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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
3/4
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?
2/3
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?
1/2
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.
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.
You mean like people who are saying that this is nowhere near as bad as it was when they were kids?
Quote from Bocephus »
I did read the article, and I also work with children.
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.
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.
Running 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.
Yeah, I'm sure those daycare workers' attorney's will go with that defense. Really plausible
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.
(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.
You dont know that. Where you there? Did the kids tell you they were scared?
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.
Let's go back to my lotto example earlier, which I'm sure you didn't read, but fine, let's go.
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."
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.
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.
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.
The game can only start if you roll a 6, AND you must specify which one (or a random die, if both are 6) landed on 6.
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.
do you actually read the responses carefully, or do you just throw the canned response back? fine let's show you the red dice
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.
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.
Tom 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.
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?
Yes, the name is useless. It could be substituted for younger/older, etc.
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've chosen to eliminate girl-boy from the list without offering a valid reason. The correct list of probabilities is this:
Boy boy
Boy girl
Girl boy Girl girl
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
And not:
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
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.
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?"
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."
thank you. You've been suckered.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
3/4
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?
2/3
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?
1/2
25% boy then boy
25% boy then girl
25% girl then boy25% 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.
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.
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 plausible
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.
(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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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?
Boy boy
Boy girl
Girl boy
Girl girlyou 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.
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.
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!