aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
CBD:
cbd.aoshq at gee mail.com
Buck:
buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
joe mannix:
mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum:
petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton:
sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com
Mythbusters: The Monty Hall Problem
Pet theories department.
I don't watch Mythbusters, but this should be a good episode. The Monty Hall problem is fascinating. It's a mindbender, and it reveals something important about perception. It's on tonight at 9:00 Eastern on Discovery Channel. One explanation for the Monty Hall problem is "working memory overload." According to that theory, The Monty Hall problem requires us to hold too many things in our heads at once, and we end up dumping some before the problem is solved. Thus, at the end of the problem when we decide on a course of action, we're not plugging in all the facts. That's the gist of it. Now imagine that applied to, say, politics. Notice how we on the right are presented with the opportunity to make the same argument over and over that runs along these basic lines: Someone on the left has said or done something that is inconsistent with his or her prior acts or statements. Now, everybody does that from time to time, but people on the left seem to do it endlessly. Proof? Think of how often we find ourselves pointing out media double standards. Here's another example: Remember when Governor Christie was confronted by a teacher at a town hall meeting? On the one hand for the teacher, it was all about the money. That was her big concern. But. On the other hand, it was all about the children. That was her motivation. She was in it for the love of teaching. While in either state of mind, the teacher seemed to have no awareness of the other state. It was as if there were two different people standing there from moment to moment. I recall the MBM repeatedly using the word "polarizing" to describe the Arizona immigration law a while back--from memory, a law that was supported by 70%. I do not recall them ever using the word "polarizing" to describe Obamacare. I hope that's not just a case of confirmation bias on my part. Another example: A while back, a Mediaite journalist referred to Sarah Palin's kids as "props." There will never be a time when this same journalist refers to President Obama's children as props. Because, different. One last example. Governor Christie himself brought up a nice example of a double standard in another town hall meeting when he talked the crowd about tone. The head of one of the teachers unions had encouraged his members to pray for his death. That union schmuck was not fired, and there was no outcry on the part of teachers. Of course, the examples are endless. Pointing them out is a regular feature here at the HQ. It's evergreen. For the most part, I don't believe these people see themselves doing it, and I think working memory overload might be the reason why. At the point of deciding about a given fact situation, a person's general political stance becomes the basis of of that decision--not all the material facts that might have a bearing on the issue. This is because keeping those general forms in mind is much easier. "I don't recall what I said/reported yesterday about the identical situation, vis-a-vis the Other Group, so I'm going to phrase it completely differently today. Besides, I like this group." So this ballpark-it way of deciding works as a solution to working memory overload, but it also serves-up endless opportunities for rebuttal. I know Ace has some different ideas about this stuff. Maybe he'll talk about that soon. Follow me on Twitter. Update: Good grief, that was weak. I put a better explanation of the problem and the solution below the fold.Comments
(Jump to bottom of comments)Posted by: lowandslow at November 23, 2011 07:36 PM (GZitp)
Posted by: SUPERUNKNOWN at November 23, 2011 07:37 PM (L4G4s)
Posted by: Bawney Fwank at November 23, 2011 07:39 PM (SYrAh)
Posted by: Unclefacts Out Of Commenting Retirement Just For This One Thing at November 23, 2011 07:40 PM (6IReR)
Posted by: Zakn at November 23, 2011 07:41 PM (zyaZ1)
Posted by: Zakn at November 23, 2011 07:41 PM (zyaZ1)
As for your example of the teacher who confronted the Round Mound of Fiscal Soundness, it'sentirely possible she has more than one personality.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at November 23, 2011 07:43 PM (d0Tfm)
I don't get how the "Monty Hall" problem is a "myth", though. It's just math.
Posted by: Waterhouse at November 23, 2011 07:45 PM (DMIs1)
Posted by: soothie at November 23, 2011 07:46 PM (yhYn1)
put onebit of information on it, anotherbit of information has to be
deleted.
Wasn't that a Married with Children episode?
Posted by: Waterhouse at November 23, 2011 07:46 PM (DMIs1)
So I got a guy really POd at me for pointing out the fallacy.
At first the contestant has to pick 1 of 3 doors. He picks. Monty then removes an unpicked door leaving 2.
The Monty Hall problem is "Is it to your advantage to switch your choice?"
Mathematicians go ape over this, but here is the fallacy.
Your first choice is between 3, 1 in 3.
Your second choice is between 2, 1 in 2.
Monty does not remove a winning door, so you truly have a 50/50 choice in the second instance. But you don't own that door, you are truly making a second 50/50 choice.
But Vos Savant says you should always switch. But that is the fallacy. You aren't switching. You are making a second choice, a 50/50 choice in that second instance. But the "results" support Vos Savant. Why?
Well I think clearly it's the human factor. With Monty Hall leaning over you everyone forgets... Monty knows. So I look forward to seeing what method Mythbusters uses to remove that element.
Posted by: DANEgerus at November 23, 2011 07:46 PM (e3/KR)
Posted by: Pecos, All Perry, all the time at November 23, 2011 07:46 PM (2Gb0y)
Posted by: Unclefacts Out Of Commenting Retirement Just For This One Thing at November 23, 2011 07:40 PM (6IReR)
Ayup. Plus their methodology sucks.
Posted by: ErikW at November 23, 2011 07:47 PM (95++m)
The left has one principle - that which advances the power of the left is good, that which diminishes it is bad.
Working from this presumption, all else makes sense.
Posted by: 18-1 at November 23, 2011 07:47 PM (3aXbg)
Posted by: rdbrewer at November 23, 2011 07:48 PM (UfxxJ)
Posted by: Delta Smelt at November 23, 2011 07:49 PM (dV45O)
Posted by: Unclefacts Out Of Commenting Retirement Just For This One Thing at November 23, 2011 07:50 PM (6IReR)
Posted by: fluffy at November 23, 2011 07:51 PM (O6q63)
Posted by: Bob Undead Saget at November 23, 2011 07:51 PM (dBvlk)
If your strategy is no switching, then you must guess right the first time: 1 out of 3 chance of winning.
If your strategy is switching, then you must guess wrong the first time: 2 out of 3 chance of winning.
Assuming Monty doesn't sweeten the pot or play other games, you should switch every time.
The easiest way to see this is if there are 100 doors and one prize. You pick a door, Monty opens up 98 non-prize-winning doors. Should you switch then? You betcha!
Posted by: AmishDude at November 23, 2011 07:51 PM (73tyQ)
Posted by: pko Strany at November 23, 2011 07:51 PM (RJOgX)
Posted by: Waterhouse at November 23, 2011 07:51 PM (DMIs1)
Could've been, I've never seen that show. It's a downright handy excuse, especially at my age.
I can't waituntil Ireach Full Curmudgeon.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at November 23, 2011 07:51 PM (d0Tfm)
Roll 1 dice. 1 in 6 chance of a 6. Roll it again, 1 in 6 chance of a 6. No matter how many times you roll a single legal 6 sided die you have a 1 in 6 chance of rolling a 6.
But... if the problem was what are your chances of rolling 2 6's in a row, then the probabilities encompass both rolls don't they.
So pick a door, any door, and then... and then... you make the 50/50 choice of doors. All the rest is magic.
Posted by: DANEgerus at November 23, 2011 07:52 PM (e3/KR)
Posted by: Clubber Lang at November 23, 2011 07:53 PM (BXqkH)
Posted by: occupy Ace protester at November 23, 2011 07:53 PM (qjUnn)
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at November 23, 2011 07:51 PM (d0Tfm)
So you're pushing 70 from the wrong side?
Posted by: ErikW at November 23, 2011 07:53 PM (95++m)
Posted by: andycanuck at November 23, 2011 07:54 PM (/VGq8)
They often test things that could be settled with two minutes pencil work on the back of an envelope.
How smart can they be?
Posted by: Bawney Fwank at November 23, 2011 07:54 PM (SYrAh)
I thought the Monty Hall Problem was trying to make a deal to screw one woman in an uncomfortable place.
Posted by: Waterhouse at November 23, 2011 07:55 PM (DMIs1)
So why are you holding out? Monty loves that shit. He'll pick you, for sure!
Posted by: fluffy at November 23, 2011 07:55 PM (O6q63)
That I won't blame them for, they do have a show to produce.
Posted by: AmishDude at November 23, 2011 07:55 PM (73tyQ)
Posted by: Clutch Cargo at November 23, 2011 07:55 PM (Qxdfp)
Posted by: fluffy at November 23, 2011 07:56 PM (O6q63)
Posted by: Clubber Lang at November 23, 2011 07:53 PM (BXqkH)
They're both flaming leftards.
Posted by: ErikW at November 23, 2011 07:57 PM (95++m)
I'd argue it doesn't matter.
When you first pick, there is a one in three chance you pick the door with the prize.
When Hall removes one door, there is now a one in two chance it is behind *either* door. So change or stay it doesn't matter.
Unless you presume Hall knows and has a tell, then use that.
Posted by: 18-1 at November 23, 2011 07:58 PM (3aXbg)
Are you saying ppl don't prioritize info to make a decision?
Posted by: hutch1200 at November 23, 2011 07:58 PM (Nt3Jp)
Pretty much. Now, get off my lawn.
How's that? No, wait. GTF off my lawn!
Hmm, needs more inflection, brb, got to practice in front of a mirror.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at November 23, 2011 07:59 PM (d0Tfm)
Leftards don't give a shit if they contradict themselves. They want power, and they don't care what it takes. They justify that they 'care' more and are 'good people'.
