The POINT is that directx doesn't have a native port for unices. the POINT is also that it, technologically speaking, blows SDL away. So what is the purpose of your post?
Ethics that only come into play when it's convenient to use them aren't really ethics.
You're confusing "using ethics only when they're convenient" with "making an ethical decision by weighing the good and bad possibilites against your own priorities and values."
Many people rank feeding their families above a symbolic action against SCO. This is part of their ethics. It doesn't seem to be part of your ethics, nor chrisd's. This does not mean the former people "don't really have ethics." It does not mean that your or chrisd's ethics are some sort of "higher standard."
Really, people, get off your freakin' high horses, and re-evaluate your priorities.
By the way - The Miller brothers pretty much signed away the franchise during the development of Myst III. One of them (Robin, I think) is still a "consultant" on the series, but they're both pretty much out of the picture now.
They signed away the Myst franchise, correct, but they did so in order to focus all their (Cyan's) development effort on Mudpie, now known as Uru
Good point. Perhaps the expert security team I suggested should also be equiped with whips and other implements of torture for whenever a user executes an attachment they weren't expecting to recieve;)
This argument is spouted off so much that it's getting tiring.
Obviously popularity isn't the *only* reason that vulnerabilities are found. ISS is just a suck-ass product, and a lot of people use it as it comes with the OS -- in unpatched and default configuration. That's why it has more holes than the pretty robust Apache.
But the argument it responds to is saying that The windows OS does have decent security, but more bugs are exploited due to its popularity. In this context, talking about IIS vs Apache is nothing more than a Red Herring.
Besides, if anyone truly believes that more security-related bugs are found in windows than in linux, they must not be subscribed to the debian-security mailing list. 23 new announcements in august alone.
Seriously, if this guy really wanted to help out the government, he'd be suggesting that they keep their systems patched and stripped down and firewalled, and that they employ and expert security team no matter what OS they are.
The fact is, you can make windows as secure as any other OS out there, as long as you know what you're doing.
I think it's fishy that they don't back up their "obvious and easily exploited vulnerabilities" claim with any real examples. The only evidence they provide is Blaster and SoBig -- an exploit for a vulnerability patched a month in advance, and a simple dumb-user email worm. Unfortunately all anyone sees is the fact that two worms came out near the same time -- and not the fact that they could have been prevented easily by more competent sysadmins and informed users.
Anyway, I think it would be cool to see the DHS use a less-mainstream OS. But I don't think this open letter makes an argument any more sophisticated than the "microsoft sucks! You'll get a million viruses dude!" spouted off by any 13-year-old linux zealot.
Frequencies that DSL uses are audible. They're just filtered out before the handset. Try removing the filter and listening and you should hear the DSL squeaking away:)
The DSL connection between you and your CO is definitely an analog link.
For it to be a "digital link," it'd be sending two voltages along the line, one for 0 and one for 1. (Or perhaps more than two, but it'd be communicating in discrete voltages).
DSL modems don't force discrete voltages on the line -- if they did, how would you be able to use it to talk as well? No, they modulate the data into high frequency ANALOG signals and mix it with the voice data also going over the line. The other end demodulates back into digital.
The reason we don't see any cross-platform worms is because they are, simply, not worth the effort. People want their worm to affect as many machines as possible as quickly as possible, and they aren't the best programmers in the world. So they write worms for windows. Why spend a *lot* of coding effort to make it cross-platform when it only increases your infected base 5-10%?
Your insinuation seems to be (though you never come out and just say it) that the reason there are no cross-platform worms is because macs and linux are somehow magically invulnerable to them. Right.
--
I was actually brainstorming how difficult it would be to write a cross-platform worm. I was thinking of analysing email headers in your message history to try to guess what OS they came from and send along the correct version accordingly.
This requires an executable that can re-generate itself for 2 or 3 other operating systems. This can probably be done by keeping the code for the other OSes compressed and stored as a payload, and re-arrage the files as necessary to send to the other victims. Already we're talking about knowing the byte-level executable file format for at least two, maybe three kinds of operating systems. Most virus kiddies would stop right here.
But saying you figure out the technology for it, you also have to compile the separate object codes for each target OS. I have access to windows and linux compilers, but i'd have to do some digging to get my hands on a mac compiler. Still more effort just to get 5% more infections.
