Go to the courthouse and check, you will find you are wrong. Every interaction you have with the government is recorded at least in triplicate and made available to any other government agency with any kind of excuse.
I googled but still dont know what awward means or what if could be a typo for unless you call being beaten down by the man "awkward," but I doubt that anyone could perform those types of mental gymnastics.
also this is not supposed to last indefinitely... once a given time period is up you then have to qualify for welfare which is more difficult to qualify for. Once again they try to keep tabs on you to make sure youre looking for a job, I'm not sure how the time limits work for that one.
For unemployment at least, you just need to "prove" youre trying to get a job, then you can get free money. Proving it involves picking up applications and calling some hotline or going online and inputting where you went.
There are 2 separate sets of planets photographed in papers published in 2008. Now we are sure (not that there was much doubt) that one of them is truly orbiting its primary star. What is the probability that the other set of planets is truly orbiting its primary star?
Actually Ive taken at least 4 like that, it never sticks though. Heres what the probability tree looks like:
.5 B .5 B < .5 G < .5 B .5 G < .5 G
Its obvious from that why 25% will have two boys, etc. But If you already know one is a boy, regardless of order, its 1 in two chance the other child is a boy as well...
Yes, this finally makes sense to me and I now understand where my analysis differs from that in the article. Still though, I do not believe their analysis. They say there are four possibilities, bb, bg, gb, gg, then you drop the last, etc.
So here is the second thing that needs clearing up, if order does not matter then why are bg and gb different outcomes? If order does matter arent the outcomes bb, bb, bg, gb, gg, gg... which would still lead to a 50% chance its a boy. The whole saying order matters to generate the outcomes then later saying order doesn't matter to get rid of the other bb just doesn't sit well with me.
Here is the list of outcomes if it is possible for both boys to have been born on a Tuesday:
Girl on Monday, Boy on Tuesday Girl on Tuesday, Boy on Tuesday Girl on Wednesday Boy on Tuesday Girl on Thursday, Boy on Tuesday Girl on Friday, Boy on Tuesday Girl on Saturday, Boy on Tuesday Girl on Sunday, Boy on Tuesday
Boy on Monday, Boy on Tuesday Boy on Tuesday, Boy on Tuesday Boy on Wednesday Boy on Tuesday Boy on Thursday, Boy on Tuesday Boy on Friday, Boy on Tuesday Boy on Saturday, Boy on Tuesday Boy on Sunday, Boy on Tuesday
If having a boy or girl is equally likely (we dont do any weighting), then the chance its a boy is therefore 7/14=1/2. If you couldnt have two boys on Tuesday it would be 6/14=3/7. Please point out where this analysis goes astray.
First, The question doesn't say the other (this does not mean older or younger...) child was not born on a Tuesday, maybe the questioner meant to include this info but they failed to.
Second, the probability that the other child is a boy is either 1 or 0, it's something that has already occurred... The questioner probably meant to ask "What is the probability that if you guess the other one is a boy you will be correct?"
So if we correct the question to read as it was likely intended to be read: "I have two children, one of whom is a boy born on a Tuesday. The other child is not a boy born on a Tuesday. What is the probability that you will be correct if you guess that my other child is a boy?"
So you think to yourself, well assuming boys pop out of that mom just as easily of girls and doesnt prefer to do it any particular day of the week, that means its 1/7 chance it might have happened on any given day and the likelihood it was a boy is 50:50 for 6 days of the week and then 0 for tuesday. So you multiply.5 by 6, add zero, and take the average (divide by 7) to get 3/7.
The real confusion occurs due to the use of odd numbers... Imagine a world where everything was found in sets of twos, people had 2 heads, 4 arms, etc. They would always be dealing with eating animals that were siamese, if they wanted to hunt by throwing rocks or whatever each siamese would throw a rock so they would use two rocks. In this world I would say that what we call the number 2 would actually be like their number 1, and what we use as unity, or one, would be for the siamese called a half. Therefore their numberline would go 0,.5, 2, 2.5, 4, 4.5, 6, 6.5, 8, etc.
This is actually more reflective of reality in that, deep down, math and counting are extensions of logic, and the fundamental unit of logic is a true-false statement which is basically a set of 2. True is only 1/2 of the total possibilities for any given logical statement. For example say you have counted one rock, what that actually represents is both having one rock in your presence butt also, concurrently, not having counted other than one rock, so in essence you have counted two different things and are representing them with a number supposed to correspond with one thing. Wouldnt it make more sense to just use "two" to represent the one thing youve counted?
The probability of guessing correctly by saying the second child is a boy would therefore be 1/2(6), or 3, divided by 6 and a half, which gives you 6 out of 12 and 1/2 odds.
