Basically, pairs of particles appear out of nowhere for extremely brief amounts of time, fly around a bit, then collide together and disappear again.
(Yes, this happens. Matter appears out of nowhere and then disappears again.)
If this pair of particles pops into existence just outside the event horizon of a black hole, there's a chance that, in their brief flying about, one will cross the event horizon and the other will not. Since they're no disjoint, they don't disappear like they normally do.
The particle that is on the outside of the event horizon escapes as Hawking radiation.
If you're reading the code enough to know where to insert jumps, and where to point them, then you are halfway to just reading the fucking code and finding out what it does instead of trying to blackbox test it.
They'll never stop people from cheating. They'll catch a few idiots and an equal number of innocent people. They'll raise the tension so much for the average student that they'll have to double their suicide watch programs during finals week. They'll still have a bunch of students who get away with it. Most importantly, they'll be so confident in their success that they'll do what academia does best - pat themselves on the back for wasting money while being completely oblivious to those who are outsmarting them.
Tests and anti-cheating measures are the lazy way to go about "education". But what do you expect when the most egregious cheaters, plagiarizers, and bullshitters are the professors themselves?
Write your own lectures. Write your own tests and assignments. Change them every year. Change them if you have multiple testing sessions. Don't copy them from the campus where your other professor friend works. Don't pull shit out of the book you wrote for the class and made students buy. Don't make students buy the book of your cohort^h^h^h^h^h^h colleague on another campus and have him reciprocate the favor, only for both of you to teach to your opinions and not what's in the assigned material. Get TAs that speak English. Speak English. Respond to emails. Update your website. Post notes and assignments when you say you will. Hold more than 1 office hour per week. Understand the material yourself. Etc.
Of course not. Assuming that his fix works. Assuming he's spent weeks testing his patch on thousands of individuals and it causes no harmful effects. Assuming there was an actual threat from organized crime. Assuming that there was no appropriate response from the WHO. Assuming that he doesn't also show you how to give aids to unpatched people.
How many of those things are typically true in cases such as this? Typically 2 out of the 5.
Jazz: Jazz to Moonbase 2, Jazz to Moonbase 2! Bumblebee: Bumblebee and Spike here. Jazz: We're about to send out the shuttle. Any Decepticon shenanigans in your area? Bumblebee: All clear, Jazz. Spike: Hey Ironhide, tell my son Daniel I miss him. And tell him not to worry; I'll be coming home as soon as we kick Megatron's tail across the Galaxy! Ironhide: Will do, Spike. Optimus Prime: Cliffjumper, commence countdown. Cliffjumper: Five... four... three...two... one! Blast off!! Optimus Prime: Now, all we need is a little energon... and a lot of luck.
No, the WHO is the proper authority to go to with the information, and is the proper authority to figure out the extent of the problem, what, if anything, can be done about it, and how and when to release information/fixes.
How the WHO does this (science, prayer, trawling slashdot) doesn't matter.
Imagine if a doctor had discovered a weakness in the humane immune system. Imagine if he had developed a working exploit for it. Imagine that he didn't get an immediate response and fix from the WHO.
Is he or is he not an asshole when he blogs about how to build an AIDS bomb?
That's all well and good when you're running at low power, like for detecting when your headphones are plugged in (though this shit is never reliable) but they want to push 100 watts down cat 5.
100 watts.
Even if you don't get shocked, your cables' insulation will melt.
Look at the non-day-of-week version. A person with two children has either:
B B B G G B G G
Given that they have at least one boy, what are the odds of both of them being boys? 1 in 3. This makes perfect sense, and works out mathematically. P(AB) / P(B) = P(A|B) 1/4 / 3/4 = 1/3
The trick is that revealing a child is not the same as stating a given condition. And no, it has nothing to do with order or whether or not the reveal is random.
In a reveal situation:
B B 1 (both boys, revealed boy 1) B B 2 B G 1 B G 2 G B 1 G B 2 G G 1 G G 2
The question (without the day-of-week stipulation) is asking: Given that I have 2 children, and that I have shown you a boy, what are the odds that my other child is a boy (and thus both children are boys)?
Count em up. Do the math.