But then there's the whole issue of reading address books and message histories on other computers. One should at least target the most popular email client on each computer -- that gives us at least 3 email program formats to figure out and program for, including outlook express. But an effective cross-platform virus should support a wide range of email clients. Tons of effort to figure all this out! All for 5%-10% more infections.
Not worth it.
Now, if macintoshes suddenly took over 90% of the desktop market, virus writers would happily go and target the mac, and one or two mac email clients, and the whole situation would be turned on its head.
So why aren't there a few dozen viruses that exploit holes in both systems? If it finds itself on a Windows box, it runs one thing. If it finds itself on a Mac, it does a different thing.
You completely ignored what I said. I said most worms now days DON'T EVEN EXPLOIT HOLES. They exploit dumb users, who open every attachment they get.
Now, how are you supposed to structure an executable file that, when run by the user, runs on either operating system?
Nor are Apache servers cracked with the same frequency as IIS boxes, despite Apache being deployed 3x more than IIS.
This argument has appeared 40,000,000 times so far in this discussion. It seems to be the new line to spout by brainwashed zealots to try to counter the "windows is more popular" argument without actually thinking.
My response is: yes, apache is pretty secure and IIS's default install (which most people use) is complete shit.
But we're talking about operating systems, not web servers, so the argument is nothing more than a red herring.
Bullshit. There are about 50 Mac-specific viruses, as opposed to over 70,000 Windows viruses. Apple has ~5% marketshare, and a slightly larger installed base, yet it is targeted by only ~.07% of the known viruses.
All you're showing is that it's not a linear function of popularity. Well, duh. What good would there be writing a mac virus right now? Most of the computers it interacts with will be windows machines. Even if it were the perfect virus, it just wouldn't get anywhere.
So not just a proportional amount of viruses written target microsoft. Almost every single virus written targets microsoft. The lack of viruses for your platform is PURELY due to popularity, whether you want to believe it or not, not due to some magical super-special secret virus resistance inherent to your OS.
No virus or worm will ever have its way with a Mac the way Windows worms rape Windows PCs, period. All unnecessary services and ports are off by default, and if any suspect code tries any funny business, the user gets a dialog asking "Should I run this?"-- not a green light to do whatever it wants from the OS.
You are ignoring the fact that 99% of windows worms nowdays are based on dumb users running whatever attachments they get. It has *nothing* to do with services and ports open. And it *does* pop up a "should I run this" window!!
If Microsoft went away tomorrow and Apple took 100% of the market, there would still be nobody writing successful Mac viruses, because the gaping security holes just aren't there to be exploited.
Are you kidding? It'd be just as easy to write mac worms as windows worms are today. Most of them are just targeting a popular email client, reading its address book, and sending itself as an attachment to a bunch of those addresses along with a witty message. That's ALL.
Now, as for worms which *do* exploit security flaws, usually the flaws have had patches available for weeks or even months. And *every* OS out there is getting continuously patches as new flaws are found, including windows, linux, and MacOSX. The frequency of patches isn't the important thing, it's the severity.
Competent system administrators are saying that the update utility downloaded the patch but did not install it, yet reported it installed.
That's a problem with the update utility, not the patch. You said the patch didn't work. The patch works fine.
And IIRC it was only a problem when your registry had exceeded its quota. No competent system administrator would allow that. It's like having your/var/tmp partition be full and complaining when apps don't work right.
I've got http://security.debian.org in my/etc/apt/sources.list file and it works great.
I know, works great for me too.
But you were talking about the security holes in the software, not the competence of the patching system. My point was linux has just as many security problems as windows.
before you mouth off
I wasn't mouthing off. I was countering exactly what you wrote, as you wrote it.
Your point about uptimes is well taken, however. I really do appreciate the fact that apt-get update almost never requires a reboot, where every little microsoft patch almost always does. (Kernel security patches do require reboots though!)
Wait a second here. What smoke are you blowing? The patch works fine. It was out a month before there were any exploits around. It was out, very visibly, in the "critical updates" section of windows update, so even the most braindead users could install it. Machines with the patches installed did not get the worm.
It should be obvious by now that M$ has no place on a network. More than a year after Bill Gates made security job one, M$ still blows and it always will.