But they do and say whatever they want to get what they want: control.
Posted by: Log Cabin at November 23, 2011 07:59 PM (1e6Xt)
I thought datstuff got posted in the morning when I was off busting my hump?
Posted by: Delta Smelt at November 23, 2011 08:01 PM (dV45O)
Posted by: Llarry at November 23, 2011 08:02 PM (e7bui)
Posted by: CoolCzech at November 23, 2011 08:03 PM (niZvt)
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at November 23, 2011 07:59 PM (d0Tfm)
Fair enough. I have a bottle of Old Number 7 and a home-made pumpkin roll I'm dedicating to you.
Incidentally, I call that breakfast.
Posted by: ErikW at November 23, 2011 08:04 PM (95++m)
Posted by: Llarry at November 23, 2011 08:02 PM (e7bui)
Probably because they got their asses handed to them.
Posted by: ErikW at November 23, 2011 08:06 PM (95++m)
Posted by: ChipW at November 23, 2011 08:07 PM (f14vX)
Posted by: ErikW at November 23, 2011 08:06 PM (95++m)
WINNAH!!
Butt they like that sort of thing.
Posted by: hutch1200 at November 23, 2011 08:07 PM (Nt3Jp)
No, it does if you assume that Monty will always show you a non-prize door, no matter what.
Posted by: AmishDude at November 23, 2011 08:07 PM (73tyQ)
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at November 23, 2011 08:08 PM (eHIJJ)
Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at November 23, 2011 08:08 PM (XytS0)
I have a 1/100 choice of doors.
Monty then has a 98/99 informed choice of doors.
I can keep my 1/100 guess or take his 98/99 informed choice.
Switch.
I was wrong, I concede to 'AmishDude' and thank you, that one has made me crazy for years.
Posted by: DANEgerus at November 23, 2011 08:09 PM (e3/KR)
Posted by: steevy at November 23, 2011 08:13 PM (7WJOC)
Posted by: ErikW at November 23, 2011 08:14 PM (95++m)
I thought moonbattery was what happened when an OWSer assaulted someone. Especially that one guy what was throwing batteries at the cops; that was moonbattery assault with a battery.
Posted by: Anachronda at November 23, 2011 08:14 PM (xGZ+b)
http://tinyurl.com/7gox4b2
Posted by: Llarry at November 23, 2011 08:15 PM (e7bui)
If your strategy is switching, then you must guess wrong the first time: 2 out of 3 chance of winning.
That, right there, is it in a nutshell. The only way not switching works is if you were right on your initial pick, which had a one in three chance of being right.
Posted by: Andy at November 23, 2011 08:15 PM (XG+Mn)
If your strategy is no switching, then you must guess right the first time: 1 out of 3 chance of winning.If your strategy is switching, then you must guess wrong the first time: 2 out of 3 chance of winning.But we deceive ourselves by thinking that we know less than we do. On the surface it seems like Monty didn't tell us anything: I knew that at least one of the two that I didn't pick wasn't a winner, and he merely confirmed that with his reveal. But we know much more than that: we know the rules of the game. And assuming a fair game, and with only three options, you can write out on a piece of paper all possible combinations of where the winning door is, what initial choice you make, and what door is opened for you. If you run through all those combinations, you will find that after the reveal there are more pathways that lead to the other door being the winner than there are to your initial choice. So your odds improve by switching.
Posted by: somebody else, not me at November 23, 2011 08:17 PM (7EV/g)
Posted by: steevy at November 23, 2011 08:17 PM (7WJOC)
Posted by: Llarry at November 23, 2011 08:21 PM (e7bui)
Monty knows. He never opens the door that reveals the prize. Therefor, since (a) you had a 67% chance of being wrong when you chose your door, and (b) this means that the remaining doors are 67% likely to hold the prize, and (c) Monty never opens the door with the prize, then (d) 67% of the time, the door Monty did not open has the prize.
Another way of looking at it: 67% of the time, the prize is in one of the two doors you did not choose. Monty is giving you the option of choosing both of those doors, instead of your single door. Right? Because even if you assume Monty does not know, then some of the time he's going to open the door with the prize--you can choose that door, knowing you have the prize. And some of the time he's going to open the door without the prize, and those two doors are still twice as likely to hold the prize as your single door.
Or just look at the example of 100 doors above.
Posted by: Stephen Price Blair at November 23, 2011 08:22 PM (7Ahkq)
Making the Thanksgiving Meth. Did ya get yours?
BTW on The Price is Right....Always take the advice from the drunken, screaming guy dressed as Tarzan.
Posted by: hutch1200 at November 23, 2011 08:22 PM (Nt3Jp)
Posted by: steevy at November 23, 2011 08:24 PM (7WJOC)
So... if you promise me unicorns that shit skittles and tell me the rich will buy the unicorn feed and tell the rich that buying unicorn feed will help stop man made global warming because they can sell the skittles to the Chinese in exchange for gerbils to stick up everyone ass...have the terrorists won?
Posted by: Stinky Occupy Hippie at November 23, 2011 08:26 PM (gppu7)
Yep! Thanks for hiding it in the cranberries.
Nobody checks the cranberries.
Posted by: ErikW at November 23, 2011 08:26 PM (95++m)
Posted by: Door1 at November 23, 2011 08:27 PM (h6XiD)
Posted by: Ronster at November 23, 2011 08:28 PM (/c/ec)
Posted by: Llarry at November 23, 2011 08:28 PM (e7bui)
Posted by: Blue Falcon in Boston training for the ONT mudwrestling match at November 23, 2011 08:28 PM (ijjAe)
That sounds like a great breakfast. The Daughter of Satan's (my ex) sister had a really good recipe for pumpkin roll, but thatwas lost alongwith the house, BackwardsBoy2, and everything else.
And have you tried theWild Turkey American Honey? I recommended that to Vic as his porch rocker lubricant.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at November 23, 2011 08:29 PM (d0Tfm)
Posted by: steevy at November 23, 2011 08:29 PM (7WJOC)
Posted by: Trimegistus at November 23, 2011 08:30 PM (2B0Xn)
Their conclusion: It is a myth.
They ever even attempted to set up the situation where the end of the cable would strike the pig carcass.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at November 23, 2011 08:30 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: Llarry at November 23, 2011 08:28 PM (e7bui)
He's a Socialist, so yes.
Just like Llarry is.
Denial, it what's for mid-morning brunch.
Posted by: ErikW at November 23, 2011 08:31 PM (95++m)
That's the single most important issue in my life right now.
I envy you.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at November 23, 2011 08:31 PM (piMMO)
But then, I'm generally sick of excuse after excuse for not doing the right thing. If your morality is so situational that you have to keep track of when wrong is wrong and when it's right, you are unfit for the basic rights and responsibilities of a republic.
Posted by: AoSHQ's DarkLord© sez F--- Nevada! at November 23, 2011 08:31 PM (Fs7RJ)
Posted by: Trimegistus at November 23, 2011 08:32 PM (2B0Xn)
Posted by: Chris at November 23, 2011 08:33 PM (w6miV)
And yes, I'd have to be surgically removed from Karina Smirnoff, just in case she asks...
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at November 23, 2011 08:33 PM (d0Tfm)
Have a good one!
Posted by: ErikW at November 23, 2011 08:35 PM (95++m)
Posted by: Liberal at November 23, 2011 08:37 PM (w9vb/)
Posted by: Blue Falcon in Boston training for the ONT mudwrestling match at November 23, 2011 08:37 PM (ijjAe)
I'd learn more from watching Katie Couric's colonoscopy.
Posted by: Ed Anger - Certified Kos Kid at November 23, 2011 08:38 PM (7+pP9)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at November 23, 2011 08:39 PM (piMMO)
I am strangly watching the same thing and have a similar thought. His crack about circumsizing goldfish in San Fransico was da funney.
Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at November 23, 2011 08:40 PM (OWjjx)
Somebody else is right. There is a higher probability that the remaining door is the right door: so switch.
Posted by: carolina at November 23, 2011 08:41 PM (wCa6s)
At the point of deciding about a given fact situation, a person's general political stance becomes the basis of of that decision--not all the material facts that have might have a bearing on the issue.
This is the part that interests me. But I think the "general political stance" is usually derived from negative experiences with authority figures. I could swear that 90% of progressive policies are just reactions against the time "mean old daddy wouldn't let me go the party that one time." It's all reactionary from that point on.
Posted by: rfichoke at November 23, 2011 08:41 PM (SYhX2)
Posted by: Blue Falcon in Boston training for the ONT mudwrestling match at November 23, 2011 08:37 PM (ijjAe)
That's true. The low A key string in a baby grand piano carries 2,000 lbs.
Posted by: ErikW at November 23, 2011 08:43 PM (95++m)
He's a Socialist, so yes.Just like Llarry is.
Denial, it what's for mid-morning brunch.Yes, I'm a socialist! I've never voted for a Democrat; I want my taxes lowered; I want far fewer government regulations; I oppose ObamaCare; I oppose the Dodd-Frank Act; I oppose cutting the defense budget; I'm a gun owner; I oppose deficit spending; I support far-ranging reform of Medicare and Socila Security...
Leftists call people racists to try and shut them up; rightists call them socialists. People who can't think and who hate disagreement always resort to name calling. It's what idiots do.