Eventually it boils down to knowing how other (expert) people figure things out... once you know enough to do that any class will be pointless besides any philosophical aspect people can argue about. Still everything is set up so that it is usually in your advantage in the long run to pay for that piece of paper. Think about societies perspective, there is a reason for it whether right or wrong.
No they wasted their time and whatever money this ended up costing them. This study was a waste of time besides what little it taught whoever was doing it about the scientific method and statistics. Since they appeared to get so little guidance, actually getting a "publication" out of it may have done more harm than good even on that front.
People walking outside disturb bees and cause them to fly in directions they otherwise woudlnt, at which time they may detect flowers and report this back to home base. People walk around outside less if they have something to do on the internet. Most people spend most of their time on the internet on facebook. Theoretically facebook could be a contributing factor here.
I dunno if anyone else has posted this... but its one of the worst studies I've ever seen. Theyve even got a picture as part of the article showing how they failed to blind themselves, not to mention the data doesnt make sense, (means outside of the range reported..at least I think, its not clear). "Current Science" appears to be a terrible journal, there should be a separate word for that kind of journal so as not to confuse the general public.
Without any specific knowledge of the situations you mentioned, I will say that all of that came back to bite everyone on the ass later and what was going on is that the people in control of the money were also reporting/controlling the nations state of affairs. Also I agree the federal reserve is bad. I'd be interested to know how the yen works... I'd look it up but I would just Wikipedia it (not do it correctly) right now anyway.
Well if those actions did nothing then it would be a waste of time and money (which equals time). There is alot of advice out there that I think qualifies as that but usually its some sort of obfuscation of the more fruits/vegetables, sleep more, and get exercise holy trinity that somehow gets your money transferred to someone else's pocket. As to whether buying fish oil supplements matter if you are already eating healthy (as goes for most people who buy it)... I'd say thats still up for debate.
Slashdot Mirror
If someones actions result in the deaths of 5 workers it would then become involuntary manslaughter...
Go to the courthouse and check, you will find you are wrong. Every interaction you have with the government is recorded at least in triplicate and made available to any other government agency with any kind of excuse.
Authority figures shall be punished for misusing their authority. Id like to see that vague phrase as the 28th amendment.
I googled but still dont know what awward means or what if could be a typo for unless you call being beaten down by the man "awkward," but I doubt that anyone could perform those types of mental gymnastics.
What makes you think doctors use science? I mean best practices are usually determined scientifically, but beyond that...
also this is not supposed to last indefinitely... once a given time period is up you then have to qualify for welfare which is more difficult to qualify for. Once again they try to keep tabs on you to make sure youre looking for a job, I'm not sure how the time limits work for that one.
For unemployment at least, you just need to "prove" youre trying to get a job, then you can get free money. Proving it involves picking up applications and calling some hotline or going online and inputting where you went.
There are 2 separate sets of planets photographed in papers published in 2008. Now we are sure (not that there was much doubt) that one of them is truly orbiting its primary star. What is the probability that the other set of planets is truly orbiting its primary star?
Actually Ive taken at least 4 like that, it never sticks though. Heres what the probability tree looks like:
.5 B <
.5 G <
.5 B
.5 G
<
.5 B
.5 G
Its obvious from that why 25% will have two boys, etc. But If you already know one is a boy, regardless of order, its 1 in two chance the other child is a boy as well...
so... stupid people are less likely to have boys then?
Unless you don't understand why hes talking about goats and good and evil "Monty Halls", then its not that good.
Yes, this finally makes sense to me and I now understand where my analysis differs from that in the article. Still though, I do not believe their analysis. They say there are four possibilities, bb, bg, gb, gg, then you drop the last, etc.
So here is the second thing that needs clearing up, if order does not matter then why are bg and gb different outcomes? If order does matter arent the outcomes bb, bb, bg, gb, gg, gg... which would still lead to a 50% chance its a boy. The whole saying order matters to generate the outcomes then later saying order doesn't matter to get rid of the other bb just doesn't sit well with me.
well did you or didnt you?
Here is the list of outcomes if it is possible for both boys to have been born on a Tuesday:
Girl on Monday, Boy on Tuesday
Girl on Tuesday, Boy on Tuesday
Girl on Wednesday Boy on Tuesday
Girl on Thursday, Boy on Tuesday
Girl on Friday, Boy on Tuesday
Girl on Saturday, Boy on Tuesday
Girl on Sunday, Boy on Tuesday
Boy on Monday, Boy on Tuesday
Boy on Tuesday, Boy on Tuesday
Boy on Wednesday Boy on Tuesday
Boy on Thursday, Boy on Tuesday
Boy on Friday, Boy on Tuesday
Boy on Saturday, Boy on Tuesday
Boy on Sunday, Boy on Tuesday
If having a boy or girl is equally likely (we dont do any weighting), then the chance its a boy is therefore 7/14=1/2. If you couldnt have two boys on Tuesday it would be 6/14=3/7. Please point out where this analysis goes astray.
