mother was very good. Volver, Tie Me Up Tie Me Down, and b
Broken Embraces were all beautiful.
Penelope Cruz is amazing when Pedro is directing her. they don't know how to use her in American movies.
Spanish cinema in general rocks. Guillermo De Toro, Alphonse Cuaron, both brilliant.
The Orphanage... The Baby's room...
Not just spanish movies, spanish language cinema: Elite Squad, Elite Squad 2, Um just so many Spanish language movies that I just love.
I remember an amazing French movie too where the dude was accused of killing his wife in a lake... Really good.
Netflix is the best. I'd have never seen these if not for Netflix streaming.
Aug 24, 2012First, some general thoughts:Posted in: Water Cooler Talk
On getting suckered: Often when it comes to seeing whether you have a winning or a losing bet, instead of looking at it from the bettor's standpoint, look at the whole payout system from the HOUSE standpoint. The HOUSE only had to give out money 1 time out of 36, on a 6-6 roll. Yet the betters are going to bet 11 times out of 36, any time they see a die with a 6 on it. House only has to pay 1 in 36, yet they collect 11 in 36. Obviously a $8 to $1 payout means the bettor is a loser.
Re: Jamie and billy:
There is no such thing as a "universal" probability when it comes to how many boys or girls that father has. The father KNOWS has EXACTLY what he has.
The term "probabililty" comes into play for the PLAYER, YOU, trying to GUESS, because you don't know.
Through all your lines of reasoning in this thread, I get the subtle impression that your working concept of the probability is some "quantity" that exists separate from a POV.
If the dad says "I have a boy named Jamie" and you heard it, then from YOUR POV, the odds of him having at least one girl is now 2/3.
If I was standing right there next to you, but I am just hard of hearing, then from MY POV, the odds of him having at least one girl remains at 3/4.
Your answer of 2/3 is valid.
And my answer of 3/4 is valid.
Because probability is based on information.
I dont' know of a "general" way to tell you how to recognize when information you're given is useful vs irrelevant. I think turquoisepower summarized it about as well as you can, and its still far from straightforward. If it were straightforward, there wouldn't be so many people getting the answer wrong.
Though having any given child is an event with independent probability, the fact that we are limiting the problem to families with two children (or a pair of independent events) makes the ordering relevant information. The solution space starts out as all families with 2 children, whether they had one of them in 1931, or 1965, or 2012, and whether they had them 9 months apart or 50 years apart. Its just families with 2 children, and we know the distributions of male female in 2 child families based on the assumptions we make about those families.Quote from izzetmage »EDIT: Perhaps it's a bit clearer if you compare these two instead:
I have 2 kids;
1) One of my kids is a boy (and his name is Billy for all it matters), the probability of my other kid being a girl is - 2/3
2) My first (i.e. younger) kid is a boy, the probability of my older kid being a girl is - 1/2
In that case, yeah. The answer is 2/3.
But god DAMN, putting a name on someone really confuses me into thinking it's case 2.
We know nothing about actual age distributions in this population at all, some could be 80, 100000 or 1000000 years old, because we haven't specified whether these are special, long lived people. We haven't designated a distribution for names either... There could be 10000 jamies, or just one.
Because the way the problem is set up, ONLY pairs of children, our starting point is:
boy then boy
boy then girl
girl then boy
girl then girl
With each time of 2 kid family being equally likely.
(A) What are the chances that a family has at least 1 girl?
boy then boy
boy then girl
girl then boy
girl then girl
(B) If you learn that a family has at least one boy, what are the chances that it has at least 1 girl?
boy then boy
boy then girl
girl then boy
girl then girl
(C) If you learn that the FIRST kid is a boy, what are the chances that the family has at least 1 girl?
25% boy then boy
25% boy then girl
25% girl then boy
25% girl then girl
Which category does "If you learn that a family has at least one boy, his name is Jamie. Jamie is 19."* fall into all this? IT falls under (A).
Why is the information "His name is Jamie" irrelevant? Because we know absolutely nothing about the distribution of names.
Why is the information about "Jamie is 19" irrelevant? Because we know absolutely nothing about the distribution of ages of children.
* and obviously trying to argue that semantically, you're saying that the family has EXACTLY one boy, named Jamie, then the probability problem is just 100% chance of a girl, and its just a stupid trick question of the "read my mind" variety.
Aug 24, 2012Posted in: Water Cooler Talk
You mean like people who are saying that this is nowhere near as bad as it was when they were kids?Quote from AcardusWow...
Everyone's post are well thought out.... All except bocephus who has the most messed up logic regarding on illegal kiddie fight club. At first, I agree on the consent part and partaking kids to have a duel until you include the part where you just blatantly told everyone that it's normal for kids to fight until one stands.... You sound as if you promote the daycare's possible legal defense on why they allow such things happen on the institution.
Consent or not the kids will definitely have an impact from this incident which give out negative outlook of life... Like becoming a bully or passive aggressive individual.
yes, you've said that before. In the "This is my handgun and this is your laptop, watch me unload a clip into it." thread, and the Trayvon Martin thread.Quote from Bocephus »I did read the article, and I also work with children.
It saddens me to read it.
Being introduced to "fight or flight" terror at the age of 3 by being in violence may be what goes on in the jungle and in your house growing up, but "FERAL kids" are not exactly the ideal that most parents are shooting for in their child rearing.
It's nasty and its trash child rearing. Most people aspire for something better for their kids than that.
As for this crap making them "tougher", this kind of animalistic abuse doesn't make a person "tough". Just makes them more aggressive and likely to lose control inappropriately (and unwanted at social gatherings when you grow up). The fact that you went through this sort of violence as a child, are still able to hold a job & haven't gone postal doesn't mean it, and rationalize it alll as a good thing, does NOT mean it was a good thing. It just means you survived, and cope decently. Like an angry, functinoal alcoholic.
People survive and cope with abuse. It doesn't "improve" their lives.
I'll pick the guy with disciplined, self control, and training over the loose cannon "hit a lot as a kid", fighter, in a truly dangerous or hostile situation, any day of the week.
Yeah, I'm sure those daycare workers' attorney's will go with that defense. Really plausibleRunning to an adult is a natural instinct in unsure instances. It takes time and work to break that natural feeling. Just because the child ran to the adult, does not mean the child was scared.
Aug 24, 2012I think they virtually all dope, 1st to last.Posted in: Debate
But who ultimately knows. Without proof, I will not convict Lance Armstrong, and as far as the issue of whether he "officially" has those tour wins, I could not give a crap either way.
Armstrong raised $470 million for cancer research, started the "live strong" band thing that has been used to raise billions worldwide for everything from breast cancer to stopping bullies to AIDS research.