Why does it blow? Because there are security holes found? Because they release patches for them? Try subscribing to the DEBIAN-SECURITY mailing list and tell me linux never has security holes.
Holy crap. It's amazing seeing people like you stoop to insults to try to defend something that has been proven mathematically false many times over.
You see only that he opens a door without a prize. You can't tell whether he had a choice between 2 doors (you picked right) or his move was forced (you picked wrong and there's only one other non-prize door). It's not a case of Monty "not really giving you any information" (whine, whine, life is so unfair). Monty is simply giving you no information.
OK, let's take "information" out of the discussion right now. Information is defined by how probabilities are changed by certain actions. So, deriving probabilities from "amount of information" is circular. Let's look directly at the probabilities.
If all else fails, just count. Call the doors A, B, and C, and have the contestant choose door A. Case 1: there's a prize behind the door. Monty can open door B or door C: two possibilities. Case 2: there isn't a prize behind door A. In that case the prize is either behind door B, and Monty opens door C, or it's behind door C and Monty opens door B. Also 2 cases. Probability that prize is behind door A: 1/2.
Counting is a good idea, and you do it well. But you neglect to the apply some very basic probability theory to what you've counted.
Case 1 -- yes, the host has a choice of which door he can open. But what you are neglecting is that Case 1 itself -- ie, that the door you chose was the correct one -- has a probability of 1/3.
Case 2 itself, likewise, has a probability of 2/3.
Reiterating: in your initial choice, you have a 1/3 chance of choosing the correct door, and a 2/3 chance of being wrong. Case 1, 1/3. Case 2, 2/3.
If you don't agree with me at this point, I suggest you stop spewing your crap and just get out of the conversation.
Alright, now when case 1 occurs, the host has a 50/50 choice of which other door to open. Therefore, in the grand scheme of all outcomes, him opening the first door has a probability of 50% * 1/3 = 1/6, and him opening the 2nd door also has a probability of 1/6.
Now, in case 2, he can only open the door that doesn't have the prize. Within case 2, there's a 50% chance of the prize being behind either door. Therefore, among all possible outcomes, him opening the first door has a probability of 50% * 2/3 = 1/3. Same with the second door.
Let's reiterate:
Case 1 -- host opens first empty door, 1/6 Case 1 -- host opens 2nd empty door, 1/6 Case 2 -- host opens first door, 1/3 Case 2 -- host opens second door, 1/3
So, as you can see, you certainly counted correctly. Congratulations. But you neglected the elementary fact that The probabilities for each of these events is not equal.
The probability that the prize is behind the door you picked is still 1/3, and the probability that the prize is not behind the door you picked (and is therefore necessarily behind the other closed door) is 2/3.
If you still don't believe me, I suggest you go read the rest of this thread. There are several very good explanations. Or go find that java applet that performs the experiment for you, and shows that if you switch, you win 2/3 of the time.
If all else fails, go back and take your elementary probability theory class again, and don't cheat off the guy sitting next to you this time!
Since it ALWAYS happens, the host-picked door (which is always empty) actually doesn't have any bearing on the problem. You can safely eliminate it from consideration.
WRONG. Your choice had a 1/3 chance of being right because there were 3 doors to begin with, among which you chose randomly. Therefore all 3 of those doors are important to the problem, because they specify the conditions in which your first choice is made. Just because the host removes doors doesn't suddenly change the probability of your *initial* choice.
To make it more clear: say there are 1,000,000 doors. Choose one randomly. Not a very good chance of being correct, right? (1/1,000,000). Now the host opens all the doors but yours and one other, showing that they are empty. Would you now go and say that your initial choice has a 50% chance of being right?
If you would, then you're a fool. Because the other door has a 99.9999% chance of being the correct one. Think about it -- your original choice is still your original choice, made out of a million doors. The *other* door is basically the host saying "well, if you chose the wrong door, then *this* is definitely the correct one." Since the chance of you having chosen the wrong door at first is 999,999/1,000,000, then that means the chance that the other door is correct is 999,999/1,000,000 as well.
This logic works for 3 doors, as well, but for some reason doesn't seem as intuitive.
What is fun in Quantum Computing is that you do not need a lot of basic gates(AND, OR, XOR, NOT, etc.), you only need a small number of basic gates to make up the Universal gate.
