I was deliberately paraphrasing, which I indicated. But just in case the sibling comment is not enough, I'll add this final explanation.
Two coins are flipped. In essence, this is the same as two separate coins placed in a random orientation on a table and then covered. What you're probably thinking of is that one of these is uncovered, revealing a heads. In that case, the probability of the other one being heads is 50%.
But that was not the question at all. Instead, both coins are left covered and the questioner merely states that one of them is heads, which is not the same situation at all, because you are still in the initial position of not knowing the particulars of any one specific coin.
And if you really want to get to the bottom of this, try programming the problem and run it a few times. Consider the central loop body:
if (coin_X == tails && coin_Y == tails) continue; flips++; if (coin_X == heads && coin_Y == heads) success++;
If the coins are randomly flipped, and remembering to completely discard any case where neither coin is heads (as specified), it's easy to see that the if-statement will be true in exactly 1/3 of cases.
There are four possible combinations of heads and tails. If one coin is specified, only one combination is ruled out. The remaining combinations are: first coins is heads, second coin is heads, or both are heads. And that is the answer to the question that was asked, rephrased here as: out of the combinations of two tossed coins, how many include at least one heads.
Note that although they might be tossed at the same time rather than in sequence, it doesn't say the coins are interchangeable. Always be careful with probability quizzes. The difficulty is often in understanding the question itself. The precise wording is important!
Everyone knows that 98.2% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
From this we can see that 98.2% of that statistic was made up on the spot, meaning only 1.8% of all statistics are really made up on the spot. By repeated application of this we can conclude that either:
A: statistics made up on the spot asymptotically reaches zero
B: my skills in statistics are woefully inadequate.
That squeamishness might be because you associate the blood and gore with death, which is a bit backwards. Watch some real surgery videos on the net, and then think of it as watching life being put into you.
You mean you want a Cintiq on the cheap? Don't count on it.
In particular, the 12" widescreen Cintiq (the cheaper of two versions) has 40 times more input resolution than screen resolution, can sense pressure levels, as well as tilt angle of the battery-less pen used.
Plus, if the tablet has just a regular touch screen, you can't put your hands on it because that'll cause input.
If Apple wants to succeed with a tablet and sell well, they'll have to find some new use for the concept, something that nobody has thought of before.
They're not the same, actually. Those old joysticks were digital, and turned into gamepads. The modern 15-button sticks with 4+ analog axes are quite a different breed.
48000 ft or 15 km is where you find the stratosphere and the ozone layer. You only need to go about 5.7 km (18700 feet) up before half the atmosphere is below you, in terms of mass.
A giant greenhouse, designed to heat massive ammounts of air, and dump it into the cold upper atmosphere...
So we have given up and are going to proactively warm the earth's atmosphere directly now?
Dumping hot air into the upper atmosphere cools the Earth. As air is circulated higher up it more readily radiates energy out into space, bypassing some fraction of the greenhouse gases of the atmosphere.
Here's two that show what St. John's Wort is about. First,
not effective for major depression, but significantly better than placebo for
mild depression. Comparisons seem harder to find, I can't access the ones I find on Google scholar.
A heating element that is turned on for a few days out of every year is more wasteful than an incandescent bulb? You might want to run that calculation again.
It is arguably the best browser available and has always been a trend setter. They are playing a little bit of follow the leader this time, but they again seem to be doing it just as well if not better.
I don't really see the pattern. Does 30 somehow stand out more than other numbers, such as 20, 25, or 40 etc? Not that I can see. Also, googling for "x people killed" is completely misleading, as it only says in how many articles/blogs that phrase appears, which depends on whether some of those incidents were more or less interesting to the media than others.
That blog entry links to this article: Timeline Pakistan 2009. Looking through those, I see no pattern at all. In fact, I'd argue that there is a stronger pattern for eight, but still pretty insignificant.
Slashdot Mirror
Two coins are flipped. In essence, this is the same as two separate coins placed in a random orientation on a table and then covered. What you're probably thinking of is that one of these is uncovered, revealing a heads. In that case, the probability of the other one being heads is 50%.
But that was not the question at all. Instead, both coins are left covered and the questioner merely states that one of them is heads, which is not the same situation at all, because you are still in the initial position of not knowing the particulars of any one specific coin.