The idea that he may have cheated to win some sports contests is very small potatoes to me. It's not a felony in any jurisdiction that I care about
On the "moral wrongs" scale, cheating to win a sports event falls way, way below... Drunk driving.
Aug 24, 2012You seem to be mixed up on two issues:Posted in: Water Cooler Talk
(1) Non-relevant information posing as relevant information. I hope I can help with that.
(2) Emphasis on the concept of using the word "OTHER" somehow changing things. I cant help you with this because I still have no idea why you think saying "other child" is reasonable.
As for the issue of (1), and Jamie. The name doesnt matter.
The father has two boys, Jamie and Andy, he would have said "I have a boy named Andy" 50% of the time, instead of announcing "I have a boy named Jamie"
If the farmer is required to truthfully reveal that he has a boy, and he has two, then just like in the red dice / green dice sucker game, he is prefiltering his answer.
He says "I have a boy named Jamie" only half as often if he has two boys, as he does if he has a boy named Jamie and a girl.
Aug 24, 2012Posted in: Water Cooler Talk
i do know that. Because unlike you I read the articles and try to know what Im talking about before I post an opinion.
"It was a difficult video to watch," Dover Police Capt. Tim Stump told FoxNews.com. "One of the kids involved ran over to one of the adults for protection, but she turned him around back into the fight."
The video was taken in March, Stump said. Two of the suspects could be seen encouraging the fight, while the other filmed it with her cellphone camera, he said.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/21/daycare-workers-accused-running-toddler-fight-club/#ixzz24TY8MDUg
Aug 24, 2012Let's go back to my lotto example earlier, which I'm sure you didn't read, but fine, let's go.Posted in: Water Cooler Talk
Lets use families with 10 kids. There are 1024 families on the island, each with equally likely combination and order of boy-girl distribution.
There is exactly one family with bbbbbbbbbb
There is exactly one family with bbbbbbbbbg
There is exactly one family with bbbbbbbbgb
There is exactly one family with bbbbbbbbgg
There is exactly one family with gggggggggg
If you ask a dad, do you have at least 9 boys? And dad say "yes, their names are jimmy, jonny, jacob, joseph, jodi, jack, jed, jeremy, and jackson, what are the chances my OTHER child is a girl?"
What's your answer?
There are 10 families on the island with nine boys and a girl, and 1 family with 10 boys.
Does the fact that the father named 9 boys AND used your "magic word" ( "OTHER" ), mean that the other child has a 50% chance of being a girl?
The answer is "NO, there is a 10/11 possibility of the OTHER kid being a girl. The fact that you learned all their names means nothing."
Aug 24, 2012Posted in: Water Cooler Talk
it is like dogfighting because the fighters have no clue why they're fighting, and of they try to not fight, they're thrown right back in.Quote from bocephus »1) Stop comparing it to dog fighting. Dog fighting is to the death and this wasnt. Matter of fact there was no mention of serious injury to the children.
As imperfect analogies go, it's better than your comparison to sanctioned combat sports, where all participants know its a sporting contest with defined parameters.
In the case of the child abuse fight club, only those babysitters know its not for keeps. The kids are just scared.
Aug 24, 2012Posted in: Water Cooler Talk
do you actually read the responses carefully, or do you just throw the canned response back? fine let's show you the red dice
Once you state that, you might as well show me the die that landed on 6. Upon seeing this, I have RELEVANT INFORMATION, which will alter the probabilities.
Let's make the game exactly the same, and you will BET every time I show you the red die 6. You will always bet on red.
I roll red 6:
(a) 5/6 times, red 6, green is not 6. I show you red die 6 (you must bet $1 and LOSE)
(b) 1/6 time, red 6, green is 6, I am supposed to show you red die and let you bet $1 and pay you off for a winner... But HOLD UP! We still have to flip a coin to decide whether I'm going to show you the red 6 or the green 6! (So Only 50% of the time when I roll 6-6, I will show you the red die you must bet $1 and win $8) the other 50% of the time when I roll 6-6, I show you green and you don't bet.
Get it now?
Somebody betting green die 6 gets the same con job.
You see, I show the red die 5.5 times per 36 rolls and I show the green die 5.5 times per 36 rolls, but I PAY OUT ONE TIME PER 36 rolls. A green better wins .5 out of 5.5, a red better wins .5 out of 5.5, and a guy betting red and green both wins 1 time out of 11. Cant you see it?
Surely you see that we will show a red or green die 11 times out of 36.
Surely you see that I will show red as often as green, meaning I show each 5.5 out of 36.
Surely you see that red has to win as often as green.
Surely you see that there is only one payout per 6 rolls.
Yeah you see a red die 6, but I've essentially skimmed half your winnings off the top before you ever see that red die.
Aug 24, 2012@bocephus: not only "no consent."Posted in: Water Cooler Talk
You keep ignoring the fact that the "dogfighting" kids had no idea why they were being beat up or beating up other kids. The winner was being conditioned to brutalize other kids by being rewarded with cheers and status, and the loser was merely being subject to attack without any clue what is going on.
Traumatizing somebody's child by making that their first experience with "fighting" could make them a lot weaker, not stronger. Especially when it's adults who are exploiting them like that and giving them no way out, and really no explanation other than "**** you kid. I say when you get to stop getting beat up."
What if I dont want my kid to grow up to be a piece of **** trash adult who fights for fun, and thinks going to jail once in a while is nothing to be ashamed of? What if I want to teach my kid to learn martial arts seriously and to learn how to defend himself with true training, fight only as a last resort, and never experience mindless brutality?
Just because you think it's okay to kick a kid around and treat him like a dog because you think life is like that, what is good enough for your family isnt necessarily good enough for mine. Have you ever considered the whole "life is brutality - it was good enough for me look how great I turned out" thing is a self fulfilling prophecy?
Have you considered that having kids that are NOT beat up & fightin might let your next generation do even BETTER than you did? I certainly hope for better for my kids than having to be beat up or beat others up. And I definitely want my kids to do better than I did.
It's not just about "consent", it's about basic standards of child care, and respect. These kids were treated like chattel.
Aug 24, 2012Tom Head is a county judge. Which means he probably falls somewhere slightly below your barber and above your accountant in terms of common sense, and vice versa for intellect.Posted in: Debate
He falls about 20 tiers below a Senator's summer intern, on the scale of Political pundits.
There are 3,033 counties, and probably over a hundred thousand plus judges. And I suspect that Tom Head falls well below the 50th percentile on that scale as well.
I would not take him too seriously.
I mean, what the hell would he know, that you do not, about Obama's plans? Is Tom Head an insider? Does he have special powers of conspiracy solving? If so, why is he just a county judge? Does he have access to a special Internet we don't have access to for information?
He's just a dude. An outsider just like you and me. Probably lower than you and me on the "needtoknow" totem pole.