Posted by: Llarry at November 23, 2011 08:45 PM (e7bui)
I took the box that Carol was standing in front of and ended up with 6 goats.
Posted by: Guy What Has Wide Lapelled Green Rayon Leisure Suit On at November 23, 2011 08:46 PM (jucos)
Posted by: Llarry at November 23, 2011 08:02 PM (e7bui)
Banning it off their forums doesn't mean they aren't truthers. They were probably tired of being made to look like the retarded fuckwagons they are.
Posted by: Unclefacts Out Of Commenting Retirement Just For This One Thing at November 23, 2011 08:47 PM (6IReR)
------
Things look a lot different after 'the progressive' becomes the "mean old daddy" themselves. Some of them even get a clue.
Posted by: carolina at November 23, 2011 08:47 PM (wCa6s)
Posted by: ErikW at November 23, 2011 08:49 PM (95++m)
mean they aren't truthers. They were probably tired of being made to
look like the retarded fuckwagons they are.
Yeah, they're probably socialists! Especially the one working with the military to create better armor. Fucking socialist!
Posted by: Llarry at November 23, 2011 08:50 PM (e7bui)
Posted by: Culo by Mazzucco ePub at November 23, 2011 08:50 PM (wUW/i)
Posted by: Llarry at November 23, 2011 08:50 PM (e7bui)
There already. Go ahead, give me a try. Curmudgeon is easy; lovable curmudgeon is the tough one. Whippersnappers.
Posted by: L Rob in OK at November 23, 2011 08:51 PM (7yvLv)
operators could tell them horror stories. A high tension cable snapping,
even in a piano, is enough to do a world of damage to you.
Railroads and amusement parks would also beg to differ.
It was just so half-hearted and so disingenuous of them to conduct the experiment the way they did. I am not scientist, but even I understood that the energy had been diverted to the end of the cable. They didn't even make an honest attempt.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at November 23, 2011 08:51 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: grease monkey at November 23, 2011 08:52 PM (VSWPU)
Yeah, they're probably socialists! Especially the one working with the military to create better armor. Fucking socialist!
Posted by: Llarry at November 23, 2011 08:50 PM (e7bui)
Didn't say anything about them being socialists. I said the skinny was one a truther, and I heard it from his own fucking mouth.
Now, go get your fuckin shinebox.
Posted by: Unclefacts Out Of Commenting Retirement Just For This One Thing at November 23, 2011 08:52 PM (6IReR)
Pretty well caught up with politics and the general state of the world this week. For at least 3 days,anyway.
The house smells tremendous thanks to the pumpkin and apple pies just out of the oven plus there's 2 doe we cut up yesterday. And ate the tenderloin during the project. Good times.
So for a bit, it's gonna be football and eat yourself into a coma.
Posted by: irongrampa at November 23, 2011 08:52 PM (SAMxH)
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at November 23, 2011 08:53 PM (JYheX)
Posted by: L Rob in OK at November 23, 2011 08:53 PM (7yvLv)
Go ahead and post a link to it. Should be easy to find.
Posted by: Llarry at November 23, 2011 08:53 PM (e7bui)
Posted by: Llarry at November 23, 2011 08:50 PM (e7bui)
I was just repeating your own words, douchebag.
Posted by: ErikW at November 23, 2011 08:53 PM (95++m)
"Socialist" is not a general pejorative. It has a specific meaning. For instance,
working with the military to create better armor.
Does not make him not a socialist.
By the way, is this an altruistic venture or does he get paid?
Posted by: AmishDude at November 23, 2011 08:54 PM (73tyQ)
Posted by: Llarry at November 23, 2011 08:53 PM (e7bui)
Saw what I saw, the fact that your panties are in a twist is your problem champ, not mine.
Posted by: Unclefacts Out Of Commenting Retirement Just For This One Thing at November 23, 2011 08:54 PM (6IReR)
Posted by: L Rob in OK at November 23, 2011 08:54 PM (7yvLv)
Posted by: Supercore23 at November 23, 2011 08:55 PM (ZUFNn)
Posted by: Ronster at November 23, 2011 08:55 PM (/c/ec)
I thought the Monty Hall Problem was trying to make a deal to screw one woman in an uncomfortable place.
Posted by: Waterhouse at November 23, 2011 07:55 PM (DMIs1)
I'll go with Squeakhole Number Two, Monty!
Posted by: Herminator Cain at November 23, 2011 08:56 PM (niZvt)
Posted by: L Rob in OK at November 23, 2011 08:56 PM (7yvLv)
Unclefacts sure does seem to know a lot about what "probably" happened on the myth busters forums.
Posted by: Supercore23 at November 23, 2011 08:55 PM (ZUFNn)
I made a supposition based on my suspicions of what probably happened on the forums. What the fuck is your point?
Posted by: Unclefacts Out Of Commenting Retirement Just For This One Thing at November 23, 2011 08:56 PM (6IReR)
Posted by: Unclefacts Out Of Commenting Retirement Just For This One Thing at November 23, 2011 08:57 PM (6IReR)
Posted by: CoolCzech at November 23, 2011 08:57 PM (niZvt)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at November 23, 2011 08:58 PM (FKQng)
An even more retarded, inept, childish, moronic non-response. Excellent. You're quite the thinker, aren't you?
Posted by: Llarry at November 23, 2011 08:58 PM (e7bui)
When did he say that he was a Truther - during an episode of Mythbusters, or at some public appearance?
Posted by: A. Smith at November 23, 2011 08:58 PM (XDdB5)
Posted by: Ronster at November 23, 2011 08:59 PM (/c/ec)
Things look a lot different after 'the progressive' becomes the "mean old daddy" themselves. Some of them even get a clue.
Sure. But the ones who don't are lifers. And there's always a fresh batch of angry self-indulgent hedonists to hack away at the established wisdom of the ages.
Posted by: rfichoke at November 23, 2011 08:59 PM (SYhX2)
Sheesh.
Posted by: Supercore23 at November 23, 2011 08:59 PM (ZUFNn)
When did he say that he was a Truther - during an episode of Mythbusters, or at some public appearance?
Posted by: A. Smith at November 23, 2011 08:58 PM (XDdB5)
Public appearance which immediately set of the shit storm.
Posted by: Unclefacts Out Of Commenting Retirement Just For This One Thing at November 23, 2011 08:59 PM (6IReR)
Posted by: Phoenixgirl at November 23, 2011 09:00 PM (NqULD)
Uncle, my point is that if you want to have a valid point you must link
to evidence. That's... Thats how this whole Internet thing works, man.
Sheesh.
Posted by: Supercore23 at November 23, 2011 08:59 PM (ZUFNn)
I guess if I gave a flying fuck what you thought it'd be an issue for me. Fortunately, I don't.
Posted by: Unclefacts Out Of Commenting Retirement Just For This One Thing at November 23, 2011 09:00 PM (6IReR)
Ah. What a surprise. You could knock me over with a feather! You can't actually post a link to either Mythbuster saying in his own words that he's a truther! Don't that just beat all.
Posted by: Llarry at November 23, 2011 09:01 PM (e7bui)
Posted by: Llarry at November 23, 2011 08:58 PM (e7bui)
Ah! Name calling again.
It is what you Alinsky types do best.
Posted by: ErikW at November 23, 2011 09:01 PM (95++m)
Posted by: Killerdog at November 23, 2011 09:01 PM (CZrbJ)
Posted by: Phoenixgirl at November 23, 2011 09:00 PM (NqULD)
It gets chubbier!
Posted by: CoolCzech at November 23, 2011 09:02 PM (niZvt)
I then found a d3 simulator and ran it through a number of runs and saw what the outcomes of staying and switching would be, presuming Hall always reveals a losing door before offering you a change to change.
The results:
Stay: 20%, 50%, 40% AVG: 37%
Change: 80%, 50%, 60%: AVG: 63%
Which I would guess seeing the pattern would average out to 33% vs 67% over infinite runs. So I'll have to retract my original argument.
Posted by: 18-1 at November 23, 2011 09:02 PM (3aXbg)
Such a shitstorm that's there's no evidence of it anywhere on the Internet.
Posted by: Llarry at November 23, 2011 09:03 PM (e7bui)
feather! You can't actually post a link to either Mythbuster saying in
his own words that he's a truther! Don't that just beat all.
Posted by: Llarry at November 23, 2011 09:01 PM (e7bui)
And you like the asshat you are immediately confuse can't with, don't give a fuck what you want. You crying yet?
Posted by: Unclefacts Out Of Commenting Retirement Just For This One Thing at November 23, 2011 09:03 PM (6IReR)
Who in hell would want that dumbass to help them design military body armor?
Posted by: Ed Anger - Certified Kos Kid at November 23, 2011 09:04 PM (7+pP9)
Posted by: grease monkey at November 23, 2011 09:04 PM (VSWPU)
Posted by: Liberal at November 23, 2011 09:04 PM (w9vb/)
Posted by: Llarry at November 23, 2011 09:04 PM (e7bui)
Posted by: Phoenixgirl at November 23, 2011 09:04 PM (NqULD)
Posted by: Unclefacts Out Of Commenting Retirement Just For This One Thing at November 23, 2011 09:05 PM (6IReR)
Posted by: Bob Undead Saget at November 23, 2011 09:05 PM (dBvlk)
Posted by: ErikW at November 23, 2011 08:43 PM (95++m)
Or one Michael Moore.