And what's fun in standard computing is that you also do not need a lot of basic gates -- you can use just one, such as a NAND, or NOR if you're so inclined.
Exactly! I was thinking this all throughout the article -- role playing has been going on a *long time* with voice chat and there's been no problem. Also, anyone who's OOC in voice-chat would also be OOC in keyboard-chat. It really just makes the medium faster and convey more information, not necissarily better or worse.
Also, entrapment is only illegal if the law officers used fraud or undue persuasion to cause someone to commit a crime -- so much so, that an ordinarily law-abiding person would be compelled to commit the crime.
Cops can tempt criminals to commit crimes, and even initiate or plan out the criminal act (ie, buying or selling drugs, offering or buying prostitution, planning a bank robbery heist). None of this is entrapment, unless their actions would have cause a normally law-abiding person to commit the crime.
If a cop tricks someone into unintenionally breaking the law, or harasses them so much that they eventually cave in and break the law, or threaten them, etc, it may be entrapment. It's actually pretty subjective and up to the jury, usually.
But a lot of misconceptions of entrapment abount -- ie the ever-popular, "if you ask them if they're a cop, and they say no, then it's entrapment." And also the misconception that entrapment is a crime and can apply to non-law-enforcement. It's not a crime, it's a defense against being charged with a crime. (Well, unless you perform a crime while trying to get someone to perform a crime -- that's still a crime)
Slashdot Mirror
The POINT is that directx doesn't have a native port for unices. the POINT is also that it, technologically speaking, blows SDL away. So what is the purpose of your post?
Ethics that only come into play when it's convenient to use them aren't really ethics.
You're confusing "using ethics only when they're convenient" with "making an ethical decision by weighing the good and bad possibilites against your own priorities and values."
Many people rank feeding their families above a symbolic action against SCO. This is part of their ethics. It doesn't seem to be part of your ethics, nor chrisd's. This does not mean the former people "don't really have ethics." It does not mean that your or chrisd's ethics are some sort of "higher standard."
Really, people, get off your freakin' high horses, and re-evaluate your priorities.
I really don't understand why they don't put this gag clause in the .NET framework download itself. Wouldn't that make more sense?
By the way - The Miller brothers pretty much signed away the franchise during the development of Myst III. One of them (Robin, I think) is still a "consultant" on the series, but they're both pretty much out of the picture now.
They signed away the Myst franchise, correct, but they did so in order to focus all their (Cyan's) development effort on Mudpie, now known as Uru
Good point. Perhaps the expert security team I suggested should also be equiped with whips and other implements of torture for whenever a user executes an attachment they weren't expecting to recieve ;)
really?
What's your source of the number of "reported critical OS flaws" in linux?
This argument is spouted off so much that it's getting tiring.
Obviously popularity isn't the *only* reason that vulnerabilities are found. ISS is just a suck-ass product, and a lot of people use it as it comes with the OS -- in unpatched and default configuration. That's why it has more holes than the pretty robust Apache.
But the argument it responds to is saying that The windows OS does have decent security, but more bugs are exploited due to its popularity. In this context, talking about IIS vs Apache is nothing more than a Red Herring.
Besides, if anyone truly believes that more security-related bugs are found in windows than in linux, they must not be subscribed to the debian-security mailing list. 23 new announcements in august alone.
Seriously, if this guy really wanted to help out the government, he'd be suggesting that they keep their systems patched and stripped down and firewalled, and that they employ and expert security team no matter what OS they are.
The fact is, you can make windows as secure as any other OS out there, as long as you know what you're doing.
I think it's fishy that they don't back up their "obvious and easily exploited vulnerabilities" claim with any real examples. The only evidence they provide is Blaster and SoBig -- an exploit for a vulnerability patched a month in advance, and a simple dumb-user email worm. Unfortunately all anyone sees is the fact that two worms came out near the same time -- and not the fact that they could have been prevented easily by more competent sysadmins and informed users.
Anyway, I think it would be cool to see the DHS use a less-mainstream OS. But I don't think this open letter makes an argument any more sophisticated than the "microsoft sucks! You'll get a million viruses dude!" spouted off by any 13-year-old linux zealot.
Nitpick!
:)
Frequencies that DSL uses are audible. They're just filtered out before the handset. Try removing the filter and listening and you should hear the DSL squeaking away
The DSL connection between you and your CO is definitely an analog link.