And I have not yet received my copy of the memo on the UN takeover thing.* Have you? Maybe somebody forgot to CC: me on it.
* Isn't a Korean the head of the UN or something? Does that mean Korea would run the US?
Aug 24, 2012Posted in: Water Cooler Talk
you've chosen to eliminate girl-boy from the list without offering a valid reason. The correct list of probabilities is this:
However, the fact that the person who posed the question asked for the gender of the OTHER CHILD is not! The OTHER CHILD cannot refer to the child who was mentioned!
Jamie is a boy. What can my OTHER CHILD be? A boy or a girl.
Jamie is a boy. What can JAMIE be? A boy only, obviously.
"JAMIE" and my "OTHER CHILD" are two different entities! You can replace "Jamie" with "younger son" or whatever, but as soon as you reference your "other child", you're reducing the possibilities!
you don't know the other die is purple. How do you know it's not beige? Certainly you acknowledge that if they're both beige, that the probability is 1/11. If I am trying to beat you at this game, then whenever a single die comes up 6, I will say "A X colored die came up 6." because that apparently offering useless color or name information is sufficient to con you into thinking that the other color has 1 in 6 change of being a 6.Look at the dice problem. "A beige die shows 6. What does the other die show?" Let's say the other die is purple. Here are the correct probabilities:
Beige 6, Purple not 6 - 5/6
Beige 6, Purple 6 - 1/6
Beige not 6, Purple 6 - 0
Beige not 6, Purple not 6 - 0
Beige 6, Purple not 6 - 5/11
Beige 6, Purple 6 - 1/11
Beige not 6, Purple 6 - 5/11
Beige not 6, Purple not 6 - 0
It's would be like me saying: "At least one die shows a 6. How likely is the other die a 6... But wait! This die showing 6 was made in Indonesia... Oh don't answer yet, I want to give you more useful information! This die was carved by a guy named Jamie! He's a boy! Now, tell me what is the chance that the die not made by Jamie, not made in Indonesia, shows 6?"
thank you. You've been suckered.Lastly, your game isn't a sucker's bet. When I play the game, let's say you rolled a red 6 and announced it. There are only 2 possibilities:
1) You rolled a red 6, and a green 6 - 1/6
2) You rolled a red 6, and a green 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 - 5/6
The same holds, with colors reversed, for you rolling & announcing a green 6.
The game would only be a sucker bet if you said "I rolled a 6, but I'm not going to say whether it's the red or green die that came up 6. I'll take you on 7-to-1 that the green die is 6."
You see in your case (1), whenever I roll a red 6 AND a green 6, only half the time I will say "red 6", and the other half of the time I will say "green 6". Yeah there are 5 losers for green 6, and 5 losers for red 6, but red 6 and green 6 half to SPLIT the WINNER TWO WAYS!
It's an awesome sucker bet.
Here let's break It down by rolling the dice 360 times:
50 chances out of 360 I will roll a red 6 and green non-6. I announce "I rolled a red 6" (Loser gimme $1)
50 chances out of 360 I will roll a green 6 and a red non-6. I announce "I rolled a green 6" (Loser gimme $1)
10 chance out of 360 I will roll a green 6 and a red 6, and 50% of these cases I choose to randomly announce red 6, and 50% of the time I will choose to announce a green 6. Therefore:
5 times out of 360 I announce "I rolled a red 6" (Winner collect $8)
5 times I announce "I rolled a green 6" (Winner collect $8)
You lose. After we play this 360 times, I have $50+$50 of your money, and you have $40+$40 of mine. I do believe that nets me $20. Thanks for playin' you've been suckered! Welcome to Reno! Please, pleeeeeeaaaase come again!
Aug 24, 2012Posted in: Water Cooler Talk
You really don't recognize the difference between
(a) parents explaining to their kids to "punch it out and end it, then shake hands" where boundaries and limits are clearly set, and both kids' parents are clearly just trying to get the kids to respect each other.
(b) 3 adult daycare workers throwing somebody else's 3 year old (a 3 year old left in their care), into a fight against some other aggressive 3 year old, to fight for their amusement while they cheer on. And whoever is the losing kid has no clue why they're fighting, but he's getting hurt and crying and crapping his pants, while a bunch of trashy adults are cheering the other kid on to humiliate him. And when he runs to an adult because he's had enough, gets thrown back in to get beat up some more? The kid has no idea why he's in A very REAL "fight or flight mode", terrified, no idea where he can escape, no idea whether this will end, no idea whether this is life or death or not. For all he knows he's gonna be killed. It's just a terrifying experience where adults whom his parents sent him to for care, are treating him like a piece of garbage, pushing him away & throwing him into a fight when he comes for comfort and forcing him to fight and laughing and cheering when he gets hurt. Clearly these caseworkers have extreme hostility towards the kids or the parents, and don't even look on these kids as children at all.
What kind of defective parent could not tell the difference between (a) and (b)?
Are you trolling?
Not that I approve of (a), but I understand that rationale. (b) is just horrific and infuriating. Those daycare workers need serious prison time for that.
Aug 24, 2012@izzetmage: you're making an error:Posted in: Water Cooler Talk
The premise of the problem is that there is a 50% probability that any given child is a boy, and 50% probability of a girl, therefore the distribution of 2 child families is:
25% boy boy
25% boy girl
25% girl boy
25% girl girl
The father saying "Jamie is a boy does not say Jamie is the first child. It only says "at least one child is a boy, either the first or second, I'm not going to tell you which. However i can give you any number of useless details about the boy in order to conince you that you know him. Wanna know his name? I'll tell you regardless: it's one of an infinite number of possible names we could have chosen, and it's Jamie, btw. Wanna know which grandfather he takes after? He doesn't like mustard or cilantro. But sorry, I can't tell you whether he's the first child or second child. But I do have at least one boy. Jamie is his name. "
When the father makes the statement "Jamie is a boy" you are not specifying which child is a boy, because the name of the boy is an UTTERLY USELESS piece of information.
From a problem solving standpoint, the father saying "Jamie is a boy" is the equivalent of saying "I have a boy. His name is ~mumble~".
If I don't happen to catch the name, does it really affect the probability of the other kid being a girl? Was "~mumble~" information that helps me?
It's the same as the father saying "My child who likes pancakes more, who has blue eyes btw, here look at his picture, his favorite number is 4, and he is wearing a green shirt today, is a boy"
Comparing it to the two color dice problem:
If I roll two dice, and YOU DONT KNOW THE COLORS.
I volunteer this information: "A beige dice shows 6. What does the other dice show?"
Do you think the probability of the other dice being a 6 is 1/6? It's not. It's 1/11. Because "beige" tells you nothing. Color information never tells us anything about the numbers unless we are going to consistently report the information for that color.
