Friday morning links

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Friday, November 4. 2011

Image above via Coyote

Via Insty, Shotgun choices for defence

Also via Insty: Have you considered the myriad difficulties associated with carrying concealed while shopping? Here are some great ways to overcome those issues.

Are You Smart Enough to Know You’re Stupid?

I think I am

Cheating 101

A book: KNOCKING ON HEAVEN’S DOOR: How Physics and Scientific Thinking Illuminate the Universe and the Modern World.

NY's Oldest Bialy Shop Is Saved by Unlikely Owners

Too much time spent sitting increases the risk of developing cancer, even for those who exercise regularly

California's high-speed train wreck

When cleaning crews "mistake" art for garbage

George Will: Conformity for diversity’s sake

The Swedish Model Reassessed

Ridley on climate: "I Can't Find One Piece of Data That Shows Unprecedented Change, or Harmful Change."

Noted Scientist: Scientists ‘Endorse Al Gore Even Though They Know What He’s Saying Is Exaggerated and Misleading’

To the disbelief of left-wing media, most Britons want a referendum on EU membership.

Shiffren at NRO:

Cain lacks the grounding and depth needed to be president. If he is serious about wanting to be president, he should be running for the U.S. Senate, or for a governorship, to prepare, because if anything is clear right now, it’s that experience matters. (By the way, it’s interesting to see how widely Republicans are responding to his avuncular warmth; my teenage daughters just love him in the debates, probably because we usually get hard-to-love cold fish, or raffish jerks, as our candidates.) Yes, he’d be better than Barack Obama as president. Much better. And yes, it’s nice that he’s black and conservative, and all these white Republicans are embracing him. But if the GOP’s goal is to win, Cain is a distraction. At the end of the day, if he is the candidate, we lose — even if it turns out that he had no behavior, ever, which could be confused with sexual harassment.

I Forgive Herman Cain, the Only Conservative Left

IBD: Government Policy Caused the Housing Market Crash

President Obama’s Super PAC “Priorities USA” Launches Another Round of Attacks on Mitt Romney

Obama Goes Negative with Stealth Attacks

What’s the Matter with Ohio? - It may fail to pass union reforms that a majority of voters support

Hawaii State Liabilities Climb by 60 Percent in Two Years; Expert Calls the News 'Shocking'

TVA employees balk at Obama plan to pay for pension benefits

ACORN Officials Scramble, Firing Workers and Shredding Documents, After Exposed as Players Behind Occupy Wall Street Protests

They have been paying people to protest

Fodder for #OWS Protesters: Fannie & Freddie Dish Out Fat Bonuses

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 05:22 | Comments (19) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

PingBack

Weblog: blogs.dailymail.com
Tracked: Nov 04, 07:18

PingBack

Weblog: adaptivecurmudgeon.wordpress.com
Tracked: Nov 06, 05:15

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Probability:
There are 12 equally possible outcomes. There are 4 outcomes that are potentially correct. Therefore the answer is 4/12 or 1/3 i.e. 33-1/3%

#1 bengrayen on 2011-11-04 08:38 (Reply)

When cleaning crews "mistake" art for garbage

Well, as the misquoted cliche goes, one man's trash is another man's artwork. And as the article points out, it happens quite often. I quit doing "modern" art shows because most of what I saw looked like floor sweepings and random junk picked from my garage.... which reminds me, I really need to get motivated and throw out that trash.

#2 JoeC on 2011-11-04 09:39 (Reply)

Well, stop your cleaning every once in a while to check on the pile. You wouldn't want to miss the "art" that could appear spontaneously as you pile up your junk.

#2.1 JKB on 2011-11-04 11:05 (Reply)

Who better to determine that something is "an unsightly mess" than a cleaning crew? And it is, after all, their job to remove such.

When did that which clearly qualifies as an "unsightly mess" become valuable? Who assigned value to it?

#2.2 Knucklehead (Link) on 2011-11-04 11:26 (Reply)

The photo of the probability problem is an example of Russell's Paradox or at least a very close relative. There is, and cannot be, a correct answer so the clever student will choose not to answer.

Given a set of 4 possible answers, presuming the correct answer is part of the set, the probability of selecting the correct answer at random is 0.25 (25%). But 2 of the 4 answers in the set are 25%, therefore the probability of selecting the correct answer at random is 0.50 (50%). That is answer B. But the probability of selecting B at random is 25%. Therefore B cannot be the correct answer.

So the answer, 0%, is not a member of the set of selectable answers.

#3 Knucklehead (Link) on 2011-11-04 10:30 (Reply)

No Knucklehead you! Well done!

#3.1 Gwynne on 2011-11-04 14:18 (Reply)

I agree -- there is zero chance you will pick the right answer if you're confined to those four alternatives, and zero is not one of the answers.

In other words, though there's a 25% chance you'll pick 50% and a 50% chance you'll pick 25%, there is no choice whose likelihood matches the percentage probability described in the choice itself. So none of the answers is correct.