2 children, 1 reveal = 8 states, listed above. 4/8 states = showing a boy. 2/8 states = both children are boys.
Count. 2 out of 4 states satisfy the rules.
Try math. A = Both boys. 2 out of 8 states B = Shown a boy. 4 out of 8 states P(AB) = P(A) (If A is true, B MUST be true). 2/8
Yes, 13 and 27 distinct, unordered families. But one of those 27 cases is twice as likely as the others, and one of those 13 is twice as likely as the others.
This is because you are lumping the 2 Tuesday boys cases into a single case, but not weighting it properly.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly what they're doing now?
Protip: "Relevant in "mobile"" does not mean "Relevant with a bunch of nerds and iTards".
They can emit Hawking radiation.
Basically, pairs of particles appear out of nowhere for extremely brief amounts of time, fly around a bit, then collide together and disappear again.
(Yes, this happens. Matter appears out of nowhere and then disappears again.)
If this pair of particles pops into existence just outside the event horizon of a black hole, there's a chance that, in their brief flying about, one will cross the event horizon and the other will not. Since they're no disjoint, they don't disappear like they normally do.
The particle that is on the outside of the event horizon escapes as Hawking radiation.
If you're reading the code enough to know where to insert jumps, and where to point them, then you are halfway to just reading the fucking code and finding out what it does instead of trying to blackbox test it.
Uh, no, because the code can just check itself.
The only way to find out what something does is to read the code. Shocking, I know.
If that code's been compiled, then decompile it. By machine or by hand, either way. It's not hard to do, it's just time-consuming.
35 = 15
Math and science education is seriously lacking.
If someone "dumb" is doing better than you, you are most likely not as smart as you think you are.
Paris Hilton is doing better than you.
They'll never stop people from cheating. They'll catch a few idiots and an equal number of innocent people. They'll raise the tension so much for the average student that they'll have to double their suicide watch programs during finals week. They'll still have a bunch of students who get away with it. Most importantly, they'll be so confident in their success that they'll do what academia does best - pat themselves on the back for wasting money while being completely oblivious to those who are outsmarting them.
Tests and anti-cheating measures are the lazy way to go about "education". But what do you expect when the most egregious cheaters, plagiarizers, and bullshitters are the professors themselves?
Write your own lectures.
Write your own tests and assignments.
Change them every year.
Change them if you have multiple testing sessions.
Don't copy them from the campus where your other professor friend works.
Don't pull shit out of the book you wrote for the class and made students buy.
Don't make students buy the book of your cohort^h^h^h^h^h^h colleague on another campus and have him reciprocate the favor, only for both of you to teach to your opinions and not what's in the assigned material.
Get TAs that speak English.
Speak English.
Respond to emails.
Update your website.
Post notes and assignments when you say you will.
Hold more than 1 office hour per week. Understand the material yourself.
Etc.
Of course not.
Assuming that his fix works.
Assuming he's spent weeks testing his patch on thousands of individuals and it causes no harmful effects.
Assuming there was an actual threat from organized crime.
Assuming that there was no appropriate response from the WHO.
Assuming that he doesn't also show you how to give aids to unpatched people.
How many of those things are typically true in cases such as this? Typically 2 out of the 5.
Jazz: Jazz to Moonbase 2, Jazz to Moonbase 2!
Bumblebee: Bumblebee and Spike here.
Jazz: We're about to send out the shuttle. Any Decepticon shenanigans in your area?
Bumblebee: All clear, Jazz.
Spike: Hey Ironhide, tell my son Daniel I miss him. And tell him not to worry; I'll be coming home as soon as we kick Megatron's tail across the Galaxy!
Ironhide: Will do, Spike.
Optimus Prime: Cliffjumper, commence countdown.
Cliffjumper: Five... four... three...two... one! Blast off!!
Optimus Prime: Now, all we need is a little energon... and a lot of luck.
No, the WHO is the proper authority to go to with the information, and is the proper authority to figure out the extent of the problem, what, if anything, can be done about it, and how and when to release information/fixes.
How the WHO does this (science, prayer, trawling slashdot) doesn't matter.
Imagine if a doctor had discovered a weakness in the humane immune system.
Imagine if he had developed a working exploit for it.