- - - - - - - -
(this actually reminds me of a really silly card trick, using red and black) but it also makes a cool CON too. I am not promoting gambling and betting is illegal. This is all hypothetical. I dont know if Ive stumbled on this variation on the problem new or if somebody already has thought of and presented this before. This MAY END UP CONFUSING a few people, so don't attack this until you've concluded that the OP's solution is 1/11, or 1:10. This might trip up some more people (or it might not) but here we go:
I set up a game, the red die, green die game. I have a perfectly balanced 6 sided red die, and a perfectly balanced 6 sided green die.
Whenever I roll just one 6, if it is red I will TRUTHFULLY announce: "The Red die shows 6! Want to bet $1 on whether i rolled 6-6? It pays off $8 on a $1 bet." and even show you the die. Whenever I roll just one 6, if it is green, I will TRUTHFULLY announce: "The green die shows 6! Want to bet $1 on whether i rolled 6-6? It pays off $8 on a $1 bet." and even show you the die.
Whenever I roll two 6s, I get to randomly choose whether to say red or green (I choose to flip a coin to decide), and EITHER TRUTHFULLY announce that "The red die shows 6! Want to bet $1 on whether i rolled 6-6? It pays off $8 on a $1 bet." & show you the red die, OR TRUTHFULLY announce that "The green die shows 6! Want to bet $1 on whether i rolled 6-6? It pays off $8 on a $1 bet." and show you the green die.
(1) so I roll a few times and then truthfully announce "The red die shows 6! Want to bet $1 on whether i rolled 6-6? It pays off $8 on a $1 bet." I pull back the curtain and show you the red die is clearly 6.
(2) I roll a few more times and then truthfully announce "The green die shows 6! Want to bet $1 on whether i rolled 6-6? It pays off $8 on a $1 bet." I pull back the curtain and show you the green die is clearly 6.
No tricks here.
Should you take these bets?
Is it a sucker bet?
Yes it's a suckers bet. The odds are still 1/11, yet I only pay you off at $8 on the $1 bet.
Why is it still 1/11 ? Because I'm not giving you usable information when I tell you the color there. Just the illusion of useful information.
Aug 23, 2012http://aol.sportingnews.com/sport/story/2012-08-23/lance-armstrong-ending-fight-vs-anti-doping-agency-could-lose-tour-de-france-tit?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D196448Posted in: Debate
Or a big mistake?
AUSTIN, Texas—U.S. Anti-Doping Agency chief executive Travis Tygart says the agency will ban Lance Armstrong from cycling for life and strip him of his seven Tour de France titles for doping.
Armstrong on Thursday night dropped any further challenges to USADA's allegations that he took performance-enhancing drugs to win cycling's premier event from 1999 to 2005.
Aug 23, 2012Posted in: Water Cooler Talk
No, not JUST consent.
At least as big a problem is that these kids are being set upon each other to fight against their will in a contest by Adult Authority figures in a fight where they do not know the limitations or boundaries of how much they can hurt or be hurt. Some are experiencing serious fear and have no idea whether they will be humiliated or seriously hurt.
If they cry or are hurt, they are likely being ridiculed by the adult authority figures, and while tasting pain, fear or blood, or pissing or crapping their pants, some ******* daycare giver is cheering on the other kid and laughing at the loser? Meanwhile the winner is being trained to be a bully, and rewarded with accolades from the daycare workers... which will also be a very negative teaching point for him as well.
The kids involved in one of these fights have no guidance, and have no perspective. There is absolutely no feeling of safety that would come with a parentally sanctioned martial arts contest, which children can potentially say "no" to. kids probably bite in these fights because they're scared and have no idea whether this is "play" of "real".
All they got is flight or fight with nobody to frame perspective.
I frankly think you're full of **** when you minimize this.
Some ******* adult having some other big kid slap my smaller kid around is just as bad as doin it himself.
Aug 23, 2012Posted in: Debate
No need to get defensive and go on the attack, yeesh. Nobody said the European system is bad.Quote from BurningPaladin@dcartist The Primitive Europeans dont know what they are missing, gender specific bathrooms allow us to have conversations we dont want the opposite gender to hear, mostly women unless its at a bar.
Its just different.
Aug 23, 2012The care workers should be maximally punished for child abuse. They are fortunate that a hotheaded parent did not stumble on this because I know many men that would probably thrash or even kill a babysitter for "dog-fighting" their kid. Very rational men otherwise, but when children are involved, parents become different animals.Posted in: Water Cooler Talk
Aug 23, 2012Posted in: Water Cooler Talk
Now that sounds like you're just trying to tapdance your way out of your bad answer and claim you understood all along.Quote from BlitzschnellPrecisely, getting informaiton changes the probability for ME.
The question was asking for the odds Ral had rolled 2 6s, and not the odds that I would be correct when guessing he had rolled 2 6s.
The odds Ral rolled 2 6s is 1:35.
The odds that I would guess he rolled 2 6s and be correct is 1:11, now that I know he had rolled at least 1 6.
That verb "had rolled" refers to a completed event after the roll and after the information is given. Because the outcome is already established as a reality, any probability questions are based around limited information.The question was asking for the odds Ral had rolled 2 6s, and not the odds that I would be correct when guessing he had rolled 2 6s
Post rolling, which is where the entire question lives, there is only a question of outcome and probability from one POV: yours. Ral already saw BOTH dice so he knows the outcome, so there really is no probability to calculate for him. You have extra information about the dice in their current state, and the probability from your limited information POV that it's two 6s is 1/11.
When you ask "what is the probability that Ral HAS ROLLED two 6s, after you know at least one of the dice showed 6?" that probability is NOT just 1/36.
This persuade double talk may persuade an extremely lenient teacher in school to get half credit on a problem, but the answer was wrong, and there is no valid way to rationalize it as right with respect to the OP.
Aug 23, 2012It's cultural. It may shift towards unisex... Or it may not. I'm highly skeptical of Anyvody suggesting European cultures are more "advanced" because they go unisex. They're just in a "different place" culturally with regards to gender divisions which is just one small piece of the entire cultural landscape and history.Posted in: Debate
A large part of the historical reason that they may have first evolved the public unisex bathroom in Europe is costs.
The toilet itself is a 20th century invention.
I'm sure that the public multiperson bathroom is probably an even later invention. What the cultural attitudes towards gender were right at the time of widespread major adoption may have influenced it as well.
Europeans don't have water to burn, dont have space to burn, don't have money to burn. In America, we probably had all 3 at the time that public bathrooms came into being and I bet they started at richer establishments with their cultural Mores.
Somebody can google to confirm or refute this.