For it to be a "digital link," it'd be sending two voltages along the line, one for 0 and one for 1. (Or perhaps more than two, but it'd be communicating in discrete voltages).
DSL modems don't force discrete voltages on the line -- if they did, how would you be able to use it to talk as well? No, they modulate the data into high frequency ANALOG signals and mix it with the voice data also going over the line. The other end demodulates back into digital.
The reason we don't see any cross-platform worms is because they are, simply, not worth the effort. People want their worm to affect as many machines as possible as quickly as possible, and they aren't the best programmers in the world. So they write worms for windows. Why spend a *lot* of coding effort to make it cross-platform when it only increases your infected base 5-10%?
Your insinuation seems to be (though you never come out and just say it) that the reason there are no cross-platform worms is because macs and linux are somehow magically invulnerable to them. Right.
--
I was actually brainstorming how difficult it would be to write a cross-platform worm. I was thinking of analysing email headers in your message history to try to guess what OS they came from and send along the correct version accordingly.
This requires an executable that can re-generate itself for 2 or 3 other operating systems. This can probably be done by keeping the code for the other OSes compressed and stored as a payload, and re-arrage the files as necessary to send to the other victims. Already we're talking about knowing the byte-level executable file format for at least two, maybe three kinds of operating systems. Most virus kiddies would stop right here.
But saying you figure out the technology for it, you also have to compile the separate object codes for each target OS. I have access to windows and linux compilers, but i'd have to do some digging to get my hands on a mac compiler. Still more effort just to get 5% more infections.
But then there's the whole issue of reading address books and message histories on other computers. One should at least target the most popular email client on each computer -- that gives us at least 3 email program formats to figure out and program for, including outlook express. But an effective cross-platform virus should support a wide range of email clients. Tons of effort to figure all this out! All for 5%-10% more infections.
Not worth it.
Now, if macintoshes suddenly took over 90% of the desktop market, virus writers would happily go and target the mac, and one or two mac email clients, and the whole situation would be turned on its head.
OS X is simply more secure any way you slice it!
And argument by unsupported assertion is supposed to blow me away?
You also ignored the fact that I'm talking about viruses which exploit *NO TECHNICAL FLAW WHATSOEVER*, and just take advantage of dumb users.
Idiot.
So why aren't there a few dozen viruses that exploit holes in both systems? If it finds itself on a Windows box, it runs one thing. If it finds itself on a Mac, it does a different thing.
You completely ignored what I said. I said most worms now days DON'T EVEN EXPLOIT HOLES. They exploit dumb users, who open every attachment they get.
Now, how are you supposed to structure an executable file that, when run by the user, runs on either operating system?
Nor are Apache servers cracked with the same frequency as IIS boxes, despite Apache being deployed 3x more than IIS.
This argument has appeared 40,000,000 times so far in this discussion. It seems to be the new line to spout by brainwashed zealots to try to counter the "windows is more popular" argument without actually thinking.
My response is: yes, apache is pretty secure and IIS's default install (which most people use) is complete shit.
But we're talking about operating systems, not web servers, so the argument is nothing more than a red herring.
Outlook and Outlook Express would just execute the VBScript by default without warning/asking the user.
This is simply not true. Outlook and outlook express would *always* warn about running and executable attachment.
There were some old old bugs that allowed scripts to do more than they should, but they're squashed now.
and even you admit that outlook warns/asks the user now. So why are these simple microsoft worms still so rampant? Your argument destroys itself.
Why are you invalidating the cache and pipeline on a branch? wow.
Anyway, static branch prediction has been around for a long long time. That's not what intel is talking about.
Bullshit. There are about 50 Mac-specific viruses, as opposed to over 70,000 Windows viruses. Apple has ~5% marketshare, and a slightly larger installed base, yet it is targeted by only ~.07% of the known viruses.
All you're showing is that it's not a linear function of popularity. Well, duh. What good would there be writing a mac virus right now? Most of the computers it interacts with will be windows machines. Even if it were the perfect virus, it just wouldn't get anywhere.
So not just a proportional amount of viruses written target microsoft. Almost every single virus written targets microsoft. The lack of viruses for your platform is PURELY due to popularity, whether you want to believe it or not, not due to some magical super-special secret virus resistance inherent to your OS.
