> Coal power may be dirty, but the combined pollution of a thousand small biogas combustion generators is much worse than a large coal generator with equivalent power output.
Except that you are missing one important point. Coal (and other fossil fuels) release CO2 (and other gases) that are currently stored in the ground, so they are added to the environment. Biomass gases are created from the very plants that use them within the environment, so there is no net gain of gases in the environment.
> All of the CO2 that you're generating is coming from plants that recently took that same CO2 out of the air, so there's no net addition of greenhouse gasses.
And, it can apparently reduce your garbage output unless (a) you are already composting, or (b) you only use woodchips instead of food leftovers (assuming you don't normally eat woodchips).
That sort of incorrect 'intuition' is why this problem is a common puzzle and fun in probability classes. When you write out the probabilities (properly), or when you do the simulations, it works out to 2/3 odds by switching. It's counter-intuitive, but true. I've come up with many explanations of why it should be 1/2, but only with careful analysis was I able to figure out the flaws in my reasoning. It really is 2/3 in favour of switching.
Here's yet another explanation. Suppose you choose door #1 (you can do this for #2 and #3 yourself). There are four possible outcomes (format is case letter followed by choice-shown-actual):
W 1-2-1
X 1-2-3
Y 1-3-1
Z 1-3-2
But notice W and Y have the actual prize behind #1. Since the odds of it being behind any door is 1/3, W+Y = 1/3. Since W & Y are just as likely, they're each 1/6. So, the odds are: W(1/6), X(1/3), Y(1/6), Z(1/3).
If you think all four should have equal probability, think about this: He hasn't shown you a door yet. Two of the cases have it behind #1. Do you think by selecting #1 that you actually make it 1/2 chance that it really is behind #1 even before he shows you anything, and 1/4 chance of being behind #2 or #3?
So now he shows you a door. If he shows you #2, it could be either W or X. Notice X has twice the probability of W. Likewise, if he shows you #3, it could be either Y or Z. Again, Z has twice that of Y. Both X and Z are cases you should switch your choice, and give you twice the probability of winning.
One of the best uses for file-sharing I've seen is finding and obtaining music that is difficult or impossible to get by any other means. This includes out of print music, rarities, and recorded radio bits. Though I can see some difficulty in developing a good and fair online system for new releases, I cannot see how the record companies or artists could lose anything by making out-of-print or rare recordings available online, even for a low price. Such a system could only generate new revenue.
Do you see a reason why the record industry has not created such a system for older recordings from which they are no longer making money? Are there legal hurdles you are aware of, or is it simply that the record industry has not realized this potential is there?
The problem is with your use of the word "case". Your S and T cases are two sub-cases of my A. The odds for my cases are: A(1/3), B(1/3), C(1/3). The odds for yours are: S(1/6), T(1/6), U(1/3), V(1/3).
Consider it another way. You have a 1/3 chance of getting it right on the first pick. That's means there's a 2/3 change it's one of the other doors. You know it's not the one he showed, which means the 2/3 chance must be for the remaining door.
There's also a bunch of online simulations for this that show it's 2/3 to switch. For instance, here.
Actually, not quite right, it's never 1/2. You have a 1/3 chance of picking the right door if you stay with your first choice, and a 2/3 chance if you switch. No need for simulation, just look at the possibility matrix:
\ 1 2 3
A y n n
B n y n
C n n y
The top row is the door number, the letters are the three cases, y means 'yes' (location of prize), n means 'no'. Suppose you chose door #1. In case A he'll show you door 2 or 3, in case B he'll show you #3, in case C he'll show #2. Only in Case A will you win by sticking with it. Case B and C you'll win by switching. That's 2/3 chance of winning by switching. Same thing regardless of what choice of door you made first.
"
Anyone who maintains that a fertilized egg is not a human being doesn't know biology, or is lying.
My god! In only one short message you made years of intense debate go away. Why didn't anyone think of this argument before? I'm sure there's millions (or billions) of people who might come up with counter arguements and flaws in your reasoning, but since you called them stupid or liars, that means their arguments are worthless. It's that simple. You're amazing.
So, can you solve the debate on capital punishment as easily?