Aug 23, 2012Too many dysfunctional drug addict losers (and yes as a PCP user, her "mental health" issues are most likely more a result of her PCP habit.Posted in: Debate
Too few workers. You could triple the number of workers and it would no be enough to handle the endless stream of junkie, abusive moms and dads... Who are squirting out more abusive useless junkie moms and dads.
Aug 23, 2012Yes it's horrifying.Posted in: Water Cooler Talk
But the govt doesn't grant custody. Custody is the starting point. Then CPS, which has a 50-100 cases or more per worker caseload, has to take away custody if there is enough evidence to support that, based on spending a couple hours tops with that lady in a month...
That mom might have looked fine during that time period.
How many hours would you devote to investigating and screening each mom that looks to be "at risk" or "crazy-ish"?
Who is paying for the fulltime salaries of our new increased 250,000 worker CPS force?
Also, when you see a child with a mildly squirrelly appearing mom, where do you put them? Foster care system is creaking at the seams, Transfering kids to foster care is very psychologically damaging and we got all sorts of felons coming out of that system...
How well can you possibly judge whether to take a kid from a home of a woman who is only acting out of hand once in a whole, and you're not spending 24 hours with them?
I deal with this system all the time, and when there are neighborhoods in this country where almost every kid is born to single moms (increasing percentage every day) and to millions of underage moms, where half of the males are in the criminal justice system as cons, parolees, or freed felons waitin their turn to go back, etc. etc. where is the budget to babysit & police the parenting of this population and pull kids out of homes?
Aug 23, 2012Posted in: Water Cooler Talk
Say what?Quote from Blitzschnell1:35.
Asking the question has no effect on probability of rolling the two dice. There are 36 combinations when you roll 2 dice, so the odds of getting any single combination (this one being 6,6) is 1:35.
The dice are already rolled.
Gaining truthful information about the results reduced the solution space.
So if you ask "is there at least one 6", and he looks at them and says "No", are you saying that the odds that he rolled a 12 are still 1:35?
No, The probability is now 0%.
If you ask "is it a 12?", and he looks at them and says "yep", are you saying that the chances are still 1:35?
No, The probability is now 100%
Of course getting information changes the probability for you.
people keep talking about this like it's a "grammar issue" and some kind of "fine print shenanigans" but it's not. The wording is not intended to be a "gotcha", and it's no "trick".
1) AT LEAST (i.e., either) one of the die is 6, and
2) One of the die is 6.
Let's say there's one blue and one red die. Saying that EITHER the red or blue die is 6 is different from saying that the blue die is 6.
It's actually a demonstration of the failure of people's natural intuition, and their mentally failing to understand how to construct the problem.
The wording is precise and there is no ambiguity when somebody says "I looked at the dice and at least one is a 6! How likely is i that they're both 6s?"
no. It reduces the solution space to BG or BB or GB.Quote from izzetmage »TomCat26: please show your professor pane 5 of this comic. Or my personal favorite, "Two people scratched your car. One of them is not me."
"One of them is a boy", followed by what are the phrase "what are the odds that the other is a girl" narrows down the sample space to BG or BB.
Or it reduces it to BG or GB (making the probability 100%) if you're reducing the original statement to mean "exactly one is a boy".
i think you're mistaken. You're getting confused about what information is provided by the statement "Jamie is a boy. What are the odds that Andy is a girl?"When you say "one of them", and follow up with "the other", you're making it clear that the probability of the "other" child being female DEPENDS on the first child being male. Thus all sample spaces with the "first" child being female must be excluded.
Let's phrase it another way, but maintaining the important details:
"Jamie is a boy. What are the odds that Andy is a girl?" - phrased like this, there are only 2 possible scenarios:
Jamie is a boy, Andy is a boy.
Jamie is a boy, Andy is a girl.
What your professor is doing is including "Jamie is a girl, Andy is a boy" with all the above possibilities - pure nonsense.
Let's consider the actual 4 families in the village:
(order is birth order)
Father says "Jamie is a boy. "Jamie is a boy. What are the odds that Andy is a girl? Could We be family 3?"
Correct Answers are 2/3 and yes.
Nothing about "Jamie is a boy. What are the odds that Andy is a girl?" eliminates family 3.
i dont think so.In order for such a case to be considered, the question should be phrased as "One is a boy. What are the odds that I have 1 girl and 1 boy?" - making it possible to include "Jamie girl, Andy boy" in the sample space.
Telling you the name of a boy does not change the solution space.
"One is a boy. What are the odds that I have 1 girl and 1 boy? ... <pause>... By the way the one boy I mentioned's name is Jamie. So I'm asking you whether the kid not named Jamie is a girl."
How does adding "By the way the One boy I mentioned's name is Jamie. So I'm asking you whether the kid not named Jamie is a girl." change anything? It changes nothing.
Is exactly the same thing as asking "Jamie is a boy. What are the odds that Andy is a girl?"
Solution space is still:
(order is birth order)
There is nothing special about saying "the other" child, and saying you have A boy and providing a name provides no other information than the fact that you have at least one boy. It tells you nothing about whether he was the first or second kid. Look at my lotto example.
Aug 23, 2012Ronda Rousey is legitimately hot, not just athlete hot.Posted in: Sports
Former olympian in judo, She's also legitimately cleaned out female MMA at 135, beating every opponent in the first round.
I wonder if she can beat the cyborg (the roid-less version). Anybody else seen & like her? Rousey's fights are all over YouTube.
Aug 23, 2012Prison system is so corrupt, that words can't do it justice.Posted in: Debate
While I am sure there are some fine people who work in Department of Corrections, I'd say that in 25+ years of interacting with a random sampling of guards working in the system, out of maybe 50 I've met in 4 states in 25 years, there are maybe 10 I'd have trusted not to bash my head in for $50.
You know how people talk about people going into police force for the wrong reasons? Power tripping etc.? What would motivate most people to go into dept of corrections?
Taking the police comparison further: do you see how police interact with citizens vs how they act with KNOWN perps? What if EVERYONE were a perp?
I once sat down with two DOC guys escorting an ICU patient who was there to get some bowel surgery. They just sat there talking with me about how cool it was when they bashed the face of some "con" who was clearly up to something. The way they said it lead me twice as scared of them as I was of the guy handcuffed to the gurney.
Consider Abu Graib: remember how being made into a prison guard can transform otherwise mostly good people who signed up to be soldiers and defend their country, into monsters who are mistreating their prisoners? Well the prison system is the same thing... Minus the "mostly good people" going into it.
Unlike the police force, where accountability is paramount, there is very little accountability in prison: videotape or files just "disappear". The guards form small gangs or alliances under corrupt leadership covering up each others corruption. The Internal Affairs or other accounting agencies are a joke compared to the INternal affairs for cops. The IA for cops is an independent agency that is widely hated and feared by cops. The IA for prison guards in many areas is part of the same system. I dont want to repeat the specifics of stories I've heard for fear of repercussions to people I've known.
