I'm looking forward to being able to use box-sizing, now that it's supported in some variation by the latest versions of the major browsers. By the way, you can force a block element to contain its floats with the overflow property, which has its downsides but may be good enough for your needs.
Attempting to withdraw from a mental addiction leads to changed behavior, such as thinking too much about the object of addiction, being distracted from other things and so on. (I didn't mean "symptom" necessarily in the pathological sense.)
The distribution ought to make no difference. Even with something like a poisson distribution, which has no upper limit, a larger initial dollar amount implies a greater chance of losing by switching. I don't have a general proof of this (other than by lamely pointing out that it leads to the contradiction posed by the original question). Maybe you do?
The amount of money in the envelope you choose and the probability of winning by switching are not independent. As it turns out, although the percentages gained or lost are different, the actual dollar amount is the same on average. This is true no matter what probability distribution Monty chooses.
For example, suppose he uniformly chooses one of $100, $200 and $400 for one envelope, and puts double that amount in another envelope. Suppose you choose an envelope and then switch. The envelope you initially choose has a 1/6 chance of being $100 (gain $100 by switching), a 1/3 chance of $200 (gain $50 on average by switching), 1/3 chance of $400 (gain $100 on average by switching), and a 1/6 chance of $800 (lose $400 by switching). Overall, you gain (1/6 * $100 + 1/3 * $50 + 1/3 * $100 - 1/6 * $400) = $0 on average by switching.
If all existence is cyclical, then it isn't meaningful to ask how many times it has been reset or what kicked it off. Both questions assume that not all existence is cyclical.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you have a link? I, uh, need it for research purposes.
I'm looking forward to being able to use box-sizing, now that it's supported in some variation by the latest versions of the major browsers. By the way, you can force a block element to contain its floats with the overflow property, which has its downsides but may be good enough for your needs.
Attempting to withdraw from a mental addiction leads to changed behavior, such as thinking too much about the object of addiction, being distracted from other things and so on. (I didn't mean "symptom" necessarily in the pathological sense.)
You can measure any kind of addiction by the withdrawal symptoms.
You're right. He should have compared it to a car.
icann.has.cheezburger
The half that uses emacs?
The parentheses are redundant. && has higher precedence than ||.
Coup d'etat falls into the same category.
The distribution ought to make no difference. Even with something like a poisson distribution, which has no upper limit, a larger initial dollar amount implies a greater chance of losing by switching. I don't have a general proof of this (other than by lamely pointing out that it leads to the contradiction posed by the original question). Maybe you do?
The amount of money in the envelope you choose and the probability of winning by switching are not independent. As it turns out, although the percentages gained or lost are different, the actual dollar amount is the same on average. This is true no matter what probability distribution Monty chooses.
For example, suppose he uniformly chooses one of $100, $200 and $400 for one envelope, and puts double that amount in another envelope. Suppose you choose an envelope and then switch. The envelope you initially choose has a 1/6 chance of being $100 (gain $100 by switching), a 1/3 chance of $200 (gain $50 on average by switching), 1/3 chance of $400 (gain $100 on average by switching), and a 1/6 chance of $800 (lose $400 by switching). Overall, you gain (1/6 * $100 + 1/3 * $50 + 1/3 * $100 - 1/6 * $400) = $0 on average by switching.
Green on yellow, right?
In other news, scientists have discovered that shooting yourself in the face greatly reduces your risk of heart disease.
No, they won't. The filtering is to be done entirely by ISPs. ISPs, therefore, will have a list of their customers who want to watch porn.
Since titanium dioxide is the active ingredient in sunscreen, probably nothing harmful.
Indeed. They could be hiding corrosive acid inside their body!
If all existence is cyclical, then it isn't meaningful to ask how many times it has been reset or what kicked it off. Both questions assume that not all existence is cyclical.
Was it the Taubman v. Mishkoff case?
I like 4*atan(1).
Not a problem! Just attach a large, metal wall to the front of the plane, and it will absorb the bird impacts.
Not for very long.
Scientists have discovered that shooting yourself in the face greatly reduces your risk of heart disease and cancer!
Not as much as database cell.
I think he intended that.
I found it amusing that it's also true for the Dvorak layout.