Posted by: 18-1 at November 23, 2011 09:05 PM (3aXbg)
If you want to enjoy the show, enjoy it as fiction, not education.
*MUCH* of what the Discovery Channel offers should be taken in the same light.
It's not just the methodology, which is frequently so bad it shows they just don't care, they don't even get terminology or basic, easily-checkable facts right half the time.
I almost thought the Obama Special was a setup *against* him, it was so embarrassingly bad.
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at November 23, 2011 09:05 PM (bxiXv)
Yes, thank you. Something bothered me about this post from jump street. I couldn't put my finger on it.
The thing that bothers me is, this is actually two posts: The "WTF are leftards thinking?" post, and an interesting post on "wither Monty Hall?"
Anyway.
Poor Smudge, dressed as he is as a chicken in a diaper, has finally reached the finale of Let's Make a Deal. Monty has presented him with the three doors, and Smudge chooses one. Then Monty takes away a different door by revealing what it concealed: a mink bikini-clad burro and a personal wind farm.
Smudge doesn't know it, but the Monty Hall conundrum is easy: It doesn't matter whether one of the three doors is "taken away" sinceSmudge's odds don't improve.
You see,Smudge hasexactly as much information about the doorhe initially chose before the reveal as he did before, right?
Then how could it be that any information has been added to the system? Certainly, ifhe knew more about the other doors after the reveal, he would be able to figure out something new abouthis own door, right?
Therefore, the converse is true as well: Since we can't say any more about the doorhe's chosen after the reveal, then no more information has been added to the system.
Therefore, the odds are not1 in 2as we had presumed; they are actually 1 in 3, even though there are now only two available choices! Poor Smudge!
That is the Monty Hall problem: You think your odds go way up when they "take away" a door. But the door's still there. And any choice you make about the THREE doors will have poorer odds than you think it will.
Posted by: Truman North at November 23, 2011 09:05 PM (I2LwF)
Posted by: nickless, back with the banned (99.174.64.43) at November 23, 2011 09:06 PM (cBVAS)
Posted by: Supercore23 at November 23, 2011 09:06 PM (ZUFNn)
Mythbusters, while a bit sketchy at times regarding the science, they're usually spot on about the method. Plus they aren't afraid to admit they might be wrong and re-test myths.
And let's be honest...if we refused to watch TV and movies where we disagreed with the actors....well, we'd be watching reruns of Benny Hill and Laugh-In for the rest of our days.
Posted by: Lone Marauder, pre-denounced for your convenience at November 23, 2011 09:06 PM (5SxTX)
Posted by: Unclefacts Out Of Commenting Retirement Just For This One Thing at November 23, 2011 09:07 PM (6IReR)
I get it. You're doing a parody of a mindlessly bellicose alcoholic, right?
Posted by: Llarry at November 23, 2011 09:07 PM (e7bui)
39 Memory overload ? You are waaaay over thinking this. Leftards don't give a shit if they contradict themselves. They want power, and they don't care what it takes. They justify that they 'care' more and are 'good people'. But they do and say whatever they want to get what they want: control.
-
Yes, thank you. Something bothered me about this post from jump street. I couldn't put my finger on it. The thing that bothers me is, this is actually two posts: The "WTF are leftards thinking?" post, and an interesting post on "wither Monty Hall?"
-
Anyway.
-Poor Smudge, dressed as he is as a chicken in a diaper, has finally reached the finale of Let's Make a Deal. Monty has presented him with the three doors, and Smudge chooses one.
-
Then Monty takes away a different door by revealing what it concealed: a mink bikini-clad burro and a personal wind farm.
-Smudge doesn't know it, but the Monty Hall conundrum is easy: It doesn't matter whether one of the three doors is "taken away" sinceSmudge's odds don't improve.
-You see,Smudge hasexactly as much information about the doorhe initially chose before the reveal as he did before, right? Then how could it be that any information has been added to the system? Certainly, ifhe knew more about the other doors after the reveal, he would be able to figure out something new abouthis own door, right?
-Therefore, the converse is true as well: Since we can't say any more about the doorhe's chosen after the reveal, then no more information has been added to the system. Therefore, the odds are not1 in 2as we had presumed; they are actually 1 in 3, even though there are now only two available choices! Poor Smudge!
-That is the Monty Hall problem: You think your odds go way up when they "take away" a door. But the door's still there. And any choice you make about the THREE doors will have poorer odds than you think it will.
Posted by: Truman North at November 23, 2011 09:08 PM (I2LwF)
Posted by: Liberal at November 23, 2011 09:09 PM (w9vb/)
Posted by: Llarry at November 23, 2011 09:04 PM (e7bui)
That makes no sense.
Anywho, itis what you Alinsky types do best.
Posted by: ErikW at November 23, 2011 09:09 PM (95++m)
Uncle, just tell us where you saw it at least. Was it on an episode? A
webisode? A panel or a speech? If this is true I would want to know, we
just can't take your word alone on it.
Posted by: Supercore23 at November 23, 2011 09:06 PM (ZUFNn)
was on infowars a while back. about 38 seconds later their forums went nuclear.
Posted by: Unclefacts Out Of Commenting Retirement Just For This One Thing at November 23, 2011 09:09 PM (6IReR)
Posted by: rdbrewer at November 23, 2011 09:09 PM (UfxxJ)
movies where we disagreed with the actors....well, we'd be watching
reruns of Benny Hill and Laugh-In for the rest of our days.
Posted by: Lone Marauder, pre-denounced for your convenience at November 23, 2011 09:06 PM (5SxTX)
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Posted by: Killerdog at November 23, 2011 09:10 PM (CZrbJ)
Posted by: Llarry at November 23, 2011 09:07 PM (e7bui)
no, I just don't give enough of a fuck about what you want, or say to be bothered. clear enough?
Posted by: Unclefacts Out Of Commenting Retirement Just For This One Thing at November 23, 2011 09:10 PM (6IReR)
To you it doesn't, because you're too stupid to understand that when you complain about someone being a name caller and then instantly call them names, it negates your own complaint.
Embarrassing to have to spell it out for you.
Posted by: Llarry at November 23, 2011 09:11 PM (e7bui)
who the fuck let the amateur in?
Posted by: Unclefacts Out Of Commenting Retirement Just For This One Thing at November 23, 2011 09:11 PM (6IReR)
Posted by: L Rob in OK at November 23, 2011 09:11 PM (7yvLv)
"I thought the Monty Hall Problem was trying to make a deal to screw one woman in an uncomfortable place."
Posted by: Waterhouse at November 23, 2011 07:55 PM (DMIs1)
What, like the back seat of a Volkswagen?
Posted by: Genetic Tunder at November 23, 2011 09:11 PM (vQfJ3)
Company not hiring till SCOAMF is GONE!
----
I know how it feels. One more year to go. Three years of going galt. Scraping along, but I WILL NOT WORK until he's gone. I won't contribute to his cause whatsoever. Just lucky my type of business can scrape along on autopilot for years.
Posted by: Jimmah at November 23, 2011 09:12 PM (Gx9ZQ)
Posted by: Supercore23 at November 23, 2011 09:12 PM (ZUFNn)
out to 33% vs 67% over infinite runs. So I'll have to retract my
original argument.
Posted by: 18-1 at November 23, 2011 09:02 PM (3aXbg)
This is why we have math. The other way is so messy.
Posted by: AmishDude at November 23, 2011 09:12 PM (73tyQ)
and you say alcoholic like it's a bad thing, you do know where you are, right?"
Girls, some of our greatest writers are such.
Posted by: Liberal at November 23, 2011 09:13 PM (w9vb/)
Posted by: rdbrewer at November 23, 2011 09:13 PM (UfxxJ)
Posted by: Waterhouse at November 23, 2011 09:13 PM (DMIs1)
Not clear at all, actually. It's gibberish. No wonder you're so mindlessly hostile. You can't express yourself, so nobody has any idea what you mean.
Posted by: Llarry at November 23, 2011 09:13 PM (e7bui)
Ok, so Uncle just backed up his assertion saying he saw it on fucking InfoWars. Seriously dude? GTFO.
Posted by: Supercore23 at November 23, 2011 09:12 PM (ZUFNn)
yeah because it was there, they must have dubbed him saying his shit right?
feel free to join llarry in getting the shineboxes.
Posted by: Unclefacts Out Of Commenting Retirement Just For This One Thing at November 23, 2011 09:13 PM (6IReR)
wonder you're so mindlessly hostile. You can't express yourself, so
nobody has any idea what you mean.
Posted by: Llarry at November 23, 2011 09:13 PM (e7bui)
I think you got what I said just fine.
Posted by: Unclefacts Out Of Commenting Retirement Just For This One Thing at November 23, 2011 09:14 PM (6IReR)
Posted by: Waterhouse at November 23, 2011 09:15 PM (DMIs1)
street. I couldn't put my finger on it.
The thing that bothers me is, this is actually two posts: The "WTF are
leftards thinking?" post, and an interesting post on "wither Monty
Hall?"
No, Truman; it's about working memory overload. The whole post is about working memory overload. The Monty Hall problem is merely the vehicle.
Posted by: rdbrewer at November 23, 2011 09:16 PM (UfxxJ)
Posted by: Llarry at November 23, 2011 09:16 PM (e7bui)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at November 23, 2011 09:17 PM (r4wIV)
Posted by: Liberal at November 23, 2011 09:17 PM (w9vb/)
Posted by: Two Girls at November 23, 2011 09:17 PM (niZvt)
You're the douchebag promoting Socialism. I have no obligation to discuss reality with you.