Actually, that's probably not true. You're assuming a symmetrical distribution of intelligence. You could have a few very intelligent people way above average, and almost everybody else just below average, or vice versa. 50% would be below the median intelligence.
That's like saying left-handed people choose to be left-handed because they can't do things as well with their right hands. Duh! That's the definition. Introverts by definition are those who don't find extrovert behaviour "fun" and vice versa. Where's the choice in that?
And where does this hypothesis that introverts are "damaged" extroverts come from? It's possible there's a correlation, but I'd bet the causality would be in the reverse -- introverts get bullied because they are introverts, not become introverts because they are bullied.
Re:It has nothing to do with brain chemistry.
on
The Introvert Advantage
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I agree with the latter, but not the former. Not sure if you're trying to be funny. Some may choose to "act" one way or the other, but for some people it's quite painful to "act" extroverted. I can't stand smalltalk and trying to mingle with strangers, it's so freakin' boring. Sometimes I actually get pleasure out of sitting quietly and thinking about solving problems, or philosophy, or something like that. That ain't by choice.
Sounds like you are one of those people who buy into hype without reviewing the actual scientific studies. The fact is that many studies have show that there is at least no clear evidence that wireless phones cause damage (see for instance, the FDA's opinion. It seems clear that they don't cause cancer or tumours [Muscat, 2000; Inskip, 2001; Johansen, 2001], but that doesn't mean they don't cause other types of harm. It's generally impossible to prove a negative like that. There are a few studies that suggest some potential harm, but these seem to be equivalent to stress responses. But in general, there is certainly no clear or extreme dangers that some people seem to believe. Certainly showing power outputs, as you have, is not evidence of harm. My car's engine puts out a hell of a lot of power and energy, but that doesn't mean it causes medical problems.
Muscat, J.E., et al., "Handheld cellular telephone use and risk of brain cancer", Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 284, pp. 3001-7, 2000.
Inskip, P.D., et al., "Cellular-telephone use and brain tumors", New England Journal of Medecine, vol. 344, pp 79-86, 2001.
Johansen, C., et al., "Cellular telephones and cancer", Journal of the National Cancer Institute, vol. 93, pp 203-7, 2001.
Seriously though, I think the bigger problem is from the lack of light! If you go to those same regions (north of the arctic circle), you'll find abnormally high suicide rates during the winter due to depression from the excessive darkness.
That's like saying overeating isn't a problem because there are people who eat too little. Both too much light and too little light are problems. Anything that throws off natural rythmns tends to be a problem.
Frankly, I'd like a lot less city light. I came from a small rural area and live in a big city. The light (and noise) at night still throws off my sleeping even after 9 years here. I very much miss the quiet darkness at night, especially laying out and actually seeing the stars.
Why waste all that development time and money on wireless ear pieces for cell phones? The ear pieces in the pictures were almost as big as many of today's cellphones. Why not just make the whole cellphone as an earpiece? Saves on cost, battery power, the number of items to carry around (and lose), and so on. I'd buy one if they did that instead.
I had to check again for a reference to Spinal Tap. I'd be ashamed to miss it, what with a Spinal Tap poster on my wall not 3 feet away.
But I can't see any in the parent message I responded to. There is one in another response to the parent message (a sibling message?) about "turning it to 11", so perhaps you just didn't follow the levels of who was responding to whom. Or I just don't get it. That happens to.
That's part of it, but you've missed the most important part; there's only a fixed dynamic range. What you want is for the loudest part of the music to be below the top of the dynamic range. If not, it gets clipped which distorts the sound. If you increase the average volume when mastering, there's less room for the louder noises so there's more clipping (unless you decrease the actual range of volume which is what you were talking about).
For more detail, check out a previous story on Rush CDs, or go straight to the analysis. Check out the figures, they help explain clipping.
Sorry, there is a third plausible reason. There is simply no violation and they know it. This seems less likely because they have been showing some companies (via non-disclosure agreements) the "violating" code. There must be something they at least think is in violation.
Nope, that can't be it. If so, SCO would have to have as flawed an understanding of the law as you do. You can't undo a violation. If the code was replaced today, the violation would still exist up to today. You can't rob a bank, then give back the money and get off from being charged. Once it's done, it's done.
There's only two reasons that seem plausible
To continue to create FUD, thus pumping up their stock value.