Consider the drug trade in prison: that cannot exist unless a huge percentage of the DoC officers are just corrupt as HELL, and assist in the importation of all of it.
Talking with so many bad officers (and a few good ones) the picture is clear. The prison system sucks, and it's a giant money making exercise without accountability, and nobody in govt gives a ****, because it's just cons.
Cons get SET UP to be raped or even killed. Guards let people gang rape rhe newbie under a blanket in the middle o the room and joke about it. Guards even get set up to be raped or killed themselves. You've read it in the news before. remember Platoon with Tom berenger and Willem Dafoe? Where one accuses the other of some corruption that could result in charges or loss of job? And one let's the other get killed or sets him up to get killed? It's EXACTLY like that. Exactly.
I wonder if when we privatize prisons, if it will (a) be less lacking in accountability - it couldnt be more (b) prison guards will be more or less corrupt (c) whether it will cost more.
Aug 22, 2012dcartist posted a message on Is Delaying But Not Preventing Doomsday a Meaningful Accomplishment?Of course she's accomplished something. What kind of question is that?Posted in: Philosophy
Is it meaningless to save you from drowning right now because you're going to be dead 1 to 50 years from now anyway?
Everybody born before the American civil war is now dead. What was the point of their living?
Aug 22, 2012Posted in: Real-Life AdviceQuote from toto4567In quantum field theory, which is the more fundamental form of quantum mechanics (for lack of a better word), particles are defined differently, so the idea of wave-particle duality is kinda of discarded.
VERY qualitatively, there're only fields, but because these fields are quantum, they cannot have any intensity. Instead it must always be a multiple of a certain quantity called the quantum of the field. A particle is simply a ripple (or "local excitation") of the field that has that minimum value of intensity and it kinda looks like a classical particle, but not quite. So the photon is a ripple in the photon field (also called electromagnetic field), the electron is a ripple in the electron field, the Higgs is a ripple in the Higgs fields, the graviton should be a ripple in the gravitational field (but damn you gravity!), and so on for all elementary particles. With this plus math you get the behaviour associated with wave-particle duality and more.
From an "intuition" standpoint (as much as intuition can mean anything here) that sounds about as reasonable as anything else in quantum mechanics.
The behavior is the empirically observed behavior.
The most useful math to predict what we observe is the math we use.
Why should any phenomena or "events" that occur on a scale far below what we normally experience follow any kind of analogy to anything we know well?
Why should a particle behave in any way "like a pingpong ball" or move in a "straight lines"? What does "straight line" mean anyway? It's at least as vision/human perception bound a concept as point particle, and may have no analog in reality. Heck what straight OR curved "line" occurs in the universe?
Does the concept of "continuous" (which is required for the concept of "line" ) even really mean anything other than a kind of estimation or way we parse information into a neat, single concept? Isn't everything composed of vast numbers of "discrete" things?
Images on an LCD TV screen are composed of discrete pixels that just have distinct values for their color. Concepts like lines & shapes don't really exist on that meta-universe of the TV. Must lines and the concepts of shape underly any meta-universe including ours?
It's strange. We acknowledge a billiard ball (or any solid thing) is not continuous, not round, but really composed of vast numbers of "particles" interacting with each others... Yet why do we insist on thinking of those "particles" as acting a little like our old concept of billiard balls? Especially when just 2 seconds ago, we already did away with the concept of a billiard ball as meaningless.
So the whole universe might be a bunch of fields and particles are just manifestations of those fields and act nothing like billiard balls? Cool.
Aug 22, 2012Really, the death of loved ones are often the worst sadness we ever experience in our lives.Posted in: Philosophy
Dredging up those feelings is not exactly what we want to Do at dinner parties.
It's a buzz kill. It's not like you will ever forget the fact that you once cried for 3 straight months while your baby died of a brain tumor, but there are other times to talk about it besides social gatherings.
Aug 22, 2012Posted in: Water Cooler Talk
What are you asking? Please clarify.Quote from VaclavIsn't 1/2 the same as 1:1 though? 1 chance of either in the two possibilities? (Assuming they're equal in incidence - b/g being slightly askew of equal supposedly probably isn't the best to use though, perfectly weighted coin w/ a perfect flip instead?)
1/2 is 1:1, yes.
And b/g is fine since we've stipulated that this is theoretical equal probability of boy or girl.
Aug 22, 2012dcartist posted a message on Elderly woman destroys 19th-century fresco with DIY restorationFunny, Actionandy, I was also actually thinking of Mr Bean, but I drew a total blank on his name, could only get his face and the name Atkinson... So after racking my brain for a second or two, i didnt bother to google. I went with Naked Gun and the Nielsen guy form Forbidden Planet whose name I can't remember either.Posted in: Water Cooler Talk
I too was belly laughing at the idea of this lady enthusiastically giving a "Nailed it!" after producing this... this... finger painting.
Aug 22, 2012Posted in: Water Cooler Talk
That would be 1:10, or 1/11.Quote from VaclavI'd not be so harsh Power - as I stated a ways back - it's very easy to fall into the "grammar trap" of it and make a false assumption.
Even I KNOWING the right answer attempting to make a better wording forgot two key words that actually made it 1:11 not 1:5. (Note: Technically you should be typing those as 1:11 and 1:5 or 1/6 and 1/12 with my understanding of how your supposed to present odds 1 incidences of vs 11 w/o and 1 w/ vs 5 w/o rather than 1 in 6 and 1 in 12... 1/11 would be a technically incorrect answer from my understanding of the notation while 1/12 would be correct [1:11 != 1/11])
1 way to win, 10 ways to lose. 1 chance in 11 to win.
So payoff should be 11 to 1. You bet $1 eleven times, so you put up $11. You get paid $11 once in those 11 times. Breaks even.
It is NOT 1:11 and not 1/12.
In the example of the couple having two kids:
Some people find that their intuition tells them that learning that a couple has a boy shouldn't increase the chances that a couple has a girl... And in fact it doesn't increase the chance. It actually decreases the chance of the couple having a girl.
Because you have to understand that the starting point of having NO information the odds are 3/4 that a couple has least one girl. We start at 3/4 couples having a girl:
When you say you have AT LEAST one boy, you are only eliminating one possibility.
Instead Of looking at it as increasing the chances of a specific child being a girl from 1/2 to 2/3 (which is incorrect thinking).. Gaining the information about the existence of at least one boy of random age DECREASES the overall probability that the couple has at least one girl from 3/4 to 2/3!
You are being given less information than if the person tells you: "my first child was a boy, what are the chances that my second child is a girl?". Which looks like this:
And in which case the answer is 1/2. The chance of 1 girl in the family is 1/2.