Indeed, is everyone drunk or something...
First, The question doesn't say the other (this does not mean older or younger...) child was not born on a Tuesday, maybe the questioner meant to include this info but they failed to.
Second, the probability that the other child is a boy is either 1 or 0, it's something that has already occurred... The questioner probably meant to ask "What is the probability that if you guess the other one is a boy you will be correct?"
So if we correct the question to read as it was likely intended to be read:
"I have two children, one of whom is a boy born on a Tuesday. The other child is not a boy born on a Tuesday. What is the probability that you will be correct if you guess that my other child is a boy?"
So you think to yourself, well assuming boys pop out of that mom just as easily of girls and doesnt prefer to do it any particular day of the week, that means its 1/7 chance it might have happened on any given day and the likelihood it was a boy is 50:50 for 6 days of the week and then 0 for tuesday. So you multiply .5 by 6, add zero, and take the average (divide by 7) to get 3/7.
The real confusion occurs due to the use of odd numbers... Imagine a world where everything was found in sets of twos, people had 2 heads, 4 arms, etc. They would always be dealing with eating animals that were siamese, if they wanted to hunt by throwing rocks or whatever each siamese would throw a rock so they would use two rocks. In this world I would say that what we call the number 2 would actually be like their number 1, and what we use as unity, or one, would be for the siamese called a half. Therefore their numberline would go 0, .5, 2, 2.5, 4, 4.5, 6, 6.5, 8, etc.
This is actually more reflective of reality in that, deep down, math and counting are extensions of logic, and the fundamental unit of logic is a true-false statement which is basically a set of 2. True is only 1/2 of the total possibilities for any given logical statement. For example say you have counted one rock, what that actually represents is both having one rock in your presence butt also, concurrently, not having counted other than one rock, so in essence you have counted two different things and are representing them with a number supposed to correspond with one thing. Wouldnt it make more sense to just use "two" to represent the one thing youve counted?
The probability of guessing correctly by saying the second child is a boy would therefore be 1/2(6), or 3, divided by 6 and a half, which gives you 6 out of 12 and 1/2 odds.
check noscript
Eventually it boils down to knowing how other (expert) people figure things out... once you know enough to do that any class will be pointless besides any philosophical aspect people can argue about. Still everything is set up so that it is usually in your advantage in the long run to pay for that piece of paper. Think about societies perspective, there is a reason for it whether right or wrong.
Scream too loud and youll learn you lesson
No they wasted their time and whatever money this ended up costing them. This study was a waste of time besides what little it taught whoever was doing it about the scientific method and statistics. Since they appeared to get so little guidance, actually getting a "publication" out of it may have done more harm than good even on that front.
People walking outside disturb bees and cause them to fly in directions they otherwise woudlnt, at which time they may detect flowers and report this back to home base. People walk around outside less if they have something to do on the internet. Most people spend most of their time on the internet on facebook. Theoretically facebook could be a contributing factor here.
Science for babies or something. Hypothesis: What are teeth made of? Conclusion: Bone.
I dunno if anyone else has posted this... but its one of the worst studies I've ever seen. Theyve even got a picture as part of the article showing how they failed to blind themselves, not to mention the data doesnt make sense, (means outside of the range reported..at least I think, its not clear). "Current Science" appears to be a terrible journal, there should be a separate word for that kind of journal so as not to confuse the general public.
http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/25may2010/1376.pdf
Look up the memory elixer their giving to the bomb sniffing bees
Without any specific knowledge of the situations you mentioned, I will say that all of that came back to bite everyone on the ass later and what was going on is that the people in control of the money were also reporting/controlling the nations state of affairs. Also I agree the federal reserve is bad. I'd be interested to know how the yen works... I'd look it up but I would just Wikipedia it (not do it correctly) right now anyway.
Well if those actions did nothing then it would be a waste of time and money (which equals time). There is alot of advice out there that I think qualifies as that but usually its some sort of obfuscation of the more fruits/vegetables, sleep more, and get exercise holy trinity that somehow gets your money transferred to someone else's pocket. As to whether buying fish oil supplements matter if you are already eating healthy (as goes for most people who buy it)... I'd say thats still up for debate.