And if you really want to get to the bottom of this, try programming the problem and run it a few times. Consider the central loop body:
If the coins are randomly flipped, and remembering to completely discard any case where neither coin is heads (as specified), it's easy to see that the if-statement will be true in exactly 1/3 of cases.
Correct, but not relevant. The question AC asked is a trickster question, meant to trip people up.
Nope, he's right. Make sure you read the original question as written.
Note that although they might be tossed at the same time rather than in sequence, it doesn't say the coins are interchangeable. Always be careful with probability quizzes. The difficulty is often in understanding the question itself. The precise wording is important!
Everyone knows that 98.2% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
From this we can see that 98.2% of that statistic was made up on the spot, meaning only 1.8% of all statistics are really made up on the spot. By repeated application of this we can conclude that either:
My god, TFA is right!
That squeamishness might be because you associate the blood and gore with death, which is a bit backwards. Watch some real surgery videos on the net, and then think of it as watching life being put into you.
You would have drugs to make sure you don't mind the whole thing, or twitch around.
In particular, the 12" widescreen Cintiq (the cheaper of two versions) has 40 times more input resolution than screen resolution, can sense pressure levels, as well as tilt angle of the battery-less pen used.
Plus, if the tablet has just a regular touch screen, you can't put your hands on it because that'll cause input.
If Apple wants to succeed with a tablet and sell well, they'll have to find some new use for the concept, something that nobody has thought of before.
You mean NAT solves more problems than it causes? I don't buy that for a second.
I found my college campus computer lab has all of their workstations on the live Internet.
Congratulations for describing exactly how the Internet should be. It's also not a security nightmare at all, it's SOP.
They're not the same, actually. Those old joysticks were digital, and turned into gamepads. The modern 15-button sticks with 4+ analog axes are quite a different breed.
48000 ft or 15 km is where you find the stratosphere and the ozone layer. You only need to go about 5.7 km (18700 feet) up before half the atmosphere is below you, in terms of mass.
The stream of hot air emerging from the 2400 ft tower will likely have effects going far higher, though.
A giant greenhouse, designed to heat massive ammounts of air, and dump it into the cold upper atmosphere... So we have given up and are going to proactively warm the earth's atmosphere directly now?
Dumping hot air into the upper atmosphere cools the Earth. As air is circulated higher up it more readily radiates energy out into space, bypassing some fraction of the greenhouse gases of the atmosphere.
Precisely, NAT is part of the problem.
There is no scarcity of the "resource" to begin with, only design flaws. Plus, more efficient use requires more complicated routing.
"IPv6 addresses are too long and complicated to type"
...is like saying solar panels are too hard to build when you run out of slave labor in hamster wheels.
"We don't need IPv6 since there is NAT"
...is like saying we don't need new energy solutions because beeswax candles are a tried and trusted technology.
"The Internet will be overrun by zombies when NATs no longer protect us."
...is like saying avoiding antibacterial soap will cause untold misery and disease.
"Just re-allocate some of the wasted space in Class A nets."
...is like saying overcrowding of the planet can be mitigated by decreasing the size of houses.
Here's two that show what St. John's Wort is about. First, not effective for major depression, but significantly better than placebo for mild depression. Comparisons seem harder to find, I can't access the ones I find on Google scholar.
A heating element that is turned on for a few days out of every year is more wasteful than an incandescent bulb? You might want to run that calculation again.
Hm, did you read TFA? The savings are 80%, and the problem is easily solved with minimal costs. It's just that nobody likes costs that go up.
There is no standard that specifies that it must be any particular number of bits, however, a byte is USUALLY 8 bits. But not necessarily.
It is arguably the best browser available and has always been a trend setter. They are playing a little bit of follow the leader this time, but they again seem to be doing it just as well if not better.
Wow. That gave me a double whiplash. :)
Music does not decompose into sine waves, unless we're talking brain waves. This is because music is a perception, unlike sound.
That blog entry links to this article: Timeline Pakistan 2009. Looking through those, I see no pattern at all. In fact, I'd argue that there is a stronger pattern for eight, but still pretty insignificant.
A private public website with partially public private and semi-private information. Any confusion now?