Aug 22, 2012dcartist posted a message on Elderly woman destroys 19th-century fresco with DIY restorationActually, this whole thing is hilarious. We can only smile and hope that the 80 year old lady is not too embarrassed. It's not a historically important work, and really the whole thing is funny.Posted in: Water Cooler Talk
Humor comes from the idea of some amateur trying to paint over a masterpiece, like maybe the Mona Lisa in a Naked Gun movie. And the paint job just looks so... unskilled.
But it's no tragedy because this was not a priceless treasure. At most a few hundred bucks worth, maybe a few thousand at most. Leave the poor lady alone.
Aug 22, 2012Here's another way to see it. You enter a lotto... The numbers they used on the lotto tickets are 0s and 1s. The tickets have 20 binary digits on them,Posted in: Water Cooler Talk
e.g. A ticket might read:
01010 10011 00010 00111
They issue exactly 1048576 unique tickets (2^20 = 1048576) distributed in random order, and sell them for $1 apiece. winner will get $1 million.
00000 00000 00000 00000
00000 00000 00000 00001
00000 00000 00000 00010
00000 00000 00000 00011
. (count up in binary)
11111 11111 11111 11111
After all tickets are sold in random order, the winning ticket is announced!
Winning ticket is 11111 11111 11111 11111 and the ticket holder will get $1 million!!
You did not buy a ticket, but are allowed to ask any ticket holder the question: "does your ticket have at least nineteen 1s?" and the ticket holder must answer truthfully. You also have a temporary multimillion dollar credit line of your own, and you have the option of using it to buy any ticket from any person for $100,000 and he must sell it to you if you offer that price. You may buy form as many people as you like.
So you ask a bunch of people until finally a ticket holder says "yes, my ticket has at least nineteen 1s"
What are the chances that the other digit is a 1? Is it really 50%? What are the chances that his ticket has 20 1s and is the winning ticket? Should you buy his ticket for $100,000? Should you buy tickets from each person who answers "yes" to your question?
obviously there is only 1 winning ticket with twenty 1s on it and 20 tickets with exactly nineteen 1s on it. If he says he has at least nineteen 1s, he is far more likely to be holding one of the tickets with exactly 19 1s, not the only ticket with 20 1s.
And obviously if you pay $100,000 each to acquire all 21 tickets that have at least 19 1s on them, you will pay out $2.1 million to win $1 million, which is dumb.
You can do the same exercise with the lotto tickets using 2 digits. The tickets are
If the winning ticket is 11 and you ask a ticket holder if he has At least one 1 on his ticket, and he says "yes", then all you know is that he's not holding the 00 lotto ticket.
He could be holding the 01, the 10, or the 11. Most likely he is not holding the winning ticket with all 1s on it. There are 2 chances in 3 that he has a 0 on his ticket.
Replace 1 with boy and 0 with girl.
Aug 22, 2012Posted in: Debate
That's really sad. Especially the bit about "ear acupuncture".Quote from MarquothI don't know if this is tangential enough to warrant its own thread, but I'll just post it here for now. Came across an article (published yesterday) about the DoD's use of alternative medicine and other unproven techniques in the US Military.
How do you feel about having your tax dollars spent on and trusting the well-being of your troops to stuff like this?
I'd be very surprised if there weren't other countries whose armed forces engage in similar practises but, as I said, this article's all shiny and new so I thought I'd share.
When it comes to chronic pain unfortunately, because narcotic addiction is pretty much involved in 90% or more of the cases (but we are not allowed to talk about that part), because psychological bull**** and depression are a huge component (we aren't able to talk about that either without being shouted down as insensitive to all the people with "fibromyalgia" ), because we have nothing truly effective for it... ...modern medicine is already complicit with treating this population with 95% placebo mumbo jumbo while we all look for the "hidden pathophysiology" of diagnoses like fibromyalgia which are obviously brain and psychological syndromes, NOT musculoskeletal ones.
The physician practitioners almost all know this, but the company line in modern medicine is just that we don't know what it is yet. Because there is no diagnostic test other than self reporting pain, the picture is additionally complicated by the fact that easily half (and i believe the majority) of the people with chronic "non-identified" pain syndromes like fibromyalgia have tremendous secondary gain overlay and are "squirrelly" as HELL, not to mention a high number of outright fakers who you see bent over in pain in clinic when you touch their back or ask then to bend, but easily bend over and pick their baby up out of the stroller a minute before that.
But medicolegal suicide to call people out on this, and the patients will even get outright belligerent and you even hint at what is plain as day. So physicians document outright "inconsistencies" in function in exams but you can't call people fakers. We send them to some treatment that hasnt been tried (but we know wont really fix things because most dont even want to get better, not really) pass the buck like some 3rd grade teacher graduating that violent troubled kid who still cant read, up to the 4th grade.
In that modern setting of half fakers, half squirrelly people, half depressed, huge secondary gain, incentive to not to get better, and the majority addicted to prescribed narcotics, OF COURSE how can the medical establishment argue against letting ONE MORE UNPROVEN TREATMENT (acupuncture, chiropracty, cupping) to be added to all our already NON-PROVEN MEDICAL TREATMENTS for NON-VERIFIABLE CHRONIC PAIN DIAGNOSIS categories (that only exist in industrialized countries where disability doesn't equal starvation)? Heck it's a big tent! Having one more unproven treatment to add to your arsenal just makes the industry more money. And there's now enough people with a "fibromyalgia" label that if I talk frankly like this, 5 random people will come up and claim I'm just wrong and it's a "real disease", etc. Almost every pain practitioner realizes all these things and will discuss them in private, but tell themselves that is some decent percentage of their patients with some real disease that they're really helping with and that "functional treatment" is making some patients capable of functioning with the pain... The good practitioners restrict narcotics a lot, but that just means the junkies in your practice flee to see somebody who is liberal with their narcs. Acupuncture is no worse and far less costly than most of the crap we throw at chronic pain, the multibillion dollar revolving door.
I did chronic pain clinics for 3 years in my residency, and I cringe at the thought of being anywhere near that patient population... Ugh. I talk to modern chronic pain practitioners on a regular basis nowadays because most adult rehab guys work in that area, and the story hasn't changed. Every pain doctor knows the clinic is full of junkies and the squirrelly, and that the medicolegal PTB lacks the balls to call them out on it. It's too widely accepted that if you say you have pain, we just accept it. It's just not acceptable to tell people they're faking or squirrelly anymore. It's just not acceptable to tell people "get back to work, live with it". They'll sue their employer, despite having no tangible evidence to verify their pain: "I got fy-bro-my-al-jah! The doctor said so!"
So what difference does if make if we throw acupuncture or Physical therapy, Vicodin, or back surgery at it?