Posted by: ErikW at November 23, 2011 09:17 PM (95++m)
I think you got what I said just fine.
How overweight are you, by the way?
Posted by: Llarry at November 23, 2011 09:16 PM (e7bui)
What does that have to do with anything?
Posted by: Killerdog at November 23, 2011 09:17 PM (CZrbJ)
Posted by: grease monkey at November 23, 2011 09:18 PM (VSWPU)
Posted by: Tendstl at November 23, 2011 09:18 PM (ogCxr)
Posted by: Liberal at November 23, 2011 09:19 PM (w9vb/)
Posted by: Llarry at November 23, 2011 09:19 PM (e7bui)
Posted by: Mohamed the goat fucker at November 23, 2011 09:20 PM (hXJOG)
Posted by: Llarry at November 23, 2011 09:20 PM (e7bui)
Posted by: Lone Marauder, pre-denounced for your convenience at November 23, 2011 09:06 PM (5SxTX)
They are horrifying. They don't even test the myth a substantial amount of the time, they twist it in the middle to make some other point or just make it easier. They invent new rules halfway through a myth, apply conditions no one ever heard of as part of the myth, their math is often bad and they mislabel items or terms regularly.
Practically every episode has multiple significant flaws. They sometimes do get things very right, and sometimes they even have a method that makes complete sense.
Unfortunately their "re-test to check our own results" thing is mainly what the rabid fans want to see, rather than what they actually get wrong.
It is an entertainment show.
They would have done much better just doing a show about special effects and how they do them than trying to claim any mantle of legitimacy.
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at November 23, 2011 09:21 PM (bxiXv)
Posted by: Tendstl at November 23, 2011 09:22 PM (ogCxr)
Posted by: Supercore23 at November 23, 2011 09:22 PM (ZUFNn)
Former administrator (who sounds really pissed) seems to have leaked email trails to the WSJ that show Joe Pa fought tooth and nail against any university oversight of the disciplinary matters for his team. Included in the emails is one from the Athletics Directory (Curley) confirming that Paterno did not think the university should report student violations even when "morally and legally obligated" to do so. The time-frame goes up to 2007 when she finally resigned in protest and the university assigned a stooge to kowtow to Paterno.
Joe Pa is so charred and toasted he'd better start wearing asbestos shorts.
Posted by: Y-not, pants back on at November 23, 2011 09:22 PM (5H6zj)
Posted by: Liberal at November 23, 2011 09:23 PM (w9vb/)
So, it's just a tarted up version of Gallagher smashing watermelons?
Posted by: fluffy at November 23, 2011 09:24 PM (O6q63)
Posted by: irongrampa at November 23, 2011 09:24 PM (SAMxH)
Posted by: Llarry at November 23, 2011 09:20 PM (e7bui)
HAHAHA!
I don't need to. You've done it yourself.
Fool.
Posted by: ErikW at November 23, 2011 09:24 PM (95++m)
Jamie is a sharp guy, but as an engineer, not as a scientist.
Posted by: Y-not, pants back on at November 23, 2011 09:25 PM (5H6zj)
Posted by: irongrampa at November 23, 2011 09:24 PM (SAMxH)"
Iron Gramps, you firing blanks?
Posted by: Liberal at November 23, 2011 09:26 PM (w9vb/)
Posted by: The Drop epub at November 23, 2011 09:27 PM (oZhf0)
only relevant reference is to a story about him accidentally sneaking
razor blades in his carry on luggage on a flight. Any ideas where it
would have gone uncle?
"I heard what I heard, you fuck! Goddam socialist! I'll kill you! Urrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrp! Help! (Clunk)."
Posted by: Llarry at November 23, 2011 09:27 PM (e7bui)
Well, at least his lungs are.
Posted by: somebody else, not me at November 23, 2011 09:28 PM (7EV/g)
On the main point: It seems to me that if lib biases manifest because of factual overload, the only ways this would not be replicated on the right would be 1) the right is freer to disregard facts and hits overload less often or 2) leftiies are less intelligent. We would also see less bias on relatively simple issues than complicated ones. Do you have data?
Posted by: VRWC Agent at November 23, 2011 09:30 PM (JXaAZ)
Got it. Makes perfect sense.
Posted by: Llarry at November 23, 2011 09:31 PM (e7bui)
Posted by: Soap MacTavish at November 23, 2011 09:33 PM (vbh31)
Well, at least his lungs are.
Posted by: somebody else, not me at November 23, 2011 09:28 PM (7EV/g)
Cold.
Or warm as the case may be.
Posted by: ErikW at November 23, 2011 09:33 PM (95++m)
Sorry. Gotta call bullshit on this.
The fuckers do what they do so they can take my shit and make me jump through hoops for their amusement.
They knowingly lie.
Fuck 'em. They aren't even human. Why in the fuck should anybody give a rat's ass about how their vermin minds work?
Posted by: FRONT TOWARD LEFT at November 23, 2011 09:33 PM (p7SSh)
Posted by: fluffy at November 23, 2011 09:24 PM (O6q63)
I'd say so.
Jamie is a sharp guy, but as an engineer, not as a scientist.
Posted by: Y-not, pants back on at November 23, 2011 09:25 PM (5H6zj)
Jamie is a GREAT Okie-Engineer, and if the show had been about that it would be terrific.
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at November 23, 2011 09:34 PM (bxiXv)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at November 23, 2011 09:34 PM (piMMO)
If 12 people were indicted for voter fraud, how many would be democrats?
I am thinking, give me a minute.
http://tinyurl.com/7qvtenu
Posted by: Billy Bob, the guy who drinks in SC at November 23, 2011 09:35 PM (hXJOG)
Posted by: lowandslow at November 23, 2011 09:36 PM (GZitp)
Posted by: irongrampa at November 23, 2011 09:37 PM (SAMxH)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at November 23, 2011 09:38 PM (piMMO)
And liberals consider it wrong to go to conservative sites specifically because it may challenge their assumptions.
So, for example, take the 2000 election recount in FL. Almost everyone politically aware knows about Katherine Harris and her partisan affiliation. How many know the same of Bob Butterworth?
Posted by: 18-1 at November 23, 2011 09:38 PM (3aXbg)
There's a lot of petty bickering and name calling going on tonight. Reminds me of the Thanksgivings of my past.
We're getting ready for Festivus and the Airing of the Grievances.
Posted by: Y-not, pants back on at November 23, 2011 09:38 PM (5H6zj)
You are just talking indicted, right?
Posted by: Irv Slosberg at November 23, 2011 09:38 PM (3aXbg)
I read the link to the sidebar story on Rainbow 6. The description there seems to me you actually get to shoot the OWS instead of the T-party.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at November 23, 2011 09:39 PM (JYheX)
There's a lot of petty bickering and name calling going on tonight. Reminds me of the Thanksgivings of my past. Good times."
Fun, fun, fun, then you get banned. Ace in his astute ways to limit speech has chosen it.
I am pretty snocked though, so truth has little meaning
Posted by: Liberal at November 23, 2011 09:40 PM (w9vb/)
Sorry, rd. My moron brain couldn't even remember that from the beginning to the end. Must have been a case of memory overload. You ever hear of that?
Posted by: Truman North at November 23, 2011 09:40 PM (I2LwF)
Posted by: Bob Undead Saget at November 23, 2011 09:40 PM (dBvlk)
Posted by: steevy at November 23, 2011 09:40 PM (7WJOC)
I think the stress of too much family time, or the anticipation of said family time, has folks a bit on edge.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at November 23, 2011 09:41 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: Llarry at November 23, 2011 09:31 PM (e7bui)
Why are you here?
You're not convincing anyone any different from what they already believe.
That would be like me promoting Gingrich over at Kos.
Do you like being a pain in the ass?
Posted by: ErikW at November 23, 2011 09:41 PM (95++m)
I read the link to the sidebar story on Rainbow 6. The description
there seems to me you actually get to shoot the OWS instead of the
T-party.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at November 23, 2011 09:39 PM (JYheX)
You would be much safer shooting at the OWS, the Tea Party will shoot back for sure.
Posted by: Killerdog at November 23, 2011 09:41 PM (CZrbJ)
Did it ever occur to you that they're just a bunch of hypocritical, lying, butt-sniffing, cock-sucking, commie scumbags... and just leave it at that???
Don't make up fancy, convoluted excuses for naked dishonesty bias.
Sometimes a whore is just a whore.
Posted by: CPT. Charles at November 23, 2011 09:42 PM (1GunI)
Posted by: Betty & Friends ePub at November 23, 2011 09:42 PM (sKGGa)
Posted by: Y-not, pants back on at November 23, 2011 09:38 PM (5H6zj)
Not even Thanksgiving quite yet, and a Festivus reference...
Posted by: CoolCzech at November 23, 2011 09:42 PM (niZvt)
Heh.
Re the bias: I was thinking I have more respect for those who do it on purpose than those who just don't see their bias. It may be more evil, but it's less animal.
Posted by: rdbrewer at November 23, 2011 09:43 PM (UfxxJ)
Posted by: Genetic Tunder at November 23, 2011 09:43 PM (vQfJ3)
Yes, I'm a socialist!
If you were being sarcastic, a simple "socialism sucks, thank you" would be enough to assuage the negativity that seems to bother you.
Posted by: AmishDude at November 23, 2011 09:44 PM (73tyQ)
Actually, it took me quite a few pages of reading to figure out who they were shooting at.
But in case you are unclear: This is an Ubisoft Montreal production. And God forbid anybody makes a major media project where the leftists are the bad guys. It's not really all that hard to figure out.
Posted by: Truman North at November 23, 2011 09:44 PM (I2LwF)
We are in full-on holiday mode here at Casa Y-not, including Christmas music, two trees up and tummies full of turkey.
Posted by: Y-not, ho-ho-ho dammit at November 23, 2011 09:44 PM (5H6zj)
206 Yeah,and Clancy is a conservative,I believe he is the scenario writer.
True, but if Rainbow 6 does indeed have you eliminate "radical" Tea Partiers, Clancy probably had no knowledge of this in the game sporting his book title. In fact, didn't Clancy disavow the film adaptations of Clear and Present Danger and The Sum of all Fears because they significantly deviated from his novels?
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at November 23, 2011 09:45 PM (UR5vq)
#206: TEA Party: TP; True Patriots: TP. And OWS doesn't give a hoot
about the government's involvement in crony capitalism, while the TEA
Party (and the True Patriots) are bothered by both sides of it (although
the government bothers them more).
Are you threatening me?!?!
Posted by: The Great Cornholio at November 23, 2011 09:45 PM (QaKuj)
Posted by: Kim Kardashian at November 23, 2011 09:45 PM (vbh31)
That there is sheer fucking genius, and I wouldn't have missed it for the world.
Posted by: Llarry at November 23, 2011 09:45 PM (e7bui)
Is she not the cutest thing that ever lived?
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at November 23, 2011 09:45 PM (piMMO)
Most people, especially the unaware, un-self-critical, and juvenile, postulate that the greatest good for the general public just so happens to be what yields themselves the most direct benefits. As adults they just get slightly (and I do mean slightly) less obvious about it than a kid arguing that of course he should have the cookie.
Posted by: ace at November 23, 2011 09:46 PM (nj1bB)
I wrote a paper for a mass communications class with this thesis. Got a C+. Which probably means it was a dynamite paper that my professor disagreed with; but it might have been poor scholarship.
Posted by: Truman North at November 23, 2011 09:46 PM (I2LwF)
Posted by: Y-not, ho-ho-ho dammit at November 23, 2011 09:44 PM (5H6zj)
--I gotta wait at least until after work tomorrow (hey it's not a holiday in Canada) and settle in to the Cowboys game before I can get in the spirit. bad enough that i have to tune the music out when I've been shopping.
Posted by: logprof at November 23, 2011 09:47 PM (QaKuj)
Yeah, terrorists out to "behead corporate America" doesn't sound very tea party. If they make the terrorists look like shit-covered hippies I might have to buy this game.
Posted by: bernverdnardo at November 23, 2011 09:47 PM (xXhWA)
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at November 23, 2011 09:39 PM (JYheX)
Can we just make it a flight sim so I can do a BUFF strike on the OWS?
Posted by: Red Shirt at November 23, 2011 09:47 PM (FIDMq)
Posted by: AmishDude at November 23, 2011 09:44 PM (73tyQ)
No, he's a full fledged Socialist and deserves what he got.
Posted by: ErikW at November 23, 2011 09:47 PM (95++m)
Posted by: Brendan at November 23, 2011 09:49 PM (2jQGY)
Posted by: Liberal at November 23, 2011 09:50 PM (w9vb/)
Posted by: ErikW at November 23, 2011 09:47 PM (95++m)I thought it was worth pointing out that he admitted to it.
Posted by: AmishDude at November 23, 2011 09:51 PM (73tyQ)
Posted by: AmishDude at November 23, 2011 09:52 PM (73tyQ)
Posted by: Truman North at November 23, 2011 09:44 PM (I2LwF)
Storywise, Ubi Montreal has been responsible for some of the worst crap in the industry. Nihilism, degredation, whatever. I won't buy it if they make it.
QA wise, that would be Bethesda.
Unfortunately, the good game developers make games I don't care to play. How much does that suck?
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at November 23, 2011 09:52 PM (bxiXv)
Posted by: Truman North at November 23, 2011 09:52 PM (I2LwF)
be enough to assuage the negativity that seems to bother you.
Or you could ask EricW why he thinks I'm a socialist for disputing that Adam Savage is a truther.
Posted by: Llarry at November 23, 2011 09:52 PM (e7bui)
Posted by: irongrampa at November 23, 2011 09:53 PM (SAMxH)
I have a lot of flab on me too
Posted by: Truman North at November 23, 2011 09:54 PM (I2LwF)
Posted by: Llarry at November 23, 2011 09:52 PM (e7bui)
I don't speak for anyone else. I quoted you. Perhaps you'd like to address your own quote.I do note that you don't deny it. You prefer to fight fire with strawmen.
Posted by: AmishDude at November 23, 2011 09:54 PM (73tyQ)
in Canada) and settle in to the Cowboys game before I can get in the
spirit.
Well, I kind of had to embrace the holiday mode thing when Mr Y-not decided to take the week off. I admit, I haven't done any shopping or anything, but having the trees up helps.
Posted by: Y-not, ho-ho-ho dammit at November 23, 2011 09:55 PM (5H6zj)
Liberal was here under another name backing Ron Paul a few nights ago.
Posted by: Truman North at November 23, 2011 09:52 PM (I2LwF)"
Yes nut, and I still back Ron Paul as he wants to end the wars. On drugs, etc.
Posted by: Liberal at November 23, 2011 09:55 PM (w9vb/)
Posted by: Bob Undead Saget at November 23, 2011 09:55 PM (dBvlk)
postulate that the greatest good for the general public just so happens
to be what yields themselves the most direct benefits. As adults they
just get slightly (and I do mean slightly) less obvious about it than a
kid arguing that of course he should have the cookie.
Why does everything have to be about Frank Rich for you?
Posted by: rdbrewer at November 23, 2011 09:56 PM (UfxxJ)
I prefer the term "card-carrying socialist." It's even stupider.
Posted by: Llarry at November 23, 2011 09:56 PM (e7bui)
OK, if you get your pot, then will you shut the hell up?
Posted by: AmishDude at November 23, 2011 09:57 PM (73tyQ)
Posted by: Liberal at November 23, 2011 09:57 PM (w9vb/)
Posted by: Truman North at November 23, 2011 09:59 PM (I2LwF)
Posted by: AmishDude at November 23, 2011 09:51 PM (73tyQ)
He's a loser, Amish. Don't be fooled.
Posted by: ErikW at November 23, 2011 09:59 PM (95++m)
Girls, we are all but meat. Live with it.
I have a lot of flab on me too
Posted by: Truman North at November 23, 2011 09:54 PM (I2LwF)"
Guessing you are really dumb as meat and flab (fat) are quite different.
Posted by: Liberal at November 23, 2011 10:00 PM (w9vb/)
It's like the typical AoSHQ comment thread.
Posted by: Dion at November 23, 2011 10:00 PM (SvieA)
And...South Park: A History Channel Thanksgiving on next.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at November 23, 2011 10:01 PM (piMMO)
I really liked Far Cry 2. Actually, I don't remember if it had a story or not but it had a pro-gun message. AndFar Cry 3 looks incredible.
Posted by: bernverdnardo at November 23, 2011 10:01 PM (xXhWA)
Posted by: Killerdog at November 23, 2011 10:02 PM (CZrbJ)
What is wrong? Why are you trying to be mean?
Posted by: Truman North at November 23, 2011 10:02 PM (I2LwF)
Posted by: Mike James at November 23, 2011 10:02 PM (E5gnO)
You are still living in a child's fantasy wherein there exists no wars? And you have the nerve to call Truman a nut!
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at November 23, 2011 10:03 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: Liberal at November 23, 2011 10:04 PM (w9vb/)
I hope he appreciates the education you've provided. My guess is that he previously had NO IDEA that there were differences in men and women... having never been in the company of a woman.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at November 23, 2011 10:04 PM (piMMO)
We were watching Tanksgiving on the Military Channel earlier.
Posted by: Y-not, ho-ho-ho dammit at November 23, 2011 10:05 PM (5H6zj)
Did it ever occur to you that they're just a bunch of hypocritical, lying, butt-sniffing, cock-sucking, commie scumbags... and just leave it at that???
Don't make up fancy, convoluted excuses for naked dishonesty & bias.
The leadership is like that. But most of the rank and file are truly dupes.
Posted by: rfichoke at November 23, 2011 10:05 PM (SYhX2)
"256
I am having a bit O trouble reloading"
They are fighting the truth. Its a losing battle.
Posted by: Liberal at November 23, 2011 10:04 PM (w9vb/)
A liberal telling the truth? That's a fucken lie!
Posted by: Killerdog at November 23, 2011 10:06 PM (CZrbJ)
Wow. Seriously? Okay, let's waste some time, then. At post 66 I wrote that Adam Savage is not a truther. At post 72 ErikW then called me a socialist for saying that. At post 87 I said in response, "Yes, I'm a socialist!" and followed it up with my political beliefs, which are diametrically opposed to socialism.
And now you note that I haven't denied being a socialist.
Ya got me! I'm a socialist! I'm a SINO, actually, since my actual beliefs and voting record are not, in fact, socialist. But I'm still a socialist, because I don't believe that Adam Savage is a truther.
Posted by: Llarry at November 23, 2011 10:07 PM (e7bui)
What is wrong? Why are you trying to be mean?"
Girls tend to fear more than men. Libs tend to fear less than cons.
Girls, we die, thats it.
Posted by: Liberal at November 23, 2011 10:07 PM (w9vb/)
Posted by: Mike James at November 23, 2011 10:02 PM (E5gnO)
Be very, very, verycareful.
The enemy knows how to infiltrate.
Commies are good at that shit.
However, Conservatives can spot them a mile away.
Posted by: ErikW at November 23, 2011 10:08 PM (95++m)
And fyi, rdbrewer, the Monty Hall problems has nothing to do with "memory overload". What the fuck were you thinking.
Posted by: President Chet Roosevelt at November 23, 2011 10:08 PM (Ewz9x)
Posted by: bernverdnardo at November 23, 2011 10:01 PM (xXhWA)
Interesting. FC2 is specifically why I will not buy another Ubi Montreal game. Most Disappointing Game Ever.
Mind you, I care *more* about story than I do about game mechanics.
Short version of FC2 story: everybody betrays everybody and then you kill yourself for no reason. No, you have no choice, nothing you do affects the outcome.
Doestoevsky called to say "lighten up, Ubi."
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at November 23, 2011 10:10 PM (bxiXv)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at November 23, 2011 10:03 PM (piMMO)"
How about we just leave people the fk alone?
Ron Paul for president.
Posted by: Liberal at November 23, 2011 10:10 PM (w9vb/)
Posted by: CoolCzech at November 23, 2011 10:10 PM (niZvt)
Posted by: Liberal at November 23, 2011 10:07 PM (w9vb/)
Dude - you really went there? Oh dear......
Posted by: A. Smith at November 23, 2011 10:11 PM (XDdB5)
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main(int argc, char* argv[]) {
bool switch_choice(atoi(argv[1]));
int n_total(10000), n_correct(0);
for (int i(0); i < n_total; ++i) {
int user_choice(rand() % 3);
int monty_choice(rand() % 3);
int revealed;
for (int j(0); j < 3; ++j) {
if (j != user_choice && j != monty_choice) {
revealed = j;
break;
}
}
if (switch_choice) {
for (int j(0); j < 3; ++j) {
if (j != user_choice && j != revealed) {
user_choice = j;
break;
}
}
}
if (user_choice == monty_choice) {
++n_correct;
}
}
cout << (static_cast<double>(n_correct) / static_cast<double>(n_total)) << endl;
return 0;
}
bash-3.2$ g++ main.cpp
bash-3.2$ ./a.out 1
0.6668
bash-3.2$ ./a.out 0
0.3332
bash-3.2$
Posted by: caspera at November 23, 2011 10:11 PM (3qrii)
Google it. And it's "working memory overload."
Posted by: rdbrewer at November 23, 2011 10:12 PM (UfxxJ)
Posted by: President Chet Roosevelt at November 23, 2011 10:08 PM (Ewz9x)
I smell a Commie.
I keed!
Posted by: ErikW at November 23, 2011 10:12 PM (95++m)
Posted by: Liberal at November 23, 2011 10:15 PM (w9vb/)
Posted by: CoolCzech at November 23, 2011 10:15 PM (niZvt)
Communists can't hold a candle to us socialists. We're so fucking good at infiltrating that we fool even ourselves! I, for example, did't know I was a socialist until you unmasked me. Here I've been voting straight GOP all my life, but because I dispute that Adam Savage is a truther, it turns out I'm a socialist!
Those guys are good. And by those guys, I mean me.
Me are good.
Posted by: Llarry at November 23, 2011 10:16 PM (e7bui)
since my actual beliefs and voting record are not, in fact, socialist.
But I'm still a socialist, because I don't believe that Adam Savage is a
truther.
Posted by: Llarry at November 23, 2011 10:07 PM (e7bui)
Funny thing. You blame people for reacting hostilely towards you and you respond with sarcasm on top of sarcasm.Whether you are a socialist or not, you are, in fact, a total dick.
Posted by: AmishDude at November 23, 2011 10:17 PM (73tyQ)
Posted by: Liberal at November 23, 2011 10:20 PM (w9vb/)
Posted by: Bob Undead Saget at November 23, 2011 10:23 PM (dBvlk)
Given the meaning you attach to the term "girls," aren't you contradicting yourself a bit here?
Posted by: A. Smith at November 23, 2011 10:24 PM (XDdB5)
No, I'm actually a normal, likeable person who doesn't suffer fools gladly and who's sick of anonymous, utterly gratuitous hostility from people who've internalized the troll culture and who like to start fights over innocuous comments.
The fact that you think I'm the dick here just shows what your own limitations are.
Posted by: Llarry at November 23, 2011 10:25 PM (e7bui)
Posted by: Liberal at November 23, 2011 10:25 PM (w9vb/)
Posted by: President Chet Roosevelt at November 23, 2011 10:25 PM (Ewz9x)
You guys have it wrong. Others have already covered the main abstract explanations, so let me show you the brute force explanation:
3 doors, A, B, C. Prize is behind door C.
There are 6 possible choices:
1.) You choose door A, then switch.
2.) Choose door A, no switch.
3.) B, switch.
4.) B, no switch.
5.) C, switch.
6.) C, no switch.
If you choose door A, Monty opens door B, switching will open door C and win you the prize. No switch, no prize.
If you choose door B, Monty opens door A, switching will win prize, not switch will not win prize.
If you choose door C, Monty opens either door A or B. Switching will not win prize, not switching will win prize.
If you always switch, you restrict yourself to 3 scenarios 1, 3, and 5. (A, switch; B, switch; C, switch) 2/3 of those scenarios will win a prize.
If you never switch, you restrict yourself to the other 3 outcomes: 2, 4, and 6. ( A, no switch; B, no switch; C, no switch) 1/3 of those scenarios will win a prize.
Thus, always switching is the winning strategy. You have a 67% chance to win. What trips people up is that the initial chance of choosing the right answer is 1/3, which affects that "50/50" chance when your options are dropped down to two doors.
Posted by: ConservativeMonster at November 23, 2011 10:26 PM (4tSC8)
Posted by: A. Smith at November 23, 2011 10:27 PM (XDdB5)
Given the meaning you attach to the term "girls," aren't you contradicting yourself a bit here?"
huh?
Do I want to fight and kill???
No, no, know little one, I grew up from that long ago.
Posted by: Liberal at November 23, 2011 10:29 PM (w9vb/)
Actually, now I think about it, everything is a sign of socialism. Voting for the people who will do less damage? Socialism! Voting for the people who support a strong military? Socialism! Voting for people who cut taxes? Socialism!
Mine eyes have been opened. No wonder Breitbart loves the comments here.
Posted by: Llarry at November 23, 2011 10:29 PM (e7bui)
The key is that you chose your door with no inputs. Therefore, the chance that it is correct is 33%. The chance that one of the other doors is correct is 67%.
When Monty opens one of the other doors - to be the wrong choice - it means the remaining other door now holds the entire original 67% chance of being the correct door.
You have to swap.
I started to write a little program to prove this (with random ftn). I got to a certain point in writing it, and the logic exercise made me realize the answer obviously had to be: swap.
Posted by: Mike Devx at November 23, 2011 10:31 PM (UpW+I)
Posted by: Supercore23 at November 23, 2011 10:32 PM (ZUFNn)
Monty won't offer you the other door if you've already picked wrong. Therefore you have the odds with you if you stick. You're odds certainly don't improve if you've already picked right. You're odds can only go down.
Monty has an agenda, that is, to make you lose so that the show can win.
Posted by: Great Reagan's Ghost at November 23, 2011 10:33 PM (9NoxQ)
Why do you characterize girls as fearful, Liberal? When did the feminine take on a pejorative sense for you?
Posted by: A. Smith at November 23, 2011 10:27 PM (XDdB5)"Because girls, con girls, need men to protect them, according to the bible?Girls, the God stuff is not true.Girls, stand up for your selves.
Posted by: Liberal at November 23, 2011 10:34 PM (w9vb/)
Posted by: caspera at November 23, 2011 10:35 PM (3qrii)
Girls, the God stuff is not true.
Girls, stand up for your selves.
So we and the whole rational though/logical reasoning thing are not close acquaintances, are we......
Posted by: A. Smith at November 23, 2011 10:37 PM (XDdB5)
Why do cons hate reality, like they do? They fight it at every turn.
It's just our nature, I guess. I'll have to find some way to bear up under the shame of it all.
Posted by: rfichoke at November 23, 2011 10:38 PM (SYhX2)
abortion
Your God has killed more through miscarriage in any given year, than the libs have killed in eternity.
Posted by: Liberal at November 23, 2011 10:39 PM (w9vb/)
problem is a statistical problem, it doesn't have anything to do with
working memory overload, whatever the hell that is.
Posted by: President Chet Roosevelt at November 23, 2011 10:25 P
Research has shown parrots have a better chance of solving the problem than the average person.
Posted by: rdbrewer at November 23, 2011 10:39 PM (UfxxJ)
Suspect you are a girl, and a con, so can we argue on any rational level?
Posted by: Liberal at November 23, 2011 10:42 PM (w9vb/)
In other words, (w9vb/)
is all butthurt because it wanted a sexy goat door, but won the Chevy Vega.
Posted by: Goater Toast at November 23, 2011 10:43 PM (YTO4F)
You're right on one of those - the one that doesn't have anything to do with biology - but tell you what, you start being rational anytime you feel like it.
Posted by: A. Smith at November 23, 2011 10:47 PM (XDdB5)
Suspect you are a girl, and a con, so can we argue on any rational level?
And I suspect you're a syphilitic whore who gobbles wang in the local Texaco bathroom. So no, I guess we can't.
Posted by: rfichoke at November 23, 2011 10:47 PM (SYhX2)
Posted by: Liberal at November 23, 2011 10:54 PM (w9vb/)
Con girls, why are you only paid on average 75 percent of what men are paid? For the exact same work.
Posted by: Liberal at November 23, 2011 10:54 PM (w9vb/)"
But lets be truly honest here...
Posted by: Liberal at November 23, 2011 10:56 PM (w9vb/)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at November 23, 2011 10:58 PM (r4wIV)
can we argue on any rational level?
Clearly not.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at November 23, 2011 10:58 PM (r4wIV)"
Then war?
Posted by: Liberal at November 23, 2011 11:00 PM (w9vb/)
Posted by: raytard at November 23, 2011 11:08 PM (etHkh)
Posted by: Liberal at November 23, 2011 11:12 PM (w9vb/)
Posted by: Liberal at November 23, 2011 11:14 PM (w9vb/)
Posted by: Liberal at November 23, 2011 11:18 PM (w9vb/)
Posted by: Liberal at November 23, 2011 11:19 PM (w9vb/)
Fox News viewers are less informed than people who don't watch any news, according to a new poll from Fairleigh Dickinson University.
The poll surveyed New Jersey residents about the uprisings in Egypt
and the Middle East, and where they get their news sources. The study,
which controlled for demographic factors like education and
partisanship, found that "people who watch Fox News are 18-points less
likely to know that Egyptians overthrew their government" and "6-points
less likely to know that Syrians have not yet overthrown their
government" compared to those who watch no news.
Posted by: walter at November 23, 2011 11:57 PM (oA4y0)
Except it doesn't. The original 1/3 odds are irrelevant once the third door is opened. The prize is either behind the first or the second door. That's 50% for either door. Deciding to hold your choice of the first is no more or less likely to be correct than switching to the second. In effect, you are choosing all over again and only 2 options exist.
As your reasoning would have it, if I choose 1 and Monty opens 3, the prize is twice as likely to be behind 2 as 1. If I chose 2 and Monty opens 3, it is twice as likely to be behind 1. Tell me, does the prize sometimes move based on the initial choice of a door? The odds associated with initially choosing between 1, 2 and 3 have nothing to do with the second choice between only 1 and 2.
Posted by: VRWC Agent at November 24, 2011 12:09 AM (JXaAZ)
Posted by: VRWC Agent at November 24, 2011 12:18 AM (JXaAZ)
Posted by: mildcigar at November 24, 2011 12:50 AM (VlZvE)
Posted by: The Oxford Companion to Beer ePub at November 24, 2011 01:32 AM (ILWQW)
Posted by: nanonu at November 24, 2011 03:09 AM (2fxKp)
Posted by: Newman at November 24, 2011 03:29 AM (p2FWD)
Posted by: BensonII at November 24, 2011 08:22 AM (EzqQ+)
"Look!! Squirrel!"
Posted by: chuck in st paul at November 24, 2011 09:42 AM (EhYdw)
Posted by: sherlock at November 24, 2011 11:30 AM (81ia8)
It got clear when I expanded the number of "doors." 10,000,000 lottery tickets are presented. My first choice is almost guaranteed to be wrong. Monty cannot remove the winning ticket and leaves all but one. Switch and collect the winnings. Duh!
Posted by: VRWC Agent at November 24, 2011 12:16 PM (JXaAZ)
Posted by: VRWC Agent at November 24, 2011 12:20 PM (JXaAZ)
Posted by: VRWC Agent at November 24, 2011 12:23 PM (JXaAZ)
Posted by: liberal loon at November 24, 2011 01:03 PM (IoXgG)
@ 313:
Did you follow the brute force explanation at all? If you choose the switching strategy, there are 3 scenarios:
1. You choose wrong door #1, Monty opens wrong door #2, switching will get you the prize.
2. You choose wrong door #2. Monty opens wrong door #1, switching will get you the prize.
3. You choose prize door. Monty opens one of the wrong doors. Switching will lose you the prize.
3 possibilities. 2 possibilities result in prize. 1 possibility results in no prize. 2/3, basic probability. I'm not sure how the explanation can be made any simpler. /shrug
Posted by: ConservativeMonster at November 24, 2011 01:51 PM (aRr0l)
Posted by: RushBabe at November 24, 2011 05:37 PM (tQHzJ)
Posted by: polpo at November 24, 2011 11:02 PM (71nDN)
Carbon steel pipe fitting Steel pipe fitting Butt welded elbow Pipe fittings
A234 wpb pipe fitting Seamless elbow Equal tee 180 degree elbow
Carbon steel pipe fittings 90 degree elbow Pipe bend Pipe tee
Butt weld pipe fitting Pipe elbow Steel pipe fitting Seamless pipe fitting
Butt welded pipe fitting Butt welding pipe fitting pipe elbow ansi b16.9
Posted by: pipefittings at November 24, 2011 11:36 PM (oSGAu)
Posted by: bob at November 25, 2011 03:07 AM (IoG7C)
Posted by: anna lucia at November 25, 2011 04:46 AM (eEsTX)
Try thinking it through with my lottery card example. The bigger numbers helped me a lot. Monty will be removing 9,999,998 lottery cards after your first choice. that does not make your first choice of card 50% likely to be a winner. It means that the one he leaves behind is 99.99998% likely to be a winner. See it?
Posted by: VRWC Agent at November 25, 2011 09:45 AM (JXaAZ)
The rest are phantoms, illusions, because for this exercise Monty MUST remove them, therefore they are not real 'choices' at all. The question is deceptive. Attempts to prove it just compound the original fault by assuming something non-existent (this is also the solution to Zeno's Dichotomy - that it assumes 'points' which do not in fact exist).
A goat or a car. A winner or a loser. Adding extra goats or losers is just magicians slight of hand.
However! If deception gives us real information about the world (which I believe it shouldn't if the question is properly phrased, but I'm open to being wrong...) well, a world based on lies, fascinating if that is so! Weird.
I think 'Montys' is similar to Zeno's Dichotomy. I'm going to look into this.
Posted by: bob at November 25, 2011 03:32 PM (IoG7C)
The problem is they have no shame. They have absolutely no shame. They know what they are doing is wrong... they don't care. They know a major part of the public is stupid and won't figure it out, or doesn't want to figure it out. They have no shame.
Posted by: fused at November 26, 2011 04:41 PM (P34gz)
The odds are pretty good that you are going to grab one of the lottery tickets Monty would otherwise be obliged to remove. After removal, they are equally good that the choice remaining is a winner.
Posted by: VRWC Agent at November 28, 2011 09:03 PM (JXaAZ)
LW6090
Radian
FX15
Antakya Biberi
Zayıflama Hareketleri
Erken Boşalma
Renuee
Kilo Aldırıcı
Roganie
Maurers
Ozon Yağı
Zayıflama Yöntemleri
Ateş Topu
African Mango
Kış Lastiği
Yuda
Posted by: ken at December 10, 2011 07:57 AM (DPEDW)
Posted by: PDF Converter for Mac at December 20, 2011 04:31 AM (zu8vd)
Processing 0.04, elapsed 0.0482 seconds.
14 queries taking 0.0231 seconds, 345 records returned.
Page size 178 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.
Real Clear Politics
Gallup
Paul Anka Haiku Contest Announcement
Integrity SAT's: Entrance Exam for Paul Anka's Band
AllahPundit's Paul Anka 45's Collection
AnkaPundit: Paul Anka Takes Over the Site for a Weekend (Continues through to Monday's postings)
George Bush Slices Don Rumsfeld Like an F*ckin' Hammer
Democratic Forays into Erotica
New Shows On Gore's DNC/MTV Network
Nicknames for Potatoes, By People Who Really Hate Potatoes
Star Wars Euphemisms for Self-Abuse
Signs You're at an Iraqi "Wedding Party"
Signs Your Clown Has Gone Bad
Signs That You, Geroge Michael, Should Probably Just Give It Up
Signs of Hip-Hop Influence on John Kerry
NYT Headlines Spinning Bush's Jobs Boom
Things People Are More Likely to Say Than "Did You Hear What Al Franken Said Yesterday?"
Signs that Paul Krugman Has Lost His Frickin' Mind
All-Time Best NBA Players, According to Senator Robert Byrd
Other Bad Things About the Jews, According to the Koran
Signs That David Letterman Just Doesn't Care Anymore
Examples of Bob Kerrey's Insufferable Racial Jackassery
Signs Andy Rooney Is Going Senile
Other Judgments Dick Clarke Made About Condi Rice Based on Her Appearance
Collective Names for Groups of People
John Kerry's Other Vietnam Super-Pets
Cool Things About the XM8 Assault Rifle
Media-Approved Facts About the Democrat Spy
Changes to Make Christianity More "Inclusive"
Secret John Kerry Senatorial Accomplishments
John Edwards Campaign Excuses
John Kerry Pick-Up Lines
Changes Liberal Senator George Michell Will Make at Disney
Torments in Dog-Hell
The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)