Does there need to be such money spent on cardiovascular disease? Does that money for AIDS pay off in other ways? AIDS involves multiple viral infections and other illnesses, and is caused by a virus too. What are the average ages of people who die with cardiovascular diseases and AIDS? It seems to be past 70 years for heart disease and 45 years for AIDS. How easily can each be reversed? Presumably you can change your lifestyle to mitigate heart disease when you're at risk, but with AIDS you're entirely dependant on medicine. Lastly, AIDS is apparently a big issue in Africa too for whatever that's worth.
This is all highly speculative, but the point is I doubt the matter is so simple as comparing dollars per death. And even if there is "too much" spent on AIDS then it still has to be judged with a better metric.
To elaborate on what the other guy said, you can do something like this to use multiple profiles (from a Windows batch file I use):
set MOZ_NO_REMOTE=1
start C:\Progra~1\Mozill~1\firefox.exe -P Privacy
It used to be that you had to interact with the profile manager, but while that's over it's still there. "Privacy" is just the name I chose; the profile doesn't remember anything. MOZ_NO_REMOTE is an environment variable that lets you run instances with multiple profiles simultaneously, I think.
I don't know if you can actually use her existing profile, or if this is more trouble than it's worth.
You're right that ideally we'd fold the times he has the King.
But the odds you gave are wrong, and so is everybody else's. We want the chance of him having a King given that the flop is three Kings and we have no King. 4/45 is actually the chance of him getting a King after this point. The actual probability of him having a King already is 0.243%, or about 412 to 1 against. This is an application of Bayes' Theorem which I'll show at the end.
Given these odds, you still might not want to play. You need to consider the size of the pot and what you're risking in addition to the chance of success. The expected value, or the average result, is [reward]*[% success] - [wager]*[% failure]. Here it is EV = 11 *.99757 - 1 * 0.00243 = 10.97 small bets (if I counted the action right).
You would also want to consider the play on the turn and river if possible, and I think pot equity makes that easier but I forget the details. Risk is another thing to consider, because even winning a massive amount per play on average might still be a bad decision if, for example, you became homeless 99 times out of 100.
In considering the "psychological" instead, you could predict that the opponent definitely has the King, but then assume your predictions are only 95% accurate. Then EV = 11*0.05 - 1*0.95 = -0.4. This is ignoring the rest of the hand, but because bets double calling becomes a much worse idea.
Back to the interesting probability. What most people miss is that the chance of those three Kings coming on the flop is less likely if he had a King to begin with, and more likely if he didn't. Those two factors together mean the King is very unlikely.
These questions are what we need to answer: A: what are the odds he is dealt a single King? B: Given that he was dealt a single King, what are the odds that three Kings will come on the flop? C: What are the odds he is dealt no Kings? D: Given that he was dealt no Kings, what are the odds that three Kings will come on the flop? The final probability is A*B/(A*B+C*D). If my math is right, it works out to: [(3311/48645)*(1/13244)]/{[(3311/48645)*(1/13244)] +[(135751/194580)*(1/3311)]}. I'm fairly confident that I'm correct, but I wouldn't be surprised if I were wrong so YMMV.
If you mean that the simple act of downloading shouldn't reflect badly on the downloader, then I could agree. But most of the time it isn't a mystery what you're downloading. Copying what clearly wasn't distributed by the copyright holder, like a feature film, isn't likely innocent.
According to an article I read, probably in Time, supposedly you're more likely to get convicted if you don't provide explanations for the evidence against you. Bad strategy then, regardless of the philosophy.
My very incomplete understanding is that the quantum computer doesn't actually use three states, but rather both states simultaneously. I.e. the qubit is in a superposition of both 'on' and 'off'; it's not one of 'on', 'off', or 'other'. The difference matters. The quantum computer can be thought of as computing all possible inputs at the same time, but when the output is measured you get only one of the results, at random I guess. Apparently this can be taken advantage of in a few ways. Basically, some problems can be computed in a better time than the classical computer could do it.
I reiterate that my grasp of this is weak, and especially where terminology is concerned.