To extort money from companies and individuals using GNU/Linux. If the code is replaced, they can't ask companies to pay them $699 (or $1399 later) for each license.
Neither reason is a legitimate business argument, and both are probably illegal and certainly unethical. The first must violate some stock market laws (insiders pumping up stock prices with FUD, then probably dumping the stocks and making a load of cash). The second is effectively extortion, though might not completely meet the legal definition. It should though.
"SCO has not been trying to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt to end users."
and
...any such demonstration must be pursuant to an acceptable confidentiality agreement...
I don't get it. NDAs (or confidentiality agreements) are meant to keep "trade secrets". Regardless of the legal status of the code in question, it is openly viewable in the GNU/Linux source code. They are not keep the code secret, they are keeping secret which sections of code are in copyright violation. If not for FUD (which they deny), what possible purpose could they have for the NDAs? Has anybody ever seen them explain why? I can't think of any legitimate reason for it. I'm not saying they don't have one, but I'd like to hear it.
File sharing is not illegal, unless you are violating a copyright. For instance, I can share all the files I've created or anything in the public domain.
Sharing copyrighted files is not stealing, it is copyright infringement. This is an important distinction. Copying someone's work is not the same thing as depriving them of property, and is not handled by the same laws. At best, some people (e.g., RIAA) try to argue it is analagous to stealing, but it is not the same thing.
Copyright infringement is generally not a crime. It generally comes under civil law, not criminal law. The RIAA is suing under civil law, not pressing charges under criminal law. (Which again, makes it distinct from stealing.) However, under certain circumstances it can become a criminal offense, usually when the violation is intentional and for profit.
Perhaps I missed something, but you just demonstrated that they can charge for the source code even if you purchased the binary. They can charge what it costs them to distribute it. The message you quoted didn't say they could charge whatever they want, just that it wouldn't necessarily be "free as in beer". They are correct about that.
Big problem: You are assuming the acts of terrorism would have occured had they not been bet on. Rather than just catching terrorists, this system may actual create many who are driven by greed instead of just political/religious motivations.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that you are missing one important point. Coal (and other fossil fuels) release CO2 (and other gases) that are currently stored in the ground, so they are added to the environment. Biomass gases are created from the very plants that use them within the environment, so there is no net gain of gases in the environment.
And, it can apparently reduce your garbage output unless (a) you are already composting, or (b) you only use woodchips instead of food leftovers (assuming you don't normally eat woodchips).
Here's yet another explanation. Suppose you choose door #1 (you can do this for #2 and #3 yourself). There are four possible outcomes (format is case letter followed by choice-shown-actual):
W 1-2-1
X 1-2-3
Y 1-3-1
Z 1-3-2
But notice W and Y have the actual prize behind #1. Since the odds of it being behind any door is 1/3, W+Y = 1/3. Since W & Y are just as likely, they're each 1/6. So, the odds are: W(1/6), X(1/3), Y(1/6), Z(1/3).
If you think all four should have equal probability, think about this: He hasn't shown you a door yet. Two of the cases have it behind #1. Do you think by selecting #1 that you actually make it 1/2 chance that it really is behind #1 even before he shows you anything, and 1/4 chance of being behind #2 or #3?
So now he shows you a door. If he shows you #2, it could be either W or X. Notice X has twice the probability of W. Likewise, if he shows you #3, it could be either Y or Z. Again, Z has twice that of Y. Both X and Z are cases you should switch your choice, and give you twice the probability of winning.
Do you see a reason why the record industry has not created such a system for older recordings from which they are no longer making money? Are there legal hurdles you are aware of, or is it simply that the record industry has not realized this potential is there?
Consider it another way. You have a 1/3 chance of getting it right on the first pick. That's means there's a 2/3 change it's one of the other doors. You know it's not the one he showed, which means the 2/3 chance must be for the remaining door.
There's also a bunch of online simulations for this that show it's 2/3 to switch. For instance, here.
\ 1 2 3
A y n n
B n y n
C n n y
The top row is the door number, the letters are the three cases, y means 'yes' (location of prize), n means 'no'. Suppose you chose door #1. In case A he'll show you door 2 or 3, in case B he'll show you #3, in case C he'll show #2. Only in Case A will you win by sticking with it. Case B and C you'll win by switching. That's 2/3 chance of winning by switching. Same thing regardless of what choice of door you made first.
