This whole issue is such a perfect example of the state of human existence. No matter what side of the fence one is on, you can always point out what someone is "doing wrong" to their fellow man and why their country is that bit more righteous than the other guy's. Even if you disagree with one's own government.
And while we are throwing bombs and bullets with far less regularity than we did in the 20th Century, we are indeed in a world competition for resources, wealth, ego and power. Not to mention transposition of our personal perspective over the landscape of everyone else's existence, whether it applies or not.
Having said all that, at some level there really is a better or worse answer, even if we can't come to an absolute perfect answer. Dispersing an unruly crowd with tear gas and even rubber bullets cannot be equivocated with running over people with tanks and crushing them. There is no excuse for that; and if you can find it in your heart to excuse that behavior with weak parallels to someone else's less than perfect behavior, then you have lost your ability to understand the meaning of evil.
In other news, does anyone see any issue discussed today, internal to the US even, without some specific group claiming horrific outrageous harm? Possibly even a group that is not the subject of the alleged harm? We seem to have developed into a culture of the masses and who can shout the loudest and evoke the sympathy of the masses wins; has the net transposed all physical boundaries and we have effectively created one giant mass of people, for better or worse?
Given IBM's various and sundry Linux initiatives, I am more curious by the Mac versus Linux desktop implications here than Mac versus Windows.
It seems obvious that IBM would shift off Windows as fast as they could regardless.
Not sure anyone will see this, but after mapping out an algorithm to test the theory, I realized the error of my ways.
The first choice is indeed 1/3 (each door has a value of 1/3).
The second choice has two doors left with assymetrical odds; the initially selected door remains 1/3 and the other remaining door is indeed 2/3 (as it is basically a collapsed choice identical to choosing two of the three original doors).
If anyone still doesn't believe, I would recommend the same learning process.
T.
Actually, I found myself compelled to finally register with/. over this.
davime is quite correct in his conclusion although I would argue it a bit differently.
Monty's choice *cannot* change your odds of winning; his removal of one of the two goats simply informs you that your odds have just changed from 1/3 to 1/2. It simply cannot provide any additional information as to whether your choice was a strong or weak one.
I challenge some of the 2/3 thought processes as follows; if you you could pick two of the three doors and win if the car was in either of them, then and only then would your odds be 2/3. And this two selection Monty game is lower odds than a straight up two door clean option.
The whole Monty fallacy is that the first choice gives you more information. It never can and it never will, ergo the second choice always is a 50% *probability independent* choice.
T.
Slashdot Mirror
Sadly, I think you may not be far off the truth. He who shouts the loudest and/or engages the emotions of the mob, wins.
And while we are throwing bombs and bullets with far less regularity than we did in the 20th Century, we are indeed in a world competition for resources, wealth, ego and power. Not to mention transposition of our personal perspective over the landscape of everyone else's existence, whether it applies or not.
Having said all that, at some level there really is a better or worse answer, even if we can't come to an absolute perfect answer. Dispersing an unruly crowd with tear gas and even rubber bullets cannot be equivocated with running over people with tanks and crushing them. There is no excuse for that; and if you can find it in your heart to excuse that behavior with weak parallels to someone else's less than perfect behavior, then you have lost your ability to understand the meaning of evil.
In other news, does anyone see any issue discussed today, internal to the US even, without some specific group claiming horrific outrageous harm? Possibly even a group that is not the subject of the alleged harm? We seem to have developed into a culture of the masses and who can shout the loudest and evoke the sympathy of the masses wins; has the net transposed all physical boundaries and we have effectively created one giant mass of people, for better or worse?
Given IBM's various and sundry Linux initiatives, I am more curious by the Mac versus Linux desktop implications here than Mac versus Windows. It seems obvious that IBM would shift off Windows as fast as they could regardless.
Not sure anyone will see this, but after mapping out an algorithm to test the theory, I realized the error of my ways. The first choice is indeed 1/3 (each door has a value of 1/3). The second choice has two doors left with assymetrical odds; the initially selected door remains 1/3 and the other remaining door is indeed 2/3 (as it is basically a collapsed choice identical to choosing two of the three original doors). If anyone still doesn't believe, I would recommend the same learning process. T.
Actually, I found myself compelled to finally register with /. over this.
davime is quite correct in his conclusion although I would argue it a bit differently.
Monty's choice *cannot* change your odds of winning; his removal of one of the two goats simply informs you that your odds have just changed from 1/3 to 1/2. It simply cannot provide any additional information as to whether your choice was a strong or weak one.
I challenge some of the 2/3 thought processes as follows; if you you could pick two of the three doors and win if the car was in either of them, then and only then would your odds be 2/3. And this two selection Monty game is lower odds than a straight up two door clean option.
The whole Monty fallacy is that the first choice gives you more information. It never can and it never will, ergo the second choice always is a 50% *probability independent* choice.
T.