No virus or worm will ever have its way with a Mac the way Windows worms rape Windows PCs, period. All unnecessary services and ports are off by default, and if any suspect code tries any funny business, the user gets a dialog asking "Should I run this?"-- not a green light to do whatever it wants from the OS.
You are ignoring the fact that 99% of windows worms nowdays are based on dumb users running whatever attachments they get. It has *nothing* to do with services and ports open. And it *does* pop up a "should I run this" window!!
If Microsoft went away tomorrow and Apple took 100% of the market, there would still be nobody writing successful Mac viruses, because the gaping security holes just aren't there to be exploited.
Are you kidding? It'd be just as easy to write mac worms as windows worms are today. Most of them are just targeting a popular email client, reading its address book, and sending itself as an attachment to a bunch of those addresses along with a witty message. That's ALL.
Now, as for worms which *do* exploit security flaws, usually the flaws have had patches available for weeks or even months. And *every* OS out there is getting continuously patches as new flaws are found, including windows, linux, and MacOSX. The frequency of patches isn't the important thing, it's the severity.
Do you think all these users, if they were magically switched over to linux, or macOS, would stop running executable attachments magically as well?
These worms exploit no technical flaw. They're like social engineering worms.
Competent system administrators are saying that the update utility downloaded the patch but did not install it, yet reported it installed.
/var/tmp partition be full and complaining when apps don't work right.
/etc/apt/sources.list file and it works great.
That's a problem with the update utility, not the patch. You said the patch didn't work. The patch works fine.
And IIRC it was only a problem when your registry had exceeded its quota. No competent system administrator would allow that. It's like having your
I've got http://security.debian.org in my
I know, works great for me too.
But you were talking about the security holes in the software, not the competence of the patching system. My point was linux has just as many security problems as windows.
before you mouth off
I wasn't mouthing off. I was countering exactly what you wrote, as you wrote it.
Your point about uptimes is well taken, however. I really do appreciate the fact that apt-get update almost never requires a reboot, where every little microsoft patch almost always does. (Kernel security patches do require reboots though!)
People did apply patches, they just did not work.
Wait a second here. What smoke are you blowing? The patch works fine. It was out a month before there were any exploits around. It was out, very visibly, in the "critical updates" section of windows update, so even the most braindead users could install it. Machines with the patches installed did not get the worm.
It should be obvious by now that M$ has no place on a network. More than a year after Bill Gates made security job one, M$ still blows and it always will.
Why does it blow? Because there are security holes found? Because they release patches for them? Try subscribing to the DEBIAN-SECURITY mailing list and tell me linux never has security holes.
Sheesh.
Holy crap. It's amazing seeing people like you stoop to insults to try to defend something that has been proven mathematically false many times over.
You see only that he opens a door without a prize. You can't tell whether he had a choice between 2 doors (you picked right) or his move was forced (you picked wrong and there's only one other non-prize door). It's not a case of Monty "not really giving you any information" (whine, whine, life is so unfair). Monty is simply giving you no information.
OK, let's take "information" out of the discussion right now. Information is defined by how probabilities are changed by certain actions. So, deriving probabilities from "amount of information" is circular. Let's look directly at the probabilities.
If all else fails, just count. Call the doors A, B, and C, and have the contestant choose door A. Case 1: there's a prize behind the door. Monty can open door B or door C: two possibilities. Case 2: there isn't a prize behind door A. In that case the prize is either behind door B, and Monty opens door C, or it's behind door C and Monty opens door B. Also 2 cases. Probability that prize is behind door A: 1/2.
Counting is a good idea, and you do it well. But you neglect to the apply some very basic probability theory to what you've counted.
Case 1 -- yes, the host has a choice of which door he can open. But what you are neglecting is that Case 1 itself -- ie, that the door you chose was the correct one -- has a probability of 1/3.
Case 2 itself, likewise, has a probability of 2/3.
Reiterating: in your initial choice, you have a 1/3 chance of choosing the correct door, and a 2/3 chance of being wrong. Case 1, 1/3. Case 2, 2/3.
If you don't agree with me at this point, I suggest you stop spewing your crap and just get out of the conversation.