My god! In only one short message you made years of intense debate go away. Why didn't anyone think of this argument before? I'm sure there's millions (or billions) of people who might come up with counter arguements and flaws in your reasoning, but since you called them stupid or liars, that means their arguments are worthless. It's that simple. You're amazing.
So, can you solve the debate on capital punishment as easily?
Actually, that's probably not true. You're assuming a symmetrical distribution of intelligence. You could have a few very intelligent people way above average, and almost everybody else just below average, or vice versa. 50% would be below the median intelligence.
And where does this hypothesis that introverts are "damaged" extroverts come from? It's possible there's a correlation, but I'd bet the causality would be in the reverse -- introverts get bullied because they are introverts, not become introverts because they are bullied.
I agree with the latter, but not the former. Not sure if you're trying to be funny. Some may choose to "act" one way or the other, but for some people it's quite painful to "act" extroverted. I can't stand smalltalk and trying to mingle with strangers, it's so freakin' boring. Sometimes I actually get pleasure out of sitting quietly and thinking about solving problems, or philosophy, or something like that. That ain't by choice.
Muscat, J.E., et al., "Handheld cellular telephone use and risk of brain cancer", Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 284, pp. 3001-7, 2000.
Inskip, P.D., et al., "Cellular-telephone use and brain tumors", New England Journal of Medecine, vol. 344, pp 79-86, 2001.
Johansen, C., et al., "Cellular telephones and cancer", Journal of the National Cancer Institute, vol. 93, pp 203-7, 2001.
Frankly, I'd like a lot less city light. I came from a small rural area and live in a big city. The light (and noise) at night still throws off my sleeping even after 9 years here. I very much miss the quiet darkness at night, especially laying out and actually seeing the stars.
Why waste all that development time and money on wireless ear pieces for cell phones? The ear pieces in the pictures were almost as big as many of today's cellphones. Why not just make the whole cellphone as an earpiece? Saves on cost, battery power, the number of items to carry around (and lose), and so on. I'd buy one if they did that instead.
But I can't see any in the parent message I responded to. There is one in another response to the parent message (a sibling message?) about "turning it to 11", so perhaps you just didn't follow the levels of who was responding to whom. Or I just don't get it. That happens to.
For more detail, check out a previous story on Rush CDs, or go straight to the analysis. Check out the figures, they help explain clipping.
Sorry, there is a third plausible reason. There is simply no violation and they know it. This seems less likely because they have been showing some companies (via non-disclosure agreements) the "violating" code. There must be something they at least think is in violation.
There's only two reasons that seem plausible
Neither reason is a legitimate business argument, and both are probably illegal and certainly unethical. The first must violate some stock market laws (insiders pumping up stock prices with FUD, then probably dumping the stocks and making a load of cash). The second is effectively extortion, though might not completely meet the legal definition. It should though.
and
I don't get it. NDAs (or confidentiality agreements) are meant to keep "trade secrets". Regardless of the legal status of the code in question, it is openly viewable in the GNU/Linux source code. They are not keep the code secret, they are keeping secret which sections of code are in copyright violation. If not for FUD (which they deny), what possible purpose could they have for the NDAs? Has anybody ever seen them explain why? I can't think of any legitimate reason for it. I'm not saying they don't have one, but I'd like to hear it.
Perhaps I missed something, but you just demonstrated that they can charge for the source code even if you purchased the binary. They can charge what it costs them to distribute it. The message you quoted didn't say they could charge whatever they want, just that it wouldn't necessarily be "free as in beer". They are correct about that.
*To be fair, they often use "nation" in terms of a "peoples" like an ethnic group, though they do use it in terms of geography too.
I'd mod that one up to (+100, Funny) if I could. But I can't, so I won't. Tough luck.
You must be Canadian too. I suspect nobody else would get that I was joking.
...to me. I'm Canadian. Our government doesn't invade our privacy.
Big problem: You are assuming the acts of terrorism would have occured had they not been bet on. Rather than just catching terrorists, this system may actual create many who are driven by greed instead of just political/religious motivations.