#3.2 Texan99 (Link) on 2011-11-04 15:48 (Reply)

In regards to the Cain 'scandal':

What we know so far is little more than vague gossip. There could be heat, there may be smoke and, if they keep fanning, there could be flames. But one thing is certain, there are a lot of Democrats and Republicans, MSM and Bloggers, who really, really are excited about the possibility of watching Herman Cain burn.

Pyromanic Politics.

#4 JKB on 2011-11-04 11:09 (Reply)

60% ought to be 0%.

#5 rhhardin (Link) on 2011-11-04 11:11 (Reply)

The Ruling Class must be afraid of Cain. They keep telling us he is such a nice man, but unqualified for this important job. They do not tell us who is qualified. That would make it too obvious that they believe they are our lords, and we must continue in servitude to the bi-factional ruling party.

#6 foxmarks (Link) on 2011-11-04 11:12 (Reply)

I do away with the assumption the answer to the probability question is in the distractors. I would say the question would be better posed with bags of balls.

There are 3 distinct outcomes:
(A OR D) AND !B AND !C OR
B AND !C AND !(A OR D) OR
C AND !(A OR D) AND !B

the probability of any given outcome is 1/4 and !outcome is 3/4. In the case of A OR D this yields 1/2 and !(A OR D) is 1-1/2 = 1/2.

Replace OR with a + and AND with a and then fill in the numbers:
(1/4 + 1/4) 3/4 3/4 +
1/4 3/4 (1-(1/4 + 1/4)) +
1/4 (1-(1/4+1/4)) * 3/4

1/2*9/16 +
1/4*3/4*1/2 +
1/4*1/2*3/4

9/32 + 3/16*1/2 + 1/8*3/4 = 9/32 + 3/32 + 3/32 = 15/32, which is about 48%.

Many forget with multiple outcomes you have to account for the likelihood of the other outcomes not happening. In a number of cases the probability of the non-occurring results will wash out, but not always.

Better question:
Two bags, one filled with uniform distributions of red, green, and blue balls the other bag with 2 red balls, one green, and one blue ball. A ball is drawn from the first bag and then another ball is drawn from the second bag. What is the probability the balls match?

#7 markf on 2011-11-04 11:22 (Reply)

You may prefer a "better" question but we have the question we have. You may not change the set of possible answers. You may, however, choose not to answer the question.

#7.1 Knucklehead (Link) on 2011-11-04 11:37 (Reply)

All I've seen is the image, I have not seen anywhere stating the answer to the question is one of the distractors, in fact, while following the links I find I am not alone is not assuming the answer to the probability is in the distractor. I am not choosing a better question, I am rephrasing.

I have also yet to see any answer that goes much beyond fuzzy thinking. I've seen some people applying math to their thinking, but I claim most of that is incorrect.

In fact, that may be the whole point of the question -- getting people to think the answer to the probability question is one of the distractors.

I will rephrase from "better question" to "better phrasing of the question".

#7.1.1 markf on 2011-11-04 12:16 (Reply)

Oh, and yes, I am smart enough to know how stupid I am. Ergo the moniker. I cannot escape what I am, so I go with the flow.

#8 Knucklehead (Link) on 2011-11-04 11:39 (Reply)

--the Popeye Dictum. "I yam what I yam becuz I yam!"

Spinach si, spin no

#8.1 buddy larsen on 2011-11-04 13:54 (Reply)

That Swedish reassessment article was excellent. I will be using it at my site, with commentary.

As to the chalkboard question, Knucklehead is correct, and Russell's Paradox is a closer fit than the Liar's Paradox.

#9 Assistant VIllage Idiot (Link) on 2011-11-04 17:16 (Reply)

RE: Photo

Interesting - a great example of Epimenides Paradox. And like Epimenides Paradox, it has a flaw.

The correct answer my friends is B. 60% is the distractor as it is not possible. Two 25% answers are co-equal therefore invalid and cancel each other leaving only a choice between 25% and 50%. That is a 50/50 proposition. That leaves 50% as the correct answer.

It is a great example of Perturbation Theory - the small term being the 60%.

At least that's my story and I'm sticking to it. :>)

#10 Tom Francis on 2011-11-04 17:48 (Reply)

"carrying concealed while shopping?"

I've worn an ankle holster for years and wouldn't even think about changing it out. I feel nekkid without it.

Are You Smart Enough to Know You’re Stupid?

Damn straight. I ain't the brightest bulb in the box and I'm the first to admit it.

They have been paying people to protest

And for people to lead the protests. Their called "community organizers" I believe.

Fannie & Freddie Dish Out Fat Bonuses

Is Barney's boyfriend still large and in charge there?

#11 Tom Francis on 2011-11-04 17:56 (Reply)

...sure that's 'bonus' and not 'bone us'?

#11.1 buddy larsen on 2011-11-05 10:42 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Friday, November 4. 2011

Friday morning links