While these sorts of programs are being mentioned, I'll mention another: AutoHotkey (.com) for Windows can intercept keyboard/mouse commands and then run scripts. You could add chording to the mouse, i.e. shift+button type functionality, make the Caps Lock key do something useful, or cheat in WoW (one of the neater uses, albeit against the rules). The AutoHotkey language, however, is bizarre.
I don't think this is even illegal. The RIAA website says "Record companies have never objected to someone making a copy of a CD for their own personal use." They also say you can't copy CDs to people. However, Music United, whom RIAA links to, says "It's also okay to copy music onto special Audio CD-R's, mini-discs, and digital tapes (because royalties have been paid on them)". Neither goes into much detail. But if you paid the royalties presumably you can legally give away a "mix-tape" audio CD-R.
First-person might improve the immersion, but it will ruin the atmosphere. Fallout's atmosphere involved its third-person perspective and its sense of strategy and tactics. It isn't just about the setting. The game was more abstract. It would be like playing chess behind the visor of a knight. I won't be disappointed over a different Fallout, but it won't be my kind of Fallout.
It's been done but here is some more reasoning (I didn't RTFA because it looked boring and effortful). Let us assume each partner urinates eight times per day and defecates once per day. Let us also assume that it alternates who is using the toilet, and pretend the probabilities work themselves out.
When the strategy is that each partner changes the state of the toilet to their preference before usage, and then leaves it there: the man makes 8 efforts per day, and the woman makes 9 efforts per day.
When the strategy is that the man must lower the seat after every usage and the woman does nothing: the man makes 16 efforts per day, and the woman makes 0.
When the strategy is that each partner changes the state of the toilet to their partners preference after usage: the man makes 9 efforts per day, and the woman makes 9 efforts per day.
I've spared everyone the simple and boring math and logic.
To those who factor in the event where someone sits on the toilet rim and dips into the water, well, factor it out because it's simple enough to touch the top of the toilet seat which is above the tank to measure the state of the seat. It's also simple to make an LED status thingy, and it's even easier to buy a nightlight.
I don't know about the/. summary, but the setup in Swordfish was silly because it was only supposed to look cool. There was no HCI behind it: the monitors are arranged such that it would hurt your neck unnecessarily. The technology was superficial—it was a prop.
Not that this is indicative of any trend, but I ran Windows 2000 for about 5 years 4 months, on a 1200MHZ Athlon Thunderbird. It feels a bit slow in comparison to the new one I got for free, but I could have run it forever. Now that I'm using GNU/Linux and KDE, but lots of small S-Lang/curses-type applications, I can't imagine ever upgrading. It'll probably be because I want more processing power for my experimental personal programs before a must-have new paradigm comes along.
I took too long so I'm redundant, but it wasn't really answerable anyway:
If you were to take the right hemisphere of someone's brain, and a transistor computer that mimicks the right hemisphere down to the particle, and then switch them seamlessly (1), then what? The new hybrid brain would be behave the same, I expect.(2) The left hemisphere would still have an experience of the same "kind", for sure.(3) Would the right have an experience? A new experience?
Voltage potentials builing up, and electrons hopping between particles in the layers of the transistor... versus molecules of the neurotransmitters moving around, bonds forming and breaking between particles, and electrons moving down the axons.(4)
If it is the "subjective perceptual conscious experience" then people will probably consider it unethical to torture simulations. If it is something new then will we be able to tell? Does either mean anything of consequence anyway?(5)
Hofstadter's Strange Loops seems relevant but I don't understand them yet.
And finally, what about when we start screwing around with the structure of cells and putting them into brains?
Notes that clutter up my logic:
Presumably the computer can operate at the synapse where necessary, isn't entirely in the skull, and somehow the other chemical stuff is managed properly.
Based on what I've read of experiments with people who have had their corpus callosom destroyed to control seizures. The hemispheres are still connected at the brain stem.
It seems strange and unlikely that something besides particle interactions is causing the brain to behave appreciably different.
Or protons, perhaps. Supposedly current through the body may include protons. I wouldn't think that the "holes" move means anything physical.
I am thinking not, and that it's just our darned empathy. Gotta remember to build that into the machine...
Slashdot Mirror
And how entrenched does a bias have to be for someone to make conclusions from insufficient information and then insult people who question him?
Does there need to be such money spent on cardiovascular disease? Does that money for AIDS pay off in other ways? AIDS involves multiple viral infections and other illnesses, and is caused by a virus too. What are the average ages of people who die with cardiovascular diseases and AIDS? It seems to be past 70 years for heart disease and 45 years for AIDS. How easily can each be reversed? Presumably you can change your lifestyle to mitigate heart disease when you're at risk, but with AIDS you're entirely dependant on medicine. Lastly, AIDS is apparently a big issue in Africa too for whatever that's worth.
This is all highly speculative, but the point is I doubt the matter is so simple as comparing dollars per death. And even if there is "too much" spent on AIDS then it still has to be judged with a better metric.
I don't know if you can actually use her existing profile, or if this is more trouble than it's worth.
That stuff seems to evaporate quickly.
Get Firefox, Greasemonkey, and change the page to your liking. If the service has any merit anyway, and you have the time...
You're right that ideally we'd fold the times he has the King.
.99757 - 1 * 0.00243 = 10.97 small bets (if I counted the action right).
] +[(135751/194580)*(1/3311)]}. I'm fairly confident that I'm correct, but I wouldn't be surprised if I were wrong so YMMV.
But the odds you gave are wrong, and so is everybody else's. We want the chance of him having a King given that the flop is three Kings and we have no King. 4/45 is actually the chance of him getting a King after this point. The actual probability of him having a King already is 0.243%, or about 412 to 1 against. This is an application of Bayes' Theorem which I'll show at the end.
Given these odds, you still might not want to play. You need to consider the size of the pot and what you're risking in addition to the chance of success. The expected value, or the average result, is [reward]*[% success] - [wager]*[% failure]. Here it is EV = 11 *
You would also want to consider the play on the turn and river if possible, and I think pot equity makes that easier but I forget the details. Risk is another thing to consider, because even winning a massive amount per play on average might still be a bad decision if, for example, you became homeless 99 times out of 100.
In considering the "psychological" instead, you could predict that the opponent definitely has the King, but then assume your predictions are only 95% accurate. Then EV = 11*0.05 - 1*0.95 = -0.4. This is ignoring the rest of the hand, but because bets double calling becomes a much worse idea.
Back to the interesting probability. What most people miss is that the chance of those three Kings coming on the flop is less likely if he had a King to begin with, and more likely if he didn't. Those two factors together mean the King is very unlikely.
These questions are what we need to answer: A: what are the odds he is dealt a single King? B: Given that he was dealt a single King, what are the odds that three Kings will come on the flop? C: What are the odds he is dealt no Kings? D: Given that he was dealt no Kings, what are the odds that three Kings will come on the flop? The final probability is A*B/(A*B+C*D). If my math is right, it works out to: [(3311/48645)*(1/13244)]/{[(3311/48645)*(1/13244)
As resources, the Monty Hall problem is an easier example, and there is An Intuitive Explanation of Bayesian Reasoning, which is good.
If people want a link to pop they should do it themselves. Just a pet peeve...
If you mean that the simple act of downloading shouldn't reflect badly on the downloader, then I could agree. But most of the time it isn't a mystery what you're downloading. Copying what clearly wasn't distributed by the copyright holder, like a feature film, isn't likely innocent.
IANAL, but at least the levy ought to give you the right to copy stuff.
If you want the phone, why not hang out in line all day to get it earlier? All there is back at home is TV and the Internet.
According to an article I read, probably in Time, supposedly you're more likely to get convicted if you don't provide explanations for the evidence against you. Bad strategy then, regardless of the philosophy.
My very incomplete understanding is that the quantum computer doesn't actually use three states, but rather both states simultaneously. I.e. the qubit is in a superposition of both 'on' and 'off'; it's not one of 'on', 'off', or 'other'. The difference matters. The quantum computer can be thought of as computing all possible inputs at the same time, but when the output is measured you get only one of the results, at random I guess. Apparently this can be taken advantage of in a few ways. Basically, some problems can be computed in a better time than the classical computer could do it.
I reiterate that my grasp of this is weak, and especially where terminology is concerned.
How will Mac users afford the iPhone if they've just gotten a new computer?
While these sorts of programs are being mentioned, I'll mention another: AutoHotkey (.com) for Windows can intercept keyboard/mouse commands and then run scripts. You could add chording to the mouse, i.e. shift+button type functionality, make the Caps Lock key do something useful, or cheat in WoW (one of the neater uses, albeit against the rules). The AutoHotkey language, however, is bizarre.
I don't think this is even illegal. The RIAA website says "Record companies have never objected to someone making a copy of a CD for their own personal use." They also say you can't copy CDs to people. However, Music United, whom RIAA links to, says "It's also okay to copy music onto special Audio CD-R's, mini-discs, and digital tapes (because royalties have been paid on them)". Neither goes into much detail. But if you paid the royalties presumably you can legally give away a "mix-tape" audio CD-R.
First-person might improve the immersion, but it will ruin the atmosphere. Fallout's atmosphere involved its third-person perspective and its sense of strategy and tactics. It isn't just about the setting. The game was more abstract. It would be like playing chess behind the visor of a knight. I won't be disappointed over a different Fallout, but it won't be my kind of Fallout.
It's been done but here is some more reasoning (I didn't RTFA because it looked boring and effortful). Let us assume each partner urinates eight times per day and defecates once per day. Let us also assume that it alternates who is using the toilet, and pretend the probabilities work themselves out.
When the strategy is that each partner changes the state of the toilet to their preference before usage, and then leaves it there: the man makes 8 efforts per day, and the woman makes 9 efforts per day.
When the strategy is that the man must lower the seat after every usage and the woman does nothing: the man makes 16 efforts per day, and the woman makes 0.
When the strategy is that each partner changes the state of the toilet to their partners preference after usage: the man makes 9 efforts per day, and the woman makes 9 efforts per day.
I've spared everyone the simple and boring math and logic.
To those who factor in the event where someone sits on the toilet rim and dips into the water, well, factor it out because it's simple enough to touch the top of the toilet seat which is above the tank to measure the state of the seat. It's also simple to make an LED status thingy, and it's even easier to buy a nightlight.
Apparently the nipple isn't so intuitive.
I don't know about the /. summary, but the setup in Swordfish was silly because it was only supposed to look cool. There was no HCI behind it: the monitors are arranged such that it would hurt your neck unnecessarily. The technology was superficial—it was a prop.
Not that this is indicative of any trend, but I ran Windows 2000 for about 5 years 4 months, on a 1200MHZ Athlon Thunderbird. It feels a bit slow in comparison to the new one I got for free, but I could have run it forever. Now that I'm using GNU/Linux and KDE, but lots of small S-Lang/curses-type applications, I can't imagine ever upgrading. It'll probably be because I want more processing power for my experimental personal programs before a must-have new paradigm comes along.
I think I put a reference in the wrong place but I can't even tell where.
I took too long so I'm redundant, but it wasn't really answerable anyway:
If you were to take the right hemisphere of someone's brain, and a transistor computer that mimicks the right hemisphere down to the particle, and then switch them seamlessly (1), then what? The new hybrid brain would be behave the same, I expect.(2) The left hemisphere would still have an experience of the same "kind", for sure.(3) Would the right have an experience? A new experience?
Voltage potentials builing up, and electrons hopping between particles in the layers of the transistor... versus molecules of the neurotransmitters moving around, bonds forming and breaking between particles, and electrons moving down the axons.(4)
If it is the "subjective perceptual conscious experience" then people will probably consider it unethical to torture simulations. If it is something new then will we be able to tell? Does either mean anything of consequence anyway?(5)
Hofstadter's Strange Loops seems relevant but I don't understand them yet.
And finally, what about when we start screwing around with the structure of cells and putting them into brains?
Notes that clutter up my logic:
To be more time-efficient, the teacher could have all the students answer the same list of questions pertaining to the topic of their essay.
Honest students versus dishonest, Universities and employers. It looks like a prisoner's dilemma, played with thousands of people.