Imagine that he didn't get an immediate response and fix from the WHO.
Is he or is he not an asshole when he blogs about how to build an AIDS bomb?
You'll need a complicated communication scheme for asking for power to avoid problems with the countless number or devices that have RJ45 jacks.
And PoE only allows for low power applications.
It's got a max of just under 13 W.
There's a reason for this.
That's all well and good when you're running at low power, like for detecting when your headphones are plugged in (though this shit is never reliable) but they want to push 100 watts down cat 5.
100 watts.
Even if you don't get shocked, your cables' insulation will melt.
They'll learn the difference rather quickly when they touch the end of 100W powered cable.
RJ-45 connectors expose the wiring enough that everyone who's having iPhone 4 reception issues would get electrocuted.
There's no way in hell they'll get enough power down a cat 5 / 6 cable to power a TV while throwing a video signal down the pipe as well.
1 in 2.
Well, pushing *IS* better than pulling....
That's what he said.
Time to enter the market with the Pringles Cantenna for iPhone 4! Only 7.99$ and you get a pile of chips* as a bonus!
Pringles don't come in piles. They come in neat little stacks.
So you would get all that and a stack of chips.
1: A stack is a type of pile
2: You will empty the Pringles can to use it as an antenna.
There are TWO events where both boys are born on Tuesday.
Order does not matter.
Age does not matter.
Etc.
But you HAVE to count BOTH boys SEPARATELY, just as you count boys separately from girls.
You don't have to LIST them separately, but you have to COUNT them separately.
You are not selecting kids with given conditions.
Kids are being revealed to you.
It is in fact 1/2, no matter how you try to "interpret" the question.
You're an idiot.
That's the overall case for two children.
Meeting the first one removes the girl girl possibility, as the party host explains (and erroneously leads you down the 1/3 reasoning).
That's not what the question is asking.
The question is:
Oh hi.
Look, a child!
It is mine.
It is one of two that I have.
It is a boy.
What are the odds that the other one is a boy?
And the answer is 1 in 2.
Revealing information is different from stipulating given conditions.
I have flipped two coins.
They landed on opposite sides of the room.
Ah, here's one.
It is heads.
What are the odds the other one is heads?
1/2
Oh, I can't seem to find it. We will just re-flip the first coin in its place.
What are the odds it will be heads?
1/2
I am completely serious.
They're only listing BoyTuesday, once, not twice.
The question isn't "What are the odds of this, given this?", the question is "What are the odds of this if I reveal this.".
That matters.
See my other posts in this thread if you want an explanation.
You are wrong.
The chance is 50%, regardless.
Look at the non-day-of-week version.
A person with two children has either:
B B
B G
G B
G G
Given that they have at least one boy, what are the odds of both of them being boys? 1 in 3.
This makes perfect sense, and works out mathematically.
P(AB) / P(B) = P(A|B)
1/4 / 3/4 = 1/3
The trick is that revealing a child is not the same as stating a given condition. And no, it has nothing to do with order or whether or not the reveal is random.
In a reveal situation:
B B 1 (both boys, revealed boy 1)
B B 2
B G 1
B G 2
G B 1
G B 2
G G 1
G G 2
The question (without the day-of-week stipulation) is asking: Given that I have 2 children, and that I have shown you a boy, what are the odds that my other child is a boy (and thus both children are boys)?
Count em up. Do the math.
2 children, 1 reveal = 8 states, listed above.
4/8 states = showing a boy.
2/8 states = both children are boys.
Count. 2 out of 4 states satisfy the rules.
Try math.
A = Both boys. 2 out of 8 states
B = Shown a boy. 4 out of 8 states
P(AB) = P(A) (If A is true, B MUST be true). 2/8
P(AB) / P(B) = P(A|B)
2/8 / 4/8 = 2/4 = 1/2
Yes, 13 and 27 distinct, unordered families. But one of those 27 cases is twice as likely as the others, and one of those 13 is twice as likely as the others.
This is because you are lumping the 2 Tuesday boys cases into a single case, but not weighting it properly.
14 / 28.
1 / 2.
Fuck Comcast. Prices are too high, repair services are too slow, and Internet service is extremely
< N O C A R R I E R >
Fixed that for you.