Joatmon

Hold the plan for a factory chimney the wrong way and you get a very deep well.

Well, I've looked at it and I don't see it as propaganda. I see it as a straightforward description of what the American tax payer gets for his money. There isn't even a description or account of any act of war the carrier has been, or will be, used in. I agree that, apart from wondering why the Iranians want this carrier out of the Gulf, there hasn't been much attempt to discuss anything. Perhaps people might like to introduce discussion points? e.g. Should America see itself as the world's policeman? In the light of the perceived fact that home terrorism is a growing threat is running floating airfields the best way to protect yourselves? In the meantime I marvel at the courage and the faith that the pilots have in technology that allow them to take off at an incredible rate of acceleration with their hands off the controls! I suppose I'd better mention that I might be a little biassed as I was in the British Air force for 22 years. (in a pretty safe role)

This is the way out! The secret of this view is deep within the 10 year loan department!

Please be aware that if you want to test this by practical experiment the law on roadkill is quite complicated. You may break the law if you take the moose home as food. The next car that finds the dead moose may not be breaking the law if it takes the moose home.The following is from the link:- http://en.wikipedia....ear:_US_Special "The next car that comes along and finds a dead moose may not be breaking the law if they take it home for food.As Hammond and May set up camp, Clarkson went to look for more roadkill; he came back with an enormous dead cow, placed on the roof of the Camaro, which May refused to eat."

I hope your brother and his friends realise it's not a comedy. (or at any rate it's not supposed to be)

No, the fact that nobody else is able to appreciate it. (Two nations divided by a common language?)

I know - sad isn't it?

There is a force for a short distance because as the bullet leaves the barrel the ejected expanding gasses behind it continue to exert force although this force is soon dissipated. Under unrealistic conditions, say a barrel something like 20m long there may not be enough expanding gas to keep the bullet accelerating the full length of the barrel and then push a little more on exit. "3-2. Transitional Ballistics Sometimes referred to as intermediate ballistics, this is the study of the transition from interior to exterior ballistics. Transitional ballistics is a complex science that involves a number of variables that are not fully understood; therefore, it is not an exact science. What is understood is that when the projectile leaves the muzzle, it receives a slight increase in MV from the escaping gases. Immediately after that, its MV begins to decrease because of drag. " Just giving my (British) sense of humour an outing!

Ouch - that might just do it - lol! Only 180 bullets from such short barrels might not be enough?

Just a few details to complicate the issue. When the bullets leave the rifle they are still accelerating and as they travel they stop accelerating and start slowing. How rapidly can the rifle be fired and so can enough bullets be pumped into the lion in the time available? I think a bullet that hits only soft tissue and travels well into the lion will have less of a slowing effect than one hitting bone and travelling less distance into the lion ( not too sure about that). How much effect has air resistance on the lion's velocity while this is going on? I would strongly advise you to not to mention these small details - your professor may think you are taking the p**s! See:- http://thefiringline...hp?t-21814.html

I know "in my heart" that what you say is true concerning my 50/50 assessment because if you take a bet with fair odds of 1/3 and let it run its course without interference the intermediate steps are immaterial and you can expect to win one time in three. I was unsure about that myself, but am entirely satisfied that I have shown logically (using the same argument as you) that always swapping doors improves the odds to 2/3. Thanks for your time.

I can't be dogmatic about this as I'm not too sure myself but:- I have spent some time thinking this over and it seems to me that the odds of winning the car start at 1/3 if only one door is opened. If two doors are opened, with the first door "failing" the odds increase in the contestants favour and I think become 50/50. I think this is so because the odds against choosing the unseen goat and choosing the car are both the same at 1/3. To take the extreme example of opening all three doors then the contestant must win. I note that your conclusion matches mine (except for the 50/50) in#37.

I know that I will be seen as starting from a tangent, but follow it through and it becomes relevant. I know this changes the problem slightly(?) but let's say the host doesn't know where the car is but if the contestant sees the car he can keep it. One time in three the contestant will win the car at the first opening of a door. If he doesn't see the car he can decide whether to switch his choice or not. If his original choice was the car and he swaps then he loses. If his original choice was a goat and he swaps then he wins. So he has a 50/50 chance on his second bite of the cherry and it doesn't (it seems to me under these conditions) matter whether he swaps or not. The net result is that he will win the car two times out of three. (because of his two bites at the cherry). Now moving back to the original problem:- The presenter tries to minimise your chances of winning by taking, and apparently wasting, your chance of winning on the first door opening. If , at the start, you pick a door and do nothing, the two bites at the cherry increase your chances to 50/50.( You either picked the car or you picked a donkey) What needs explaining is why always changing your mind on the second door opening improves your chances to two in three. Well, two times out of three you will have picked a goat. The door you have seen opened hid a goat. So these two times out of three changing your mind gives you the car. One time out of three you will have picked the car so changing your mind this one time out of three gives you a goat. (The goat you haven't previously seen). This is the reason that changing your mind improves your chances from 50/50 to two in three(IMO).

In speaking you have the option of saying "One plus one is one", instead of "One and one is one". My answer fits either statement!

Paradoxically I think I can see the point that almost everyone sees as the weakness in Xittenn's argument and which from the giddy heights of higher mathematical juggling she sees as a strength. She assumes that after the door is opened and you see the goat you have the choice (admittedly stupidly) of choosing that door. In other words the odds against you remain at 1 in 3. The question considers one instant in a game show and on this occasion the door is opened and a goat is seen - whether there is a chance that a car might be seen does not need to be considered as it didn't happen for that contestant on that occasion. The first thing necessary to answer a question is to understand the question. Perhaps the thing most people would take into account is that the human element can be expected to act in a human (sensible) way. In other words you can't enter the human decision as a random factor (IMO)

I would also like to know why. Perhaps whoever gave the -1 (or anyone else for that matter) would explain why the explanation is faulty. Are you saying that switching does, or does not, improve your chances of winning the car?

I'd like to meet one of these men and hope he would give me the chance!

Simply put, if the contestant picks the goat (to which two of the three doors lead) they will win a car by switching as the other goat can no longer be picked, while if the contestant picks the car (to which one door leads) they will not win the car by switching. So, if you switch, you win the car if you originally picked the goat and you won't if you picked the car, and as you have a 2 in 3 chance of originally picking a goat you have a 2 in 3 chance of winning by switching. I find this explanation quite understandable. It is copied from:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem