The simple question are there any limitations is most likely seen as 'obvious/unexpected limitations'. Most hotels rent out separate conference rooms for sales pitches and the like, and therefore would not - by default - expect anyone asking about limitations in using the room to use the normal room for sales pitches...
So, unless they explicitly asked management "are you fine with us using our room for displaying some of our goods to potential clients, and possibly trying to close deals with said clients?", I do not think that the management was out of line in saying there weren't any (unusual) limitations.
Most hotels sell drinks at their own bar, does this mean they don't expect anyone asking about limitations in using the room to use the normal room for drinking. Ditto for restaurants and eating. It seems to me that the hotels don't "expect" any specific activities from their patrons. What they do expect is that their patrons refrain from activities that: are destructive to hotel property; unduly disturb the other patrons; disproportionately inconvenience or overburden their staff; or are illegal. It seems to me that very few, if any, of these meetings/expositions would have been the kinds of activity that hotels (pretty) universally discourage.
Still going good. Now this could be A or B and we don't know which it is. If both A and B are heads then this "one of them" could be either of them. However if A or B is tails, then this "one of them" will be "the one that is not tails". And this will happen 2/4 of the overall flips, and 2/3 of the flips which result in (at least) one of the coins being heads.
There is no probability of it not being heads.
Right.
Therefore, the odds of the other one being heads are not affected.
Not quite, but thanks for trying the game of "logic". Seriously, though, just get two coins and flip them 30 times. If neither are heads then don't count it. However, if they are not both tails (i.e "one of them is heads") pick one that is heads and mark down what the other one is. Seriously, dude. Just do it. 30 times. It'll take less time than your next post.
If I flip two coins and one of them is heads, what are the odds the other one is also heads?
There is no "and then flip the other" in the original question. English may not be your first language so I'll break the original question down for you:
The first clause "If I flip two coins" is proposing the completion of an action. Note that the proposed action is not "I flip a coin twice" (although this would still result in the same 33% likelihood) nor is it "I flip a coin after a previous coin flip that resulted in heads". The action is the flipping of "two coins".
The second clause provides a condition, "one of them is heads". This means that only those flips (of two coins, remember) will be considered in which at least one of the coins is heads.
So you see, my proposal/experiment reflected exactly the original question. Your "I'm gonna flip a single coin twice, but since one of the results has to be heads I'm only gonna start count second flips after a first flip of heads." is actually completely different from the original question.
What I was saying, and I suggest you look at the bolded words from your, is that you said the exact same thing. You said, if [x] happens you will pay me $1. Then in the very next sentence you say if [x] happens I will pay you $1.25. There was no statement about if "one flip is heads and the other is heads" which you claim happens as often as "one flip is heads and the other is tails". So let me propose a setup that makes logical sense(and makes it very worth your time if you're right):
If you simultaneously flip 2 coins 500 times in succession in a continuous unedited video, I hereby agree to pay you $20 for every flip where both coins are heads, if you agree to pay me $16 for every flip in which one coin is heads and the other is tails. No one pays either person when both are tails. Since you believe that these likelihoods (heads-heads vs heads-tails/tails-heads) are equal, this should net you (in the long run) $4 for every two flips (disregarding the flips where both are tails). This gives you the opportunity to make $1000 by doing this experiment (which shouldn't take more than a 1/2 hour to setup and 1 1/2 hrs to film). The video must be posted to youtube to allow the/. community to witness the results and ensure the integrity of the video.
For every time that one of the flips of the two is heads, and the other is tails, I will pay you $1. For every time that one of the flips is heads, and the other is tails, you will pay me $1.25.
Cognitive dissonance much? Or do you actually expect me to pay you $1.25 at the same time you pay me a $1.
I would sooooo pay money to see the look on your face when you finally realize the error of your ways (especially with how vehement you have become). Here it is, as clear as I can make it for you:
All possible scenarios when flipping two coins: Case #1 Coin #1: Heads Coin #2: Heads or Case #2 Coin #1: Heads Coin #2: Tails or Case #3 Coin #1: Tails Coin #2: Heads or Case #4 Coin #1: Tails Coin #2: Tails
Cases #1, #2, and #3 all satisfy the condition "one of them is heads". Of these cases, which are all equally likely, only #1 satisfies the second condition. One out of three equally probable cases which together account for all possible cases. That's 33%. I do not know how to make this any more clear.
Mr. Garrison from South Park (from Season 9 to 12):
1) Refers to self as "dyke".
2) Likes to constantly remind people he's a woman
3) Gets up in everyone's face at the slightest provocation regarding issues of sex/sexual orientation
4) Something in the name implies a sex-change operation
girlintraining (in terms of above four characteristics):
1) Check
2) Check
3) Check
4) Checkmate.
Is your disability a severe allergic reaction to political correctness, sir? I propose making this thread a political-correctness-free zone to accommodate your needs. In that spirit: the first sentence of this post.
Seriously, though, at least she didn't use some kind of "think of the children" tact. Of course, I didn't RTFA, but it seems to me like it would take a real evil, manipulative, self-centered bitch to pull out some kind of "kids in grade school" analogy just to dredge up sympathy. I'm sure this Sophia Huyer would never do something like that. She seems like a nice enough person.
By often enough do you mean three times over 10 years? iPod (2001), iTunes (2003), and iPhone (2007). The MacBook Air certainly had some effect/appeal, but I wouldn't say that it drove all that much innovation, or expanded that niche into the mainstream. Three (and a half, maybe) products over the last 10 years, out of all their products (Nano, Shuffle, iPod Touch, Mac Mini, AppleTV, Power Mac/Mac Pro, iBook/MacBook, PowerBook/MacBook Pro, iMac, OS X, Xserve, iLife, iWork).
Those three products surely have changed electronics/technology/entertainment consumption in a big way, but I personally don't feel it's nearly "often enough" to establish them as a significantly better innovator than Sony, Asus, Nokia, IBM/Lenovo, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, eBay/Paypal or many others who have produced a couple really revolutionary/industry-changing products/services over the last 20 years.
"Voice operated"? "Wearable"? You're still in the stone age, buddy.
Give me an implanted (without surgery, though - like some kind of pill), thought-operated organic quantum computer that automatically grows to match the absolute latest/best connection/processing/storage/display technology. Also, it can't be more than $199.
I really just don't understand this whole 3D movie thing. It's about as interesting as VR gloves in the late 90s; a neat idea, but really nothing but an expensive, impractical gimmick.
I think I'll sit this out until someone invents the Holodeck, or at the very least, makes something that doesn't hurt my eyes or make me wear glasses.
I have no doubt that this movement is being strongly supported by the TV manufacturers who need to have some new selling point (read: gimmick) now that the whole HD thing has slowed. I'm holding out for Smell-o-Vision. Or stylish goggles.
Tigerdirect has that first model on sale for $500. That seems to me to be a pretty decent price... unless you're one of those "Let me know when I can get [product X] with [feature Q], [feature R], and two [feature S] for $99".
And did you realize that Slashdot itself is more or less in UTC-5 (Dexter, Michigan). And please, can you tell me where you got the statistics for where all the slashdot readers are coming from? I'm sure Rob Malda would like to know how you were reading his log files too.
My mistake on forgetting about UTC-5. Doesn't change my point, unless you believe that any significant percentage of/. is at work @ 5:37am. Regarding the statistics on where/. users are geographically - see this poll.
You have no idea how hard I'm trying to keep from falling out of my chair.
As soon as I finished reading the OP (just to make sure there was no/sarcasm tag) I scrolled down to make sure someone had responded to that little nugget of hilarity. Two responses, so far. There's hope for humanity, yet...
Apple's stock price went up three cents around the leak, is that the price of journalistic integrity?
Considering the current state of journalistic integrity I'd say we're definitely looking at a net gain as a society. Seriously, though, do you really think that Apple orchestrating controlled leaks really has any measurable impact on journalistic integrity?! Even the net effect of every major technology player orchestrating controlled leaks seems barely a blip on the "subversion of journalistic integrity" radar. Now if all these players were involved in behind-the-scenes bidding wars over whose "leaks" would get the most attention/stories, with the media outlets profiting by it, that would be (is?) an actually significant threat.
I have a couple friends who have the iPhone Shuffle. If by iPhone Shuffle you are talking about that the condition where one slowly ambles aimlessly around while waiting for their videos, etc. to load over AT&T's overly-congested-doesn't-even-begin-to-describe-it network. It's very tragic to watch.
I'm guessing you're from one of those humorless eastern Europe countries.
Actually I'm probably from the same country as TheRealMindChild - the good ol' US of A. Yet I am still able to recognize the widespread geographical ignorance of my fellow countrymen. I'm also of the firm belief that those who are unable to regularly laugh at themselves (for one reason or another) have far too high of an opinion of themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
Countdown to Zuckerberg's SSN being posted here in 3....2....
666-00-10072
Great - now I feel sorry for the poor bastard and his inability to fill out those forms that only allow nine sdigits for the SSN...
The simple question are there any limitations is most likely seen as 'obvious/unexpected limitations'. Most hotels rent out separate conference rooms for sales pitches and the like, and therefore would not - by default - expect anyone asking about limitations in using the room to use the normal room for sales pitches...
So, unless they explicitly asked management "are you fine with us using our room for displaying some of our goods to potential clients, and possibly trying to close deals with said clients?", I do not think that the management was out of line in saying there weren't any (unusual) limitations.
Most hotels sell drinks at their own bar, does this mean they don't expect anyone asking about limitations in using the room to use the normal room for drinking. Ditto for restaurants and eating. It seems to me that the hotels don't "expect" any specific activities from their patrons. What they do expect is that their patrons refrain from activities that: are destructive to hotel property; unduly disturb the other patrons; disproportionately inconvenience or overburden their staff; or are illegal. It seems to me that very few, if any, of these meetings/expositions would have been the kinds of activity that hotels (pretty) universally discourage.
You flip 2 coins.
Good so far. Let's call them A and B.
One of them is heads.
Still going good. Now this could be A or B and we don't know which it is. If both A and B are heads then this "one of them" could be either of them. However if A or B is tails, then this "one of them" will be "the one that is not tails". And this will happen 2/4 of the overall flips, and 2/3 of the flips which result in (at least) one of the coins being heads.
There is no probability of it not being heads.
Right.
Therefore, the odds of the other one being heads are not affected.
Not quite, but thanks for trying the game of "logic". Seriously, though, just get two coins and flip them 30 times. If neither are heads then don't count it. However, if they are not both tails (i.e "one of them is heads") pick one that is heads and mark down what the other one is. Seriously, dude. Just do it. 30 times. It'll take less time than your next post.
If I flip two coins and one of them is heads, what are the odds the other one is also heads?
There is no "and then flip the other" in the original question. English may not be your first language so I'll break the original question down for you:
The first clause "If I flip two coins" is proposing the completion of an action. Note that the proposed action is not "I flip a coin twice" (although this would still result in the same 33% likelihood) nor is it "I flip a coin after a previous coin flip that resulted in heads". The action is the flipping of "two coins".
The second clause provides a condition, "one of them is heads". This means that only those flips (of two coins, remember) will be considered in which at least one of the coins is heads.
So you see, my proposal/experiment reflected exactly the original question. Your "I'm gonna flip a single coin twice, but since one of the results has to be heads I'm only gonna start count second flips after a first flip of heads." is actually completely different from the original question.
What I was saying, and I suggest you look at the bolded words from your, is that you said the exact same thing. You said, if [x] happens you will pay me $1. Then in the very next sentence you say if [x] happens I will pay you $1.25. There was no statement about if "one flip is heads and the other is heads" which you claim happens as often as "one flip is heads and the other is tails". So let me propose a setup that makes logical sense(and makes it very worth your time if you're right):
/. community to witness the results and ensure the integrity of the video.
If you simultaneously flip 2 coins 500 times in succession in a continuous unedited video, I hereby agree to pay you $20 for every flip where both coins are heads, if you agree to pay me $16 for every flip in which one coin is heads and the other is tails. No one pays either person when both are tails. Since you believe that these likelihoods (heads-heads vs heads-tails/tails-heads) are equal, this should net you (in the long run) $4 for every two flips (disregarding the flips where both are tails). This gives you the opportunity to make $1000 by doing this experiment (which shouldn't take more than a 1/2 hour to setup and 1 1/2 hrs to film). The video must be posted to youtube to allow the
For every time that one of the flips of the two is heads, and the other is tails, I will pay you $1. For every time that one of the flips is heads, and the other is tails, you will pay me $1.25.
Cognitive dissonance much? Or do you actually expect me to pay you $1.25 at the same time you pay me a $1.
I would sooooo pay money to see the look on your face when you finally realize the error of your ways (especially with how vehement you have become). Here it is, as clear as I can make it for you:
All possible scenarios when flipping two coins:
Case #1
Coin #1: Heads
Coin #2: Heads
or
Case #2
Coin #1: Heads
Coin #2: Tails
or
Case #3
Coin #1: Tails
Coin #2: Heads
or
Case #4
Coin #1: Tails
Coin #2: Tails
Cases #1, #2, and #3 all satisfy the condition "one of them is heads". Of these cases, which are all equally likely, only #1 satisfies the second condition. One out of three equally probable cases which together account for all possible cases. That's 33%. I do not know how to make this any more clear.
I think you just proved this guy's point! Holy Shit!
If irony were strawberries, we'd all be having smoothies right now.
Trolls read articles and write custom trolls now? Wow.
That's why I don't RTFA. I don't want to risk ending up a troll.
Mr. Garrison from South Park (from Season 9 to 12):
1) Refers to self as "dyke".
2) Likes to constantly remind people he's a woman
3) Gets up in everyone's face at the slightest provocation regarding issues of sex/sexual orientation
4) Something in the name implies a sex-change operation
girlintraining (in terms of above four characteristics):
1) Check
2) Check
3) Check
4) Checkmate.
Is your disability a severe allergic reaction to political correctness, sir? I propose making this thread a political-correctness-free zone to accommodate your needs. In that spirit: the first sentence of this post.