Aug 22, 2012Posted in: Real-Life Advice
i think they are right because it sounds like a lot of show-caring or faux-caring about exploiting third world countries or destroying the environment.Quote from theflowI don't want to get involved in this discussion, but I want to drop a line or two:
I know what you mean, I feel the same. In a lot of ways. Though, there are lots of people who think alike. I am not even extreme or something about this whole issue (I just know I don't need much and don't just buy stuff), but this mass of people being in love with consuming, exploiting third world countries, destroying the environment, ... like a duck takes to water actually make me cringe.
It's just most people don't start to think for themselves, and live in our society without reflecting it, or knowing how and by what means our society is living/working. If they belittle you, or call you a snob, or preaching, or w/e, just be sure, they are not right. They just prefer to close their eyes to certain aspects of current life, society and consumerism.
If you really care about third world countries, then send your money over there. Consuming feeds third world countries. Talking about "consumerism" while not spending, does nothing to help them.
The fact that your consumer neighbors enjoy themselves, but you "open your eyes, put a sad (or mad) expression on your face, and criticize consumers" helps nobody. Your "sympathy" helps nobody.
Put your money where your mouth is. Send it overseas to somebody poor. THEN you can consider telling your friends that they're exploiting the poor. As it currently stands, you're doing worse than your friends are to the poor.
Aug 21, 2012You can probably learn a lot from books and tutorials. Local community college course even.Posted in: Real-Life Advice
But I'm confused. Back in the probability thread on dice, you implied that your quantum mechanics knowledge contributed to bad intuition on the dice problem. Or maybe I'm confusing you with somebody else. Probably my bad.
Aug 21, 2012Just as a passive observer here, FakeMcCoy, what are you talking about? Did you really take Number Theory in college? I did, and you just don't sound like you know anything about it other than some problems you dabbled with. It really sounds like you don't know what you're talking about. You don't sound dumb, actually you sound smart... but you sound like you're over-representing your knowledge base.Posted in: Philosophy
I'm not necessarily siding with paths... but you drop gads of jargon in a way that makes it sound like you're hinting you have some deep understanding of the math.
Aug 21, 2012Posted in: Debate
Absolute garbage conclusions.Quote from Highrollerhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10598926
British scientists have determined that plants in fact communicate with each other through clicking noises. This is in addition to studies that have found that plants have the ability to think and remember.
With the understanding that plants in fact have the ability to think and communicate, what does that mean for the relationship between plants and humans?
Is this the end of vegetarianism and veganism?
(1) They demonstrated "XYZ" about SOME plants, not most plants, not all plants. If you're going to randomly expand your conclusions so broadly, you could just as easily argue: "Some living things (humans) are proven to have feelings and think... therefore we should not eat any living creatures."
(2) The "XYZ" that they demonstrated for SOME plants was NOT that they "think or communicate" or have consciousness. The "XYZ" that they demonstrated for SOME plants is something that my bluetooth headset can far exceed. Is my bluetooth headset entitled to being saved from destruction?
Aug 21, 2012Your drama between you and your sister is a two way street, and there is no way to judge what baggage the two of you have.Posted in: Real-Life Advice
(1) if you normally go to her for advice, and actually value her opinion, I'd strongly consider what she has to say about fitness & beauty, but at the same time, tell her that it bothers you that she would tell you to DUMP the game, rather than encouraging you to change it.
(2) if you don't value her opinion, what do you care what she thinks about this game? Just stop telling her about your ambitions and projects, if you know she's just going to give you negative energy.
It sucks that your sister is so unimpressed with your dream, but only you can know whether she said it because she gave her honest opinion, or whether she said it because you just don't get along.
Aug 21, 2012dcartist posted a message on Missouri House Republican claims "legitimate rape" rarely results in pregnancyIts actually staggering what this backwards piece of crap really believes, based on what he clearly said, and intended to say. Where he got this idea is utterly beyond me:Posted in: Debate
Its really just an even STUPIDER version of the "if she really didn't want to be raped, she would have fought harder" attitude. Blame the victim. Yeah, she's crying in a corner, but if she didn't want it, she would have stopped me."If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.... But let's assume that maybe that didn't work or something. You know I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child."
He's basically saying to women that got pregnant through rape: Clearly if you had actually hated the rape 100%, you would have used your female mechanisms to 'shut the whole thing down'. The fact that you're pregnant proves you enjoyed it, at least a little bit.
NON-"legitimate rape" is just code for "she enjoyed it".
This loathsome POS is too stupid and ignorant to stay a Senator. HE NEEDS TO GO AWAY. I would not be shocked if this scumbag has date-raped women before in college when he was younger and left some woman crying and upset, and this is his cognitive construction that rationalizes that his actions were consensual.
The whole mindset STINKS of rationalization for personal loathsome behaviors.
Aug 21, 2012dcartist posted a message on [Science/Medicine] American teen improves cancer diagnostic testsMesothelin urine dipstick test:Posted in: Water Cooler Talk
The prize was from at least a month or more back, but awesome stuff.
He got a BRILLIANT idea for a practical, fast cancer screenin test from reading journal articles and information that's out there.
Then he submitted his proposal to multiple labs and was rejected by over 100, until a JHU cancer researcher said yes, and let him work on it in his lab.
Really, just a great thing.
It will be interesting to see how something like this will be implemented in practice. The test would cost 3 cents a stick to make... And it's sensitive... But pancreatic Cancer is usually very fast growing and rare... While being one of the most lethal cancers. And is usually pretty much ASYMPTOMATIC until its ready to kill you.
Will it make sense to screen every 2 weeks for your whole adult life? Every month? Every 6 months? Because of the nature of the disease and the nature of the test, it might actually see extremely widespread use... Or very little.
If its something ultimately recommended as a monthly test for everyone, could it be worth billions if sold at just $1 a pop? $5 a pop? If so many would not buy it, but much more money would be made... Or sold at close to cost and shared with the world? it's the classic case of inventing something medical: (a) If your new medical invention is just a little bit better than whats already out there, you're welcome to price yourself a hefty amount above the existing competition. (b) if it's too valuable or too much better than existing stuff, they just take it from you and you can't gouge people for money because you're "killing people" by pricing then out
(It's a dilemma. Clearly a super cheap urine dipstick test for cancer screening could conceivably marketed for anywhere from a nickel apiece to $30 apiece. For example, look at Urine dipsticks for pregnancy marketed to consumers are like $8-12 a shot in consumer packaging, and the identical test, without the plastic packaging, is sold 50 a pack on the internet for a few bucks. I cracked on open once. It's the same little strip of paper. Actually the bulk strips worked better)
I wonder if JHU owns the rights or if Andraka does.
It could all be moot if there is no practical regular screening schedule for this test, but it might turn out to be monstrously lucrative. Ultimately the important thing is that we have another tool against cancer.
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.