Alright, now when case 1 occurs, the host has a 50/50 choice of which other door to open. Therefore, in the grand scheme of all outcomes, him opening the first door has a probability of 50% * 1/3 = 1/6, and him opening the 2nd door also has a probability of 1/6.
Now, in case 2, he can only open the door that doesn't have the prize. Within case 2, there's a 50% chance of the prize being behind either door. Therefore, among all possible outcomes, him opening the first door has a probability of 50% * 2/3 = 1/3. Same with the second door.
Let's reiterate:
Case 1 -- host opens first empty door, 1/6
Case 1 -- host opens 2nd empty door, 1/6
Case 2 -- host opens first door, 1/3
Case 2 -- host opens second door, 1/3
So, as you can see, you certainly counted correctly. Congratulations. But you neglected the elementary fact that The probabilities for each of these events is not equal.
The probability that the prize is behind the door you picked is still 1/3, and the probability that the prize is not behind the door you picked (and is therefore necessarily behind the other closed door) is 2/3.
If you still don't believe me, I suggest you go read the rest of this thread. There are several very good explanations. Or go find that java applet that performs the experiment for you, and shows that if you switch, you win 2/3 of the time.
If all else fails, go back and take your elementary probability theory class again, and don't cheat off the guy sitting next to you this time!
Since it ALWAYS happens, the host-picked door (which is always empty) actually doesn't have any bearing on the problem. You can safely eliminate it from consideration.
WRONG. Your choice had a 1/3 chance of being right because there were 3 doors to begin with, among which you chose randomly. Therefore all 3 of those doors are important to the problem, because they specify the conditions in which your first choice is made. Just because the host removes doors doesn't suddenly change the probability of your *initial* choice.
To make it more clear: say there are 1,000,000 doors. Choose one randomly. Not a very good chance of being correct, right? (1/1,000,000). Now the host opens all the doors but yours and one other, showing that they are empty. Would you now go and say that your initial choice has a 50% chance of being right?
If you would, then you're a fool. Because the other door has a 99.9999% chance of being the correct one. Think about it -- your original choice is still your original choice, made out of a million doors. The *other* door is basically the host saying "well, if you chose the wrong door, then *this* is definitely the correct one." Since the chance of you having chosen the wrong door at first is 999,999/1,000,000, then that means the chance that the other door is correct is 999,999/1,000,000 as well.
This logic works for 3 doors, as well, but for some reason doesn't seem as intuitive.
"American Express: Don't home without it"
This wasn't the joke.
What is fun in Quantum Computing is that you do not need a lot of basic gates(AND, OR, XOR, NOT, etc.), you only need a small number of basic gates to make up the Universal gate.
And what's fun in standard computing is that you also do not need a lot of basic gates -- you can use just one, such as a NAND, or NOR if you're so inclined.
Exactly! I was thinking this all throughout the article -- role playing has been going on a *long time* with voice chat and there's been no problem. Also, anyone who's OOC in voice-chat would also be OOC in keyboard-chat. It really just makes the medium faster and convey more information, not necissarily better or worse.
Also, entrapment is only illegal if the law officers used fraud or undue persuasion to cause someone to commit a crime -- so much so, that an ordinarily law-abiding person would be compelled to commit the crime.
n ts/nationalbudgetsdefecitsorspending/lawdeceit.htm l
Cops can tempt criminals to commit crimes, and even initiate or plan out the criminal act (ie, buying or selling drugs, offering or buying prostitution, planning a bank robbery heist). None of this is entrapment, unless their actions would have cause a normally law-abiding person to commit the crime.
If a cop tricks someone into unintenionally breaking the law, or harasses them so much that they eventually cave in and break the law, or threaten them, etc, it may be entrapment. It's actually pretty subjective and up to the jury, usually.
But a lot of misconceptions of entrapment abount -- ie the ever-popular, "if you ask them if they're a cop, and they say no, then it's entrapment." And also the misconception that entrapment is a crime and can apply to non-law-enforcement. It's not a crime, it's a defense against being charged with a crime. (Well, unless you perform a crime while trying to get someone to perform a crime -- that's still a crime)
For a somewhat inflammatory discussion, see this: http://www.libertyhaven.com/politicsandcurrenteve
I had a more objective look at it, written by a lawyer, but I can't find it.
sorry if this is off-topic.