Seriously, though, at least she didn't use some kind of "think of the children" tact. Of course, I didn't RTFA, but it seems to me like it would take a real evil, manipulative, self-centered bitch to pull out some kind of "kids in grade school" analogy just to dredge up sympathy. I'm sure this Sophia Huyer would never do something like that. She seems like a nice enough person.
Is that including other words in the search?...
Good question. I looked it up and Google says "yes". But don't feel hopeful for society until you see this comparison.
Do you enjoy sunbathing? If so, have you ever considered the possibility that you're a reverse vampire?
What is truly amazing/sad is how often people do this.
But it has happened often enough.
By often enough do you mean three times over 10 years? iPod (2001), iTunes (2003), and iPhone (2007). The MacBook Air certainly had some effect/appeal, but I wouldn't say that it drove all that much innovation, or expanded that niche into the mainstream. Three (and a half, maybe) products over the last 10 years, out of all their products (Nano, Shuffle, iPod Touch, Mac Mini, AppleTV, Power Mac/Mac Pro, iBook/MacBook, PowerBook/MacBook Pro, iMac, OS X, Xserve, iLife, iWork).
Those three products surely have changed electronics/technology/entertainment consumption in a big way, but I personally don't feel it's nearly "often enough" to establish them as a significantly better innovator than Sony, Asus, Nokia, IBM/Lenovo, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, eBay/Paypal or many others who have produced a couple really revolutionary/industry-changing products/services over the last 20 years.
"Voice operated"? "Wearable"? You're still in the stone age, buddy.
Give me an implanted (without surgery, though - like some kind of pill), thought-operated organic quantum computer that automatically grows to match the absolute latest/best connection/processing/storage/display technology. Also, it can't be more than $199.
I really just don't understand this whole 3D movie thing. It's about as interesting as VR gloves in the late 90s; a neat idea, but really nothing but an expensive, impractical gimmick.
I think I'll sit this out until someone invents the Holodeck, or at the very least, makes something that doesn't hurt my eyes or make me wear glasses.
I have no doubt that this movement is being strongly supported by the TV manufacturers who need to have some new selling point (read: gimmick) now that the whole HD thing has slowed. I'm holding out for Smell-o-Vision. Or stylish goggles.
Maybe it's about time that the standard consumer camcorder takes video in full HD for a decent price? I'd like to see that first.
Your wish is my command. So how was this last year you spent in a cave?
Tigerdirect has that first model on sale for $500. That seems to me to be a pretty decent price... unless you're one of those "Let me know when I can get [product X] with [feature Q], [feature R], and two [feature S] for $99".
Or maybe he knows something about them that we don't :-P
And did you realize that Slashdot itself is more or less in UTC-5 (Dexter, Michigan). And please, can you tell me where you got the statistics for where all the slashdot readers are coming from? I'm sure Rob Malda would like to know how you were reading his log files too.
My mistake on forgetting about UTC-5. Doesn't change my point, unless you believe that any significant percentage of /. is at work @ 5:37am. Regarding the statistics on where /. users are geographically - see this poll.
How do we know the government hasn't got some super-secret telepathy interceptor that you are just trying to lead our thoughts right into?
Actually, I am a telepathy interceptor interceptor and it was I who put that thought into your head - just so I could let you know I've got your back.
The government is not for profit.
You have no idea how hard I'm trying to keep from falling out of my chair.
As soon as I finished reading the OP (just to make sure there was no /sarcasm tag) I scrolled down to make sure someone had responded to that little nugget of hilarity. Two responses, so far. There's hope for humanity, yet...
Apple's stock price went up three cents around the leak, is that the price of journalistic integrity?
Considering the current state of journalistic integrity I'd say we're definitely looking at a net gain as a society. Seriously, though, do you really think that Apple orchestrating controlled leaks really has any measurable impact on journalistic integrity?! Even the net effect of every major technology player orchestrating controlled leaks seems barely a blip on the "subversion of journalistic integrity" radar. Now if all these players were involved in behind-the-scenes bidding wars over whose "leaks" would get the most attention/stories, with the media outlets profiting by it, that would be (is?) an actually significant threat.
I have a couple friends who have the iPhone Shuffle. If by iPhone Shuffle you are talking about that the condition where one slowly ambles aimlessly around while waiting for their videos, etc. to load over AT&T's overly-congested-doesn't-even-begin-to-describe-it network. It's very tragic to watch.
I'm guessing you're from one of those humorless eastern Europe countries.
Actually I'm probably from the same country as TheRealMindChild - the good ol' US of A. Yet I am still able to recognize the widespread geographical ignorance of my fellow countrymen. I'm also of the firm belief that those who are unable to regularly laugh at themselves (for one reason or another) have far too high of